Benghazi Committee Outs CIA source

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
First, of course it's a witch hunt, that's what you call it when hunting witches, it's not like you'd call it a fox hunt.

Second, yes, the pubs butchered it and used it for political gain which is an example of what's wrong in DC.

Third, are there really people who think an investigation wasn't warranted? I mean yeah, the pubs led with pitchforks, but people are really ok with "it was the video" "nothing we could do" "too bad so sad" "if only we had more funding this wouldn't happen"? That would be an example of what's wrong with the country. Don't investigate my team, you might find something.

smh at people who didn't want this investigated
Click to expand...
smh at a white supremacist male shaking in his boots at a woman named hillary.

you big strong tough white man you!

lol, loser.
 
Blunted 4 lyfe

Blunted 4 lyfe

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
House Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy appears to have accidentally released the name of a CIA source in the midst of a back-and-forth with Democrats about how sensitive the information was and whether its presence in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email account constituted a security breach.

Gowdy’s aides blamed the State Department for the disclosure, and the agency acknowledged Monday a “human error” led to a failure to delete a name from the email in question.

The email posted Sunday on the panel’s website included in one instance the name of “Mousa Kousa,” an alternative spelling of Moussa Koussa, a former Libyan government spy chief and foreign minister. The name appeared to have been redacted in several other instances but was included in a subject line of a forwarded email.

The redacted email was released at Gowdy’s direction “so the American people could decide for themselves regarding concerns about sources and methods,” the Benghazi Committee said in a statement. By Monday morning, the committee had replaced the document online with another version in which Koussa’s name does not appear.

Asked about the change, Benghazi Committee spokesman Jamal Ware said the State Department had cleared the email for release in the form it initially appeared Sunday.

“The State Department failed to redact a name in a subject line, so the committee took steps to remove this information so it was consistent with State Department’s redaction of it in another subject line,” Ware said Monday. “The committee will not confirm the name in question is the alleged source.”

State Department spokesman Mark Toner confirmed Monday afternoon that State officials had missed one occurrence of Koussa’s name it had intended to delete from the email in question.

“There was one case — I think it was just human error in our desire to get these documents to the Benghazi Committee as quickly as possible,” Toner told reporters at a regular news briefing.

Toner said the CIA had not objected to the release of the name, but State wanted it withheld for privacy reasons.

CIA “assessed that the information in question was not classified and suggested no redactions to the documents in question,” Toner said. “We have asked the Benghazi Committee not to use the individual’s name publicly to protect that individual’s privacy. … That was our rationale behind redacting his name.”

While it’s unclear how much information Koussa was giving to Western officials at the time the email was sent, the former spy chief’s role was being bandied about publicly at that time. A mention of Koussa in former CIA director George Tenet’s memoir was referenced in a New York Times story the day before Blumenthal sent the email in question to Clinton.

In addition to Koussa, the CIA has declassified some details of its relationship with at least two Libyan officials in the lead-up to the 2011 revolution and the NATO intervention. In a book published in May and cleared for released by his former agency, former acting CIA Director Mike Morell stated that he had a good relationship with Libyan domestic intelligence chief Abdullah Senussi and a meeting in late 2010 with the external intelligence chief, Abuzed Omar Dorda.

The CIA declined to comment on the information on the email or the spy agency’s relationship with the Libyan officials mentioned in the two former CIA leaders’ books.

The message thread Gowdy released Sunday was stamped by the State Department: "Reviewed for sensitive information pursuant to MOU [Memorandum of Understanding]."

However, a spokesman for Cummings said the episode underscored why Gowdy should not have released the email until the State Department completed reviewing the records for public release under the FOIA process.

”As Ranking Member Cummings stated very clearly in his letter on Sunday, even though the CIA said this information is not classified, the State Department asked Chairman Gowdy not to release this email publicly," the spokesman said.

The disclosure of Koussa’s name in the email the Benghazi panel made public appears to have been first reported Monday by Yahoo News.


Witch hunts are hard. Remember in 2012 when the Republicans also outed the CIA's covert role in Libya?
Click to expand...

Or for that matter Valerie Flame, her name was outted as a CIA spy because her husband refused to say that Iraq was seeking yellowcake (to make nuclear bombs) during the leadup to the Iraq invasion.

B4L
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Blunted 4 lyfe said:
Guess they always been looking for a scandal in a place called BENGAZI instead of trying to find out what truly happened in BENGHAZI.

Fake committee for a fake place,
I understand.

B4L
Click to expand...
It's refreshing to see you say you are interested in trying to find out what happens. This makes me realize you understand how bad we were lied to and the truth has yet to be revealed.

Of course it's still nothing more than a witch hunt. How much better off would the country be if dems were involved in finding the truth instead of making it all about politics. Pubs already made it about politics, dems had a chance to show they were the party that cared about truth.

But no.
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
nitro harley said:
What fake emails? I made some smoke salmon dip for tomorrows entertainment. BENGAZI!!! good luck poopy pants.
Click to expand...
You must've missed the news over the past two years about how the Republican congressmen on the committee have been found to be falsifying emails a few times to try to tarnish Clinton.
 
pnwmystery

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
WASHINGTON -- Top Senate Democrats want to shut down the House Benghazi committee amid allegations it seeks to attack Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. And they want Republicans to reimburse taxpayers for the committee's more than $4.5 million cost.

The senators, including Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), accused the GOP Wednesday of "operating a political opposition machine against Secretary Clinton," and called the House Select Committee on Benghazi's use of taxpayer funds "wholly inappropriate."

"Over the past several weeks, several House Republicans have made clear what many observers have suspected all along: that the Select Committee has conducted a political inquisition aimed at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton," the senators wrote in a letter to Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus.

"We firmly believe the Committee should be disbanded, and that every penny of taxpayer money that has financed this purely political committee ought to be repaid," the letter continued.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/house-benghazi-committee-costs_5626f159e4b0bce34702eb6a

Shame it won't come out of their pockets.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
pnwmystery said:
WASHINGTON -- Top Senate Democrats want to shut down the House Benghazi committee amid allegations it seeks to attack Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. And they want Republicans to reimburse taxpayers for the committee's more than $4.5 million cost.
Click to expand...
That seems low. That's less than OJ spent. Less than a shopping trip to Paris for the first Lady.

Congress should be able to find that much in the seat cushions.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
It's refreshing to see you say you are interested in trying to find out what happens. This makes me realize you understand how bad we were lied to and the truth has yet to be revealed.

Of course it's still nothing more than a witch hunt. How much better off would the country be if dems were involved in finding the truth instead of making it all about politics. Pubs already made it about politics, dems had a chance to show they were the party that cared about truth.

But no.
Click to expand...
Now you sounding like a fool. Dems had nothing to do with making this about politics. Ask yourself who put the Benghazi committee together ? Who is on the committee? Now find out what each has said and done. Now STFU
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Now you sounding like a fool. Dems had nothing to do with making this about politics. Ask yourself who put the Benghazi committee together ? Who is on the committee? Now find out what each has said and done. Now STFU
Click to expand...
I said the pubs made it about politics when it should have been about finding the truth.

You say dems didn't make it about politics too? You are the one who sounds like a fool. Why didn't the dems put a committee together? Why has the rhetoric from your side having nothing to do with actually finding out wtf happened and using it instead to bash the pubs for witchhunting a witch.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
I said the pubs made it about politics when it should have been about finding the truth.

You say dems didn't make it about politics too? You are the one who sounds like a fool. Why didn't the dems put a committee together? Why has the rhetoric from your side having nothing to do with actually finding out wtf happened and using it instead to bash the pubs for witchhunting a witch.
Click to expand...
I would bet you did not even check who all are on the committee, let alone what each has said and done. so STFU
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
I said the pubs made it about politics when it should have been about finding the truth.

You say dems didn't make it about politics too? You are the one who sounds like a fool. Why didn't the dems put a committee together? Why has the rhetoric from your side having nothing to do with actually finding out wtf happened and using it instead to bash the pubs for witchhunting a witch.
Click to expand...
and learn how the House sets and selects a committee...while you STFU
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
I would bet you did not even check who all are on the committee, let alone what each has said and done. so STFU
Click to expand...
Notice I didn't say look who was on the committee like you did because I already knew it was supposedly "bi-partisan".

I mentioned nothing in my post about who was on it, you did that. Then after you did that, you are trying to insinuate I'm the one that thinks it was all pubs or something.

You make no sense when you go into pom pom mode.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
and learn how the House sets and selects a committee...while you STFU
Click to expand...
Yeah, I should have said why didn't the dems call for an investigation. My bad...totally changes the premise:roll:

Your suckitude is in rare form today, what happened?
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Notice I didn't say look who was on the committee like you did because I already knew it was supposedly "bi-partisan".

I mentioned nothing in my post about who was on it, you did that. Then after you did that, you are trying to insinuate I'm the one that thinks it was all pubs or something.

You make no sense when you go into pom pom mode.
Click to expand...
I never said it was all Repukes...but it was important for me to know each member to see what he/she was saying and doing...Why won't you STFU
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top