A Washington ‘whodunit’: who fed bogus Benghazi ‘emails’ to the media? **UPDATE: a ‘glaring omission…’**

jonathan-karl-benghazi

**UPDATE: Scroll to the bottom of the post (I know it’s long…) for a bit of TRR sleuthing…

The revelation this week that emails provided to key congressional committees by the White House in response to Benghazi-hysteria among Republicans, may have been altered before being leaked to the conservative Weekly Standard and to ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl touched off speculation in at least some media quarters.

At issue, who altered or misrepresented the content of emails from Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting, Ben Rhodes, and from State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, to make the White House and State Department appear to have misled the American people, in a potential Benghazi cover up?

Karl touched off Beltway scandal-fever last Friday when he reported that:

…When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack. [Emphasis added]

Karl went on to report:

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.  The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

Here’s what Carl alleged about State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland:

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya.  These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?  Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

And then came the all-important link to the White House itself, with a State Department chaser:

In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.  We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack. [Emphasis added]

It was one hell of a bombshell. Except that it wasn’t true. Karl had not “obtained” any talking points emails at all. And the White House had not been shown to have weighed in on State Department revisions to the talking points that would be provided to Susan Rice, nor did a State Department spokeswoman evince a desire to cover up the true CIA assessment of the threat to the Benghazi compounds, who committed the Benghazi attacks, or why they happened.

The story began to unravel pretty quickly, starting with this “update” posted on the ABC News website under Karl’s story:

UPDATE:  A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress:  1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.

In one email, Nuland asked, why are we suggest Congress “start making assertions to the media [about the al Qaeda connection] that we ourselves are not making because we don’t want to prejudice the investigation?”

One other point:  The significant edits – deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s warnings – came after a White House meeting on the Saturday before Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday shows.  Nuland, a 30-year foreign service veteran who has served under Democratic and Republican Secretaries of State, was not at that meeting and played no direct role in preparing Rice for her interviews.

Oh, so maybe the “emails” didn’t show the nefarious intent implied by the original story …

And then, it got worse.

CNN (of all outlets, given their recent history …) debunked Karl’s story altogether days later, after Jake Tapper, a former ABC News reporter and the current main-man at the Turner outlet, obtaining copies of the actual emails — not the “detailed summaries” of emails that it turns out Karl had used in his reporting.

The two-car pile-up soon included CBS News:

On Friday, Republicans leaked what they said was a quote from Rhodes: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.”

But it turns out that in the actual email, Rhodes did not mention the State Department.

It read: “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.”

And…

The Republican version quotes Nuland discussing, “The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda’s presence and activities of al-Qaeda.”

The actual email from Nuland says: “The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

In other words, this particular conspiracy theory is short a conspiracy.

It’s all a little bit ironic, given that CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson had reported on the bogus “emails” too… But that’s showbiz in Newsland.

Finally, in a please proceed, governor moment, the White House released the more than 100 Benghazi emails on Wednesday, making the disparity between the ABC and Weekly Standard reports and the actual content crystal clear.

So far, few repercussions for ABC

Surprisingly, or maybe not so surprisingly, few in the mainstream media — who have gone ham over the supposed trio of “White House scandals” involving the Benghazi talking points, the IRS screening of 501(c)4 applicants between 2010 and 2012, and the investigation into a leak regarding a CIA operation to disrupt al-Qaida, which resulted in the Justice Department reviewing the phone records of something like 100 Associated Press journalists — have shown much interest in what happened here, despite what sure looks like a case of deliberate misinformation fed to news outlets by government officials, for the purposes of injecting a scandal narrative into the mainstream news cycle.

In fact, it has only been liberals in the media: including Salon.com, Rachel Maddow at MSNBC (who went directly at that point on her show on Friday, as reported by Tommy Christopher at the otherwise conservative Mediaite) who have been beating the drum on this story… This from Tommy’s most recent post on the matter:

It is in this context that Rachel Maddow ripped ABC News, describing hoe the Benghazi “scandal” had failed to gain any traction until “This time last week, ABC news blew this story wide open,” adding “When I say they blew this story, I mean seriously, they totally blew it.”

she played a clip of Diane Sawyer hyping Jon Karl’s report. “ABC’s Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl broke the story that created a storm today,” Sawyer said.

“He did create a storm,” Maddow said. “The ABC report caused all three network newscasts to report on the scandal of Benghazi,” and added that “then Sunday morning, oh, boy, all four Sunday morning talk shows. ABC and NBC and CBS and Fox News Sunday, all leading with Benghazi.”

“Wow, thanks, Jonathan Karl. Thanks, ABC. Now this is the biggest story in the country because of the damning e-mails that ABC News said it had obtained,” Maddow said, sarcastically, and if you don’t trust Maddow’s assessment of the significance of the invented quotes, then check out Major Garrett‘s.

Clearly, what’s at issue is Karl’s claim to have “obtained” the emails relating to the Benghazi talking points, when what he actually obtained were “detailed notes” summarizing the emails , from a “Republican source.” And the fact that the source appears to have added things to the email content that weren’t originally there.

Shouldn’t we kind of want to know who that source (or sources) was (or were), in case they have more false information to peddle to members of the press?

Karl’s source could be anybody on the Hill, but in a sense, the scope of possibilities for the identity of his source is relatively narrow, since only a finite number of Republican members of congress and their senior staff members would have seen the original emails, and taken detailed notes on them, before the White House released the 100 or so emails this week.

The timeline…

The Benghazi attack took place on September 11, 2012. Four Americans were killed in the twin, armed assaults on a diplomatic compound and a CIA facility in the Libyan town, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.

September 16 - U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on several Sunday talk shows, explaining what the administration knew up to that point about the attacks, which she indicates were believed by U.S. intelligence to have been related to protests around the Muslim world against an offensive video produced by a Coptic-American, called “Innocence of the Muslims.” That assessment, which came from the CIA, turned out to be inaccurate. And while the president soon termed the Benghazi attack an “act of terror,” Republicans pounced on him for not using their preferred term, “terrorist attack” – and for the fact that Rice didn’t name the al-Qaida affiliated group believed to be responsible for the attacks — Ansar-al-Sharia — on those Sunday shows.

September 2012 -January 2013 – It wasn’t long before conservatives were politicizing it, with the RNC even producing a Benghazi “3 a.m. phone call” TV ad that the Romney campaign turned down in the closing weeks of the presidential campaign. More than a few Republicans, including veterans of his campaign, believe Romney lost the election because he failed to capitalize on Benghazi as a way to get out the Republican base vote.

February 21-22, 2013 — The White House agrees to provide to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, its chain of email traffic related to the talking points on the Benghazi attacks that were provided to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice ahead of her appearance on several Sunday talk shows last fall. Arizona Sen. John McCain and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham had declared themselves “hell bent” on viewing the emails detailing what Rice was told before her talk show appearances. The GOP’s hope: that the emails would yield a “smoking gun” proving the White House covered up its true knowledge about who was behind the Benghazi attack, to abet President Obama’s re-election. (Sen. Rand Paul filibustered Brennan’s nomination anyway, on a different issue: drones, on March 6th.)

February 25, 2013 — According to a senior administration source, the General Counsel to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Robert Litt, conducted a briefing for members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (chaired by Sen. Dianne Feinstein), their staff directors, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Senate “Ranking Member,” presumably Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell and their “key staff.” Per the administration source, “the briefing walked members through the email traffic showing the development of the [Benghazi] talking points and also identified the changes that were made to each iteration of the talking points and the agency that suggested the change.  Members and staff were told that they had as much time as they needed to sit with the emails and were allowed to take notes.”

Below is the full list of the committee members from both parties:

2013-2014 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, members:
Democrats Republicans
Dianne Feinstein,
California
Chairman
Saxby Chambliss,
Georgia
Vice Chairman
John D. Rockefeller IV,
West Virginia
Richard Burr,
North Carolina
Ron Wyden,
Oregon
James E. Risch,
Idaho
Barbara A. Mikulski,
Maryland
Daniel Coats,
Indiana
Mark Udall,
Colorado
Marco Rubio,
Florida
Mark Warner,
Virginia
Susan Collins,
Maine
Martin Heinrich,
New Mexico
bullet Tom Coburn,
Oklahoma
Angus King,
Maine

According to Salon.com’s Alex Seitz-Wald, Chambliss and Burr definitely attended the briefing. It’s not clear which other members of the committee were present.

February 27 - The same briefing is offered to members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. According to the administration source, the briefing never happens, because “House committee members cancelled on us two times and then eventually went forward on March 19th.”

March 7 – After the Rand Paul 13-hour filibuster ends, John Brennan is confirmed by the Senate as CIA director. No members of the Senate Intelligence Committee raise the Benghazi emails as an impediment to Brennan’s confirmation. In fact, Paul’s filibuster was about the absurd suggestion that drones might be used on American soil to kill the president’s enemies, not about Benghazi.

March 19 – The Litt briefing with HPSCI members finally takes place. And as Seitz-Wald reported, Speaker Boehner didn’t even bother to attend, or send senior staff. Again quoting the administration source: “The briefing walked members and staff through the chronology of email traffic and identified the changes that were made to each iteration of the talking points as well as the agency that suggested the change.  Members and staff were told that they had as much time as they needed to sit with the documents and were allowed to take notes.”

May 6 – Stephen Hayes posts his story on the magazine’s website alleging White House involvement in editing the talking points. Hayes claimed that per the “emails” he obtained, “fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults.”

May 7 – The Senate Foreign Relations Committee holds a hearing to consider the nomination of Deborah K. Jones to replace the late Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the Benghazi attacks on September 11, 2012. That same day, Senator Lindsey Graham predicts that a much-anticipated hearing the following day, in the House, would be a “turning point” for the Benghazi story.

May 8 – The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, led by relentless Obama-hunter Rep. Darrell Issa of California, holds its long-awaited (by conservatives) Benghazi hearings, featuring the deputy chief of mission for the U.S. in Libya at the time of the attacks, Gregory Hicks, the Republicans’ chief “whistle-blower,” who they claimed had been “intimidated” by the White House and/or the State Department to prevent his testimony from seeing the light of day. The hearings, which produced little new information, prompted wall-to-wall coverage from Fox News, and even congratulations to Fox from Senate Intelligence Committee member, and ubiquitous Republican TV presence Marco Rubio. Rubio high fives Fox for “Keeping on” the Benghazi issue, adding that he believes the White House tried to…

…cover up “any reference to terrorism” because of political motivations during an election year.

“What I think is sad is how many people that are around the administration — including the former secretary of state, Secretary Clinton — knew this to be the case and allowed this to move forward anyway,” he remarked. “You would have hoped that people would have stood up and said, ‘This is wrong, the American people deserve the truth.’ That didn’t happen.”

The Senate Foreign Relations committee, on which Rubio sits, had held its own Benghazi hearings in late January, during which Republican attempts to skewer former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn’t go so well... And the Senate Armed Services Committee had held its own Benghazi hearings on February 7th, which also failed to yield blockbuster mainstream news.

May 10 – Jonathan Karl’s big story making the same allegations as Hayes’ — that the White House weighed in on State Department requests to edit Benghazi talking points — goes live. It is quickly picked up by other mainstream media outlets. CBS News reporter Sharyl Atkisson does a version of the story too, though she avoids attributing the supposed “emails” to a specific individual in the White House or State Department.

May 14 – CNN’s Jake Tapper debunks Karl’s story. (Karl eventually blames his faulty reporting on … who else … the White House.)

May 15 – The White House releases 100 pages of the actual emails in the Benghazi talking points saga. As CNN and later CBS reported, the actual contents of the Rhodes and Nuland emails contradict Hayes, Carl’s and Atkisson’s reporting. House Republicans have since declared themselves “not satisfied” — clearly hoping additional emails, which it’s not even clear exist, will contain that long awaited “smoking gun…”

Bad note takers, or bad actors…?

So we know that the administration did not distribute the actual emails to members of the House and Senate leadership and the relevant committees, but that the members and/or their staffs were allowed to take copious notes, for as long as they wished, while being briefed on and viewing the emails in February and March.

And we know that someone leaked their notes about the emails to the Weekly Standard, and to ABC, but as has now emerged, with altered, or at minimum incorrect, information included.

How likely is it that in a situation where they were not being rushed, and had plenty of time to take very detailed notes, that someone who participated in one of those briefings, inadvertently added erroneous information to their recollection of what was in the Ben Rhodes email? How likely does it seem that someone just plain goofed, and accidentally mis-recorded information that implicated the White House and State Department in allegedly doctoring the talking points for Rice (and for members of Congress, we often forget, because the talking points were for them too) in a way that benefited the White House politically?

Is it plausible that House and Senate members or staffers who have had their notes on those talking points emails in their possession for months, suddenly came across damning new information about the White House and State Department such that they felt compelled to leak it to Hayes and Karl last week? Well of course that’s highly unlikely. So doesn’t that indicate that the doctoring may have been deliberate?

Of course, I suppose it’s possible that Karl simply misinterpreted what he was being told by his Republican source … although that would mean he misinterpreted the information in precisely the same way Stephen Hayes and the CBS reporter did

And it can’t be said enough that THE “smoking gun” implicating the White House in a supposed Benghazi coverup, came from these two emails that Karl claimed he had reviewed, when in fact, what he actually saw or was read, were “detailed notes” — containing made up information — from a “Republican source.”

A motive to mislead?

So why, theoretically, would a Republican member or someone on their staff knowingly put wrong information into the hands of a reporter at ABC News?

If we go on the assumption that it was deliberate, one explanation could be that the right has finally learned a lesson, in the wake of Romney’s loss in 2012 and how blindsided they all were by it, about the limits to the efficacy of conservative media outside the right wing bubble.

Again, the faulty email notes were first given to Stephen Hayes at the conservative Weekly Standard. And Fox News, and Breitbart, and the Daily Caller and RedState and every other right wing outlet have been banging on about Benghazi since well before the election.

It certainly has worked among the right wing Republican base, where some in the online fringe have taken to calling President Obama “The Butcher of Benghazi” — and floating wild conspiracy theories that the president deliberately ordered the military to stand down and not protect the ambassador; or that the Joint Special Operations Command’s decision not to send two additional special forces troops to the compound, or to fly F-16s over the compound because they couldn’t make it in time is itself either a lie, or part of the “cover-up” … that the entire Benghazi presence was part of a secret CIA program to arm Syrian rebels (Rand Paul’s favorite) … or even that Obama watched the entire attack on a non-existent video feed. (Get more of the right’s favorite Benghazi conspiracy theories here.)

None of it got the story the national legs the GOP base so desperately craved.

Even multiple congressional hearings, which produced epic sound bites from GOP stars like Rand Paul and firebrands like Issa “taking it to the administration” have failed to give the “Benghazigate” meme sufficient lift-off to move it from the fever swamps of the right, and into the realm where Independents start to grasp it, and Democrats start to flee for the woods.

Republicans needed a mainstream outlet to do the story, and go big with it. And so they needed to give a mainstream outlet — not Fox News, but rather one of the Big Three networks — a scoop; one so big, the other networks would have to report on it too.

Enter Jonathan Karl, ABC News’ White House correspondent and a frequent jouster with the president at press briefings (whatever the assumptions about his ideology — which I’ve been pointed to several times by TRR readers — probably being far less important than his MSM street cred.) His reporting, as Rachel Maddow said on Friday, blew the story into the mainstream media universe.

Score one for Republicans who have been desperate to get Benghazi covered on a grand scale. And paired up with IRS and AP? It was like conservative manna from Heaven.

Whodunnit?

Maddow and others are calling on Karl to give up his source, since it appears he was used to transmit false information in order to plant the seeds of a media scandal. I doubt he will do that, both because it’s not in the nature of a journalist, especially in the small, cruel world that is Washington, to burn a source — even a bad one. Every political source has friends. And every reporter needs sources with friends.

The fact is, it will ultimately be up to good old fashioned sleuthing (or another, timely leak…) to figure out who fed bogus information to ABC and TWS. And my own sources say there is a fair amount of nervousness among Republican staffers on Capitol Hill right now over this potential story. So no one’s taking the risk of losing their jobs by talking.

So who could the leaker be?

The House Intelligence Committee is chaired by Mike Rogers of Michigan, who reports say is under consideration to be the next FBI director. It’s not clear whether he attended the briefing, but it would be really shocking if Rogers or his staff double-dealt the White House in that manner (though it’s Washington, so you never know…)

Speaker Boehner, as reported above, didn’t attend the House intelligence briefing or send staff, so it seems pretty unlikely that he or his staff had direct access to the “detailed notes” passed on to Hayes and Carl. Although, Politico did report that Boehner is “obsessed” with Benghazi. Could he or his staff have gotten their hands on those notes anyway?

The Senate got the briefing first, and had it the longest, so could a Republican on the SPSCI or their senior staffers could be the culprit?

Could Marco Rubio’s staffers have been looking to up the would be Republican savior’s chances against Hillary Clinton in 2016?

Could this be yet another Tom Coburn double cross of his supposed friend, President Obama?

The House had the hearings most concurrent to the leak, and the leak amplified the drama they worked very hard to create… So could Michelle Bachmann (who is inexplicably, a member of the House Intelligence Committee) have a staffer with a penchant for note-leaking? Or what about New York Republican Peter King?

Or could it be a less well known member, or even someone on a totally different committee?

The bottom line, as one source very familiar with the workings of Capitol Hill told me this week, is that it’s unlikely that any staffer would “go rogue” and do something like this on their own, without the direction or knowledge of their member. The level of staff who would have been invited to those briefings is quite high — probably the chief of staff and very little beyond that. Anything is possible, of course, and the source could indeed be an elected official … or not …

So who dunnit?

Inquiring minds want to know.

UPDATE: A very trusted source of mine gave me a cryptic piece of advice yesterday, which was to take a look at the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. I didn’t know quite what to make of it at the time, but tonight it occurred to me: could someone on that committee also have been on the Select Committee on Intelligence, which is the one that got the email briefing in February?

Here’s the Republican membership of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (the Committee is chaired by Democrat Thom Carper of Delaware):

  • Tom Coburn,  (OK) Ranking Member
  • John McCain (AZ)
  • Ron Johnson (WI)
  • Rob Portman (OH)
  • Rand Paul (KY)
  • Mike Enzi (WY)
  • Kelly Ayotte (NH)

Pretty juicy list! Note how stacked the minority side of the committee is with presidential aspirants, potential aspirants, a former aspirant, and some of the most hardcore tea party Senators, including some, like Rand Paul, John McCain and Kelly Ayotte, who have gone after, first Susan Rice, and then Hillary Clinton guns blazing on Benghazi. But only one of those Senators ALSO sits on the Select Committee on Intelligence — which is the one that my administration source says got the February briefing”

And that person is Tom Coburn.

Now, what makes Coburn interesting?

On May 9th — literally the day before Jonathan Karl’s “bombshell” report went live, Coburn appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, with his old pal and fellow House of Representatives class of 1994 alumnus (and my work colleague) Joe Scarborough (Coburn left the House in 2000, per a term limits pledge, and then ran successfully for the Senate in 2004. He announced this year that he would be retiring when his term ends in 2016.) Coburn talked about his failed “tote your gun on federal land” amendment to an unrelated bill, and about Benghazi, among other topics. And and what he had to say on Benghazi was interesting indeed (per the conservative Washington Times):

Sen. Tom Coburn said Thursday that the State Department has “real trouble” because of “glaring omission” in the information that it turned over to lawmakers in relation to the attacks in Benghazi that led to the death of a U.S. ambassador and three others at a consulate in Libya.

“I think the State Department has real trouble,” Mr. Coburn, a member of the Senate intelligence committee, said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“Having sat on the intelligence committee and seen the review of emails that went back and forth as they developed the list, there is are glaring problem there that will eventually come out, and I can’t talk about now, but there was an omission that was given to the intelligence committee,” he said. [Emphasis added]

Asked by Mika and Joe to elaborate, Coburn said he “can’t talk about it and keep my obligation,” but he promised that it “will come out.”

Here’s the portion of the May 9 segment. The video has been cued to the relevant timecode:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So what “glaring omission,” related to the State Department, and to the emails that were shown to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on which Coburn sits, and for which he appears to have said on MSNBC he attended the Benghazi email briefings in February, was Senator Coburn talking about? Did he know about the Karl revelations to come the following day (false as they turned out to be…)? If so, how did he know??? Could be nothing, could be something…

UPDATE 2: Now just by way of additional clarification, this doesn’t mean that Coburn is necessarily Jonathan Karl’s source (though it doesn’t rule him out, either.) But it is intriguing, in that it calls into question whether Coburn saw the Karl version of the Rhodes and Nuland emails, which contained information that would not have been in the emails he reviewed during the ODNI Intelligence Committee briefing in February. A “glaring omission” could mean that he was being shown content in the “new” Rhodes and Nuland emails that was “missing” in February, and that he viewed the “new” information as having been “omitted” by State or the White House, rather than viewing the “new” information as the fabrication it was.

Now, of course, that would beg the question, if this is the case, and Coburn’s secret “glaring omission” had to do with the Karl bombshell, who showed him the “emails”/summaries? It wouldn’t make sense that it would be Karl. Why would he? So was it the leaker? And is the leaker, therefore, close to Coburn? Well how close? A colleague? A Staffer? The man in the mirror?

Tick tock…

UPDATE 3: Jonathan Karl apologized on Twitter for mischaracterizing the Ben Rhodes email, and for not making it clear his reporting was from summaries, not actual emails.

Screen Shot 2013-05-19 at 6.31.54 PM

Screen Shot 2013-05-19 at 6.32.14 PM

But then a funny thing happens: he stands by the fundamentals of his story. Huh. From  the Huffington Post:

On Sunday’s “Reliable Sources,” Howard Kurtz relayed a statement from the ABC News correspondent: “Clearly, I regret the email was quoted incorrectly and I regret that it’s become a distraction from the story, which still entirely stands. I should have been clearer about the attribution. We updated our story immediately.”

Two problems with that.

1. The original story does not in fact, stand. Because the “news” in the original story was that Ben Rhodes, who works for the White House, weighed in, on behalf of said White House, to support a State Department spin on the Benghazi talking points. That was all that was newsworthy in Karl’s report. But since Ben Rhodes never mentioned the State Department in his email — that was the entirely made up part of the “email” Karl claimed in his reporting to have “obtained” and that his news organization supposedly “reviewed” — the guts of the Karl story were false. Like, totally false. And worse, they were either deliberately planted falsehoods fed to Karl by his source … or Karl totally misinterpreted what he was told, in a way that created news where there was one. If Karl is absolving his source, and saying essentially that HE put that “state department” bit into Rhodes’ email himself, through his own error, then he has no business covering this story. He probably has no business working in news.

2. Karl’s report said that ABC exclusively “obtained” and “reviewed” the emails. That was the selling point of the story. Karl has apologized for making it appear he’d seen the emails, rather than the summaries, and that’s appropriate. But it doesn’t end the problem, or the story, as far as I’m concerned. Actually, it just makes me more curious. Namely, why would Karl’s bosses clear a story based on emails that neither Karl nor his editors ever saw? I know I’d never get a story like that approved. Doesn’t it seem likely, as @only4rm and others have pointed out, that the only way a big, risk-averse corporate news operation would EVER run with a story based on summaries of unseen emails, would be if the source was someone pretty high ranking, and trusted. So Karl’s defense implies that the source was a Republican member of Congress, or someone very senior on their staff, is he not?

3. As Jay Rosen and others have pointed out, the White House affirmatively accused Congressional Republicans of FABRICATING the emails in Karl’s report. Fabricating. Not misinterpreting. At this point, Jonathan Karl is covering for someone on the Hill who deliberately fabricated emails in order to plant a false story with a major media outlet. There’s no reason why, if he was simply misled by someone, that he should do that. I still predict he won’t burn his source — probably, again, because it’s a member of Congress or their senior staffer — but I’m increasingly in the camp that says maybe he should.

More Rosen:

When a confidential source burns a reporter, a reporter is within his rights to burn–that is, “out”–that source. But it almost never happens because reporters are concerned that potential sources will take it as a sign that the reporter cannot be trusted to keep their names secret. That’s bad enough. But this is worse. Karl had a chance to limit the damage to ABC News from his faulty reporting when he first responded to Jake Tapper’s report. He blew that. Inexplicably, an ABC News spokesperson then doubled down on Karl’s original reporting: strike two. They had a chance to recover by asking Karl to explain how he got misled on This Week. They blew that when they chickened out and asked Jeff Zeleny to appear instead.

In other words, the Jonathan Karl problem is now officially an ABC News problem. But the other issue for Karl, is that going forward, if he is still defending a bogus story, one begins to wonder if he’s more of a partisan than I initially felt comfortable speculating about. It also begs the question of whether when, in the future, Mr. Karl reports that a “source on Capitol Hill tells ABC” something, we should trust the story as real, as opposed to planted by opponents of the president.

Karl can fix all of that, and so can ABC. They can just tell us who gave that bogus information to their chief White House correspondent.

Mr. Coburn, anything to add?

UPDATE 4: Salon’s Adam Seitz-Wald has a good timeline of ABC’s response to their Benghazi “emails” problem. And Joan Walsh writes that Karl and ABC have only made things worse for themselves, not better.

 

This entry was posted in 113th Congress, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Republicans and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to A Washington ‘whodunit’: who fed bogus Benghazi ‘emails’ to the media? **UPDATE: a ‘glaring omission…’**

  1. Flo says:

    I’d be fine if the DOJ wanted to look at Jonathan Karl’s phone records at this point. ABC News owes an apology, explanation, correction or something.

  2. Anomaly100 says:

    Can we just say it was Mitch McConnell? I really can’t stand that man. I think I’ll go with that.

  3. majii says:

    Republicans know they’ve been doing this all of the time and getting away with it. They were so sure that they could do the same thing with Benghazi. I don’t know what happened to Tapper and Garret, but whatever it was, I want to see more of it. I’ve been reading about Karl’s background, and it seems that he was specially groomed by conservative organizations to take his place in Beltway media. A real journalist’s primary job is to bring truth to the people, but many RW journalists no longer endorse this. This plays a huge role in millions of Americans not knowing who is responsible for the gridlock in D.C., and in the anger that many misdirect at Pres. Obama instead of the responsible parties-their members of Congress.
    I want to congratulate you on getting Ron Christie to admit that the IRS Chief, Sullivan, was a Bush appointee. He delayed and danced around to avoid giving the answer, and you, as usual, were polite, factual, and held his feet to the fire until he cried, “Uncle!” Thanks, Ms. Reid.

  4. jreid says:

    Just have to take a second to say hi to Flo, and thanks Majii and Anomaly100 for the comments. Flo, you’re often the first to comment going way back on this blog, and I appreciate it :)

    Joy

    • Flo says:

      As a Herald reader, I “discovered” you in your south florida days, Joy. We need your Rick “Gollum” Scott posts before he ruins us completely.

    • Anomaly100 says:

      I don’t know how much time it took you to put all of this info together but I appreciate it. Thing is, ABC is falling on the sword while covering for the Republican that leaked the altered email. It’s time they stepped up but we know that will never happen.

  5. Qmastertoo says:

    Up to weak Dems to beat the drums. So in other words, don’t hold ur breath. Now had Pres. Obama falsified an email, Dems would be on TV all weekend long to bash him

    • Quips says:

      I so agree with you. We don’t need the other side to demoralize us when we are so quick to do it ourselves.

  6. Quips says:

    Go, Joy. I love that you are staying with this. We need your voice to remain loud and clear on this underhanded, nefarious, skullduggery. I thought Coburn was an Obama pal. These people (Republicans) are fully capable of doing any and everything.

  7. jreid says:

    @Quips:
    You’ve heard the saying: “if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog”? Well… it’s pretty much true. There are no permanent friends.

  8. L'Tanya Spearman says:

    No matter who done it this is the true scandal… 1) Falsified federal documents… is federal offense… 2) passing of false information with intent to UNSEAT A SEATING PRESIDENT….. THAT TREASON ( in common terms staging a ‘COON’)…. 3) HIDING THE CRIMINAL WHO FALSIFIED FEDERAL DOCUMENTS, LYING TO THE PUBLIC, (WHICH BETRAYED HIS/HER OATH UPON TAKING OFFICE)….
    ABC and CBS need to take responsibility….

    CONCLUSION :
    All the republican party and certain media… Just proved everything they accused the President of they, themselves have done… Therefore, they need to be bought up for ‘EXPULSION,’ under article1,section 5, clause 2 of the constitution: A member of congress maybe removed from office before the normal expiration of his/her constitutional term by a expulsion from the senate/House of representative upon a former vote on a resolution agreed to by two-third of the members of the respective body present and voting…

    But we all know that not going to happen…. Cowards every last one of them (incl. dems. both Houses… Also Black caucus, Latina caucus) and any other politicians who appear on T.V. , talking crack they lost all creds….
    And let not get with the FAKE IRS AND AP……. tHE REPUBS. WHO ACTUALLY CALL FOR THE INVESTIGATION IN BOTH CASE.. WHY?????

  9. Christine says:

    By far the best account of events of the ugly matter. Love the *crickets* when its the Republicans that covered up/fabricated bullsh*t to match their agenda. I do hope the bottom falls out on all the other fabrications as well but alas, the power of false news on the right is overwhelming. Thanks for this post, truly a great read.

  10. Joan says:

    We must not let this matter drop – as the republicans are hoping, they continue to push, we must push that little bit harder, I feel sure that sooner or later we can get to the bottom of this. I have written to Burr, Coble et al (will probably not get an answer)
    living in NC, but I sure am a thorn in both of their sides!

  11. rikyrah says:

    thanks for breaking it down like this. following all the crookedness.

  12. Paris Lady1492 says:

    Keep staying on this Joy. We need your expertise& contacts to find out who the leaker is. Dems need to express more outrage & not roll over on this one. Thanks for your insight. We can’t let those trying to take down our President succeed. If GOP doesn’t win the presidency legitimately, they do everything they can to destroy the one who is rightfully there.

  13. Brvfan says:

    Thank you so much for all this information. I was so frustrated today when it seemed no one was even going to acknowledge it existed. Keep it in the news-This is important

  14. Pingback: The Lie Matters: What Did Sen Coburn Know about the Edited Benghazi Email … | Rand Paul 2016

  15. Gary says:

    Let’s not forget that Sharyl Attkisson from CBS put out a very similar story. This is interesting.

  16. Ms. Reid, this is the by far the most comprehensive piece on the entire sordid propagandizing affair, and I must thank you.

    Down here in Southwest Florida, the Tampa Bay Times has two local reporters who are equivocating all over the place on this and the other two so-called “scandals.” Adam Smith is a Republican, and has always leaned that way, but Eric Deggans seems to be trying to prove that he is an unbiased reporter by tweeting headline-scandal horse puckey. These are reporters who haven’t bothered to take a look at all the facts, much like Jon Karl.

  17. peter principle says:

    Interesting. If Reid’s theory is correct, then whoever burned J. Karl and the Weekly Standard also burned Tom Coburn. But if he was on Senate Intelligence and had access to the real emails, why was he so easy to burn?

    Possible answer: He was briefed by a staffer (note that Coburn said he had “seen the review” of the emails, not that he had seen the emails themselves) and that staffer either puffed it up because he/she knew that was what Coburn wanted to hear, or Coburn added what he wanted to hear from his own fetid imagination.

    Either way, it would pin Coburn and/or his staffer as the most likely source.

    That is, unless Coburn was passing along second-hand exaggerations he heard from some other GOP source that also had access to the emails.

  18. Pingback: Paul Ryan Now Says: ‘I Don’t Know’ If There Was A Benghazi Cover-up, After Insisting There Was a ‘Cover-Up’ | FreakOutNation

  19. stanscript says:

    Karlgate.

  20. Pingback: Not A Passive Bystander In His Own Destruction » Balloon Juice

  21. drcmn says:

    There are three possibilities regarding the altered e-mails: 1)J. Karl received the bogus e-mails and passed them on unwittingly and was burned. 2)J. Karl worked with the source to adjust the e-mails for maximum damage to a Democratic White House (most likely) or 3)J. Karl made the adjustments himself.

    • Dan-in-PA says:

      There are other scenarios. Imagine a kids game, 10 to 12 kids in a circle. 1 kid gets the original message, whispers it on to the kid on the left, who then whispers that message on to the kid on the left. And so on, and so forth, until the original garbled message gets to kid number 12. Who then blurts it out loud.

      I can see an electronic version of this playing out among the conservative factions on capitol hill.

  22. Derek says:

    Thanks for this story, Joy. Great job! It’s great to see so much reporting of this in one place.

    I was reading the GOP “five committee’s report”
    http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Libya-Progress-Report-Final-1.pdf
    and it seem to lay the groundwork for this narrative. (parenthetically – how can I not think “five families” when referring to this group). Page 20 ends with a footnote referring to “Email from Senior State Department official to interagency team at 9:24 p m., Friday, September 14, 2012″ and is followed by “Several minutes later, White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account and asserted further discussion would occur the following morning at a Deputies Committee Meeting.” The report was published April 23 and is a clear reference to the Rhodes email. It wasn’t attributed to Rhodes until it was cited by Hayes on May 6. And Karl didn’t “quote” it until May 10th. The report has the same emphasis on State’s concerns that Karl reported, but which didn’t actually appear in the email. So what gave this traction between the initial GOP report and Karl’s story?

    Since this was a House report, it’s possible that Coburn’s staff reviewed their notes after the report was published and noted the discrepancy. This could be the basis for Coburn’s claim that his committee didn’t get the full story. Since neither the House report nor The Weekly Standard story generated fire, it seems Coburn’s statement on Morning Joe served as a turning point in pushing the story. The story changed from “State doesn’t agree with the GOP report’s assessment” to “The White House misled Congress.”

    It is unclear to me is if Coburn played an active or an unwitting role in this new narrative. But it seems clear that Coburn didn’t originally have Karl’s source material, because his central claim was that *his* committee was misled. It certainly gives him plausible deniability for being the source. But it doesn’t mean he couldn’t still have a direct role. Did Coburn get the House notes and pass them along to Karl? Did Coburn connect his House source to Karl? Or did a House member see an opportunity based on Coburn’s statement to push a story to Karl?

    Finally, I think there is a media savvy target who may have paired reporters with sources – Bill Kristol. He is a not only the publisher of The Weekly Standard, but a weekly Sunday standard on ABC’s This Week. I don’t think it is accidental that both ABC and The Weekly Standard had this story. His connections with the GOP foreign affairs apparatus run deep. If anyone were to see how to evolve the story from what appeared on The Weekly Standard to what Karl reported on ABC, it would be Kristol.

  23. Dell Martin says:

    Thank you Joy, for bringing the real scandal to light. I’m sure I’ll be seeing you on MSNBC explaining the sequence of events but we need to get it on the networks and in the print media. How can we help make this happen?

  24. Joan says:

    The rethugs have been screaming about the White House changing the emails for months now, suddenly they have gone quiet about it, we must scream now and keep the heat on them, it is payback time!

  25. Joan says:

    Joy – something has been on my mind, McCain said that the ambassador personally wrote him, saying he needed more security.
    1. Did McCain relay that message to anyone?
    2. A couple of sources have said that the ambassador refused extra security.
    Perhaps McCain could let the public read the request for extra security!

  26. jreid says:

    Interesting questions, Joan. I hadn’t heard that about McCain, but apparently yes, the ambassador turned down extra security. Not clear why or when.

  27. Becton says:

    First African American president and all i can say is we need to pray for this Nation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>