Benghazi Committee Outs CIA source

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
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?
 
Last edited:

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
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
 

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
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
Why weren't all the embassy and consulate attacks under the Bush administration investigated by congressional committees? The committee has found nothing wrong, and is purely political.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Why weren't all the embassy and consulate attacks under the Bush administration investigated by congressional committees? The committee has found nothing wrong, and is purely political.
I don't remember press conferences and tv show appearances blaming cartoons or video games or unicorns or maybe there would have been investigations. Should have been anyways.

There should be investigations anytime we are attacked, don't be dumb.
 

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
I don't remember press conferences and tv show appearances blaming cartoons or video games or unicorns or maybe there would have been investigations. Should have been anyways.

There should be investigations anytime we are attacked, don't be dumb.
I never said that there shouldn't have been. I think the Benghazi Committee is a huge joke. What I'm saying is the double standard here, but also good point there probably should've been investigations into this, but I don't think it maybe should be this grand standing congressional dog and pony show.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
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
yes it should have been an investigation. The problem is the Repukes made it political.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Benghazi was a military attack on a CIA target by a Libyan Militia
Chances are pretty good the perpetrators are already dead

Benghazi the investigation was a political attack on Hillary Clinton and Obama
You mean it wasn't about a video like Clinton and Obama said?
 

pnwmystery

Well-Known Member
"When the committee began to drift from its nominal investigative purpose—the 2012 attack on a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed—and focus on unrelated aspects of Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state from 2009-2013, it invited comparisons to the GOP-led fishing expeditions of the 1990s, which culminated in the partisan impeachment of President Bill Clinton, and discredited his leading critics.

The comparison became inescapable this weekend, when the top Democrat on the Benghazi committee revealed that its Republican chairman, Trey Gowdy, had fabricated a redaction to Clinton’s emails to make it look like she’d endangered a spy, and the CIA had busted her. Gowdy even mimicked intelligence community vernacular, designating the redaction as undertaken to protect “sources and methods,” without disclosing that he was the redactor or that the CIA had cleared the name he redacted for release.

This flagrant misconduct has barely pierced the consciousness of the political scribes who have treated every selective Benghazi leak with as much credulity and legitimacy as lower-fanfare congressional investigations, even after their media peers have been burned—repeatedly—by intentionally deceptive leaks. Conservatives, too, are ignoring or brushing off the impropriety. But Benghazi committee errors are piling up so rapidly, and timed so impeccably for Hillary Clinton’s public testimony before the committee this Thursday, that it seems for once like Republicans might tamp down on the Hillary misdirection of their own volition, much as they did in the 1990s when a similarly unfocused obsession with the Clintons damaged their party."

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/123155/benghazi-witch-hunt-against-hillary-backfiring-bills-impeachment
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
If that's true then Gowdy should have a cell next to Hillary's.

If we actually held these fools accountable they may actually BE accountable.
 
Top