Partisans creating counterfeit White House emails seemed like a serious charge. It also struck us as an exaggeration. We wanted to know: What’s the evidence for their claim?
The emails in question trace the back-and-forth between the CIA, FBI, State Department and White House that resulted in controversial talking points used to explain the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi.
Early drafts of the CIA talking points made references to terrorist groups, saying “we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaida participated in the attack.” But in 12 rounds of edits, that reference disappeared.
Instead, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sept. 16, 2012:
“I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al-Qaida affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al-Qaida itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.”
Republicans said this was evidence the White House interfered, attempting to downplay a terrorist attack before the election.
The White House said the gap between early and late versions of the talking points could be chalked up entirely to the best assessment of the “intelligence community” — in other words, political concerns of the State Department or White House had nothing to do with it.
White House press secretary Jay Carney went so far as to claim in November that the “single adjustment” by the White House and State Department was to change the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility.”
Republican Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte wanted to see the evidence, seeking the full text of emails that would explain the deletion of references to al-Qaida and terrorism?
Lawmakers got a peek at the messages.
But the email exchange otherwise generally stayed under wraps — until some details appeared in an April report from House Republicans, then in May articles from the Weekly Standard, ABC News and others.
They made Carney’s comments look entirely misleading: It turned out a State Department spokeswoman had raised “serious concerns” about the CIA talking points, and the White House had to play mediator — a bigger role for either of them than he had suggested.
Shortly after the news reports, which relied on leaks, the White House released 100 pages of back-and-forth between officials.
And something else interesting emerged.
While a State Department spokeswoman had weighed in on the CIA talking points, contrary to Carney’s suggestion, the early news reports that relied on leaks had inaccurately characterized a message from the White House. ABC News, for example, used a direct quote from a White House adviser that differed from the actual email text.
The difference mattered: In the early reports, it looked like the White House was piping up in support of the State Department, which better served Republicans’ arguments that the White House was involved in a cover-up. The actual email looked like an evenhanded attempt to resolve issues between the agencies.
In news reports, the message from Ben Rhodes, then a deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, included a direct mention of the State Department.
“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,” ABC News reported he had written, according to CNN.
But Rhodes’ email had actually said to the group, “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.”
He didn’t, in fact, single out the State Department.
The Democrats’ explanation: Republicans doctored the emails.
But ABC News and the author of the Weekly Standard piece, Stephen Hayes, tell a somewhat different story.
Hayes told The Washington Post’s Fact Checker that someone provided him with “summaries” of email messages — not altered versions of emails.
ABC News added an editor’s note to its story that it “should have been more precise in its sourcing of those quotes, attributing them to handwritten copies of the emails taken by a congressional source. We regret that error.”
“Summaries” and “handwritten copies of emails” are a bit different from “doctored” emails.
Woodhouse didn’t share evidence with us — or claim to know — exactly who leaked details from the emails. Nor could he prove that the source deliberately altered his or her notes to create a false impression, then lied to reporters.
It’s certainly possible the leaker’s inaccurate notes were intended to deceive. But Democrats have failed to prove that’s the case. Their claim about doctoring evidence could use some evidence. We rate it Mostly False.