Darrell Issa: E-mail shows White House contacted YouTube during Benghazi attack about Mohammed movie

posted at 6:41 pm on May 22, 2014 by Allahpundit

Here’s how long the long and winding road of Benghazi news has gotten. When I saw this story earlier, I tweeted my surprise that the White House would have actually tried to quasi-censor a movie by leaning on its online distributor to do something about it while Islamist mobs were rampaging in the Middle East. Nothing to be surprised about, Gabe Malor reminded me: Not only have we known that was true since the first few days after the attack, I myself blogged it at the time. I had honestly forgotten. We’ve reached the point of Benghazi saturation where politically motivated government censorship is just a footnote to the who-knew-what-and-when debate.

But yes, your leaders “asked” their friends in the tech industry to suppress an inconvenient bit of speech because it was making people overseas very, very angry. Maybe Trey Gowdy will manage a few minutes for that topic during the select committee’s hearing. In the meantime, though, Issa’s still on the who-knew-what-and-when trail. If the White House was thinking about the video while the attack in Bengazi was still ongoing, is that incriminating or exculpatory?

The subject line of the e-mail, which was sent at 9:11 p.m. Eastern Time on the night of the attack, is “Update on Response to actions – Libya.” The was written hours before the attack was over…

“White House is reaching out to U-Tube [sic] to advice ramification of the posting of the Pastor Jon video,” the e-mail reads, according to Issa.

Asked about the document, a senior White House official told ABC News it demonstrates that the White House genuinely believed the video sparked the attack all along, a belief that turned out to be incorrect…

Issa has an entirely different view. He contends the document contradicts the White House assertion that it was the CIA who first pinned blame for the attack on protests in response to the anti-Islamic video.

The “Pastor Jon video” is, I believe, a garbled reference to Pastor Terry Jones, who was publicizing the Mohammed movie to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11. But anyway: Does the e-mail prove the White House’s good faith by showing that the YouTube video was on their radar from the beginning and not something they cooked up to make Susan Rice’s spin that Sunday a bit easier? Or does it prove that the YouTube video did indeed come from a political outfit like the White House, not intelligence agents? Actually, you don’t need the new e-mail to ask that question. At 10:08 p.m. on the night of the attack, less than an hour after the e-mail was sent, the State Department issued this statement from Hillary Clinton:

I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.

This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya. President Magariaf expressed his condemnation and condolences and pledged his government’s full cooperation.

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

There’s no question that the video was on the White House’s radar from the beginning. The questions are (a) who put it there, the CIA or some political actor, and more importantly, (b) why was it still there three days later after information had begun flowing in that a jihadi group was behind the whole thing? The “spontaneous protest” theory was more durable than it should have been, it seems, to the point where it took weeks for Obama to start calling the attack an, er, attack. Figuring out why it was durable is one of Gowdy’s core tasks, along with that pesky government-suppressing-speech thing.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

For Hillary Clinton to have released the statement condemning the video as the motive for the Benghazi attack, even before it was over and in advance of any determination as to the identity of the attackers, is in my opinion, the smoking gun. What it says is that even as the attack was in progress, there was a decision to create political cover. I can’t think of anything more deplorable.

Dan_NV on May 22, 2014 at 10:42 PM

For Hillary Clinton to have released the statement condemning the video as the motive for the Benghazi attack, even before it was over and in advance of any determination as to the identity of the attackers, is in my opinion, the smoking gun. What it says is that even as the attack was in progress, there was a decision to create political cover. I can’t think of anything more deplorable.

Dan_NV on May 22, 2014 at 10:42 PM

Sorry, have to disagree. This suggests confusion and picking the most visible explanation.

jim56 on May 22, 2014 at 11:31 PM

we are I am no longer under grace.

Murphy9 on May 22, 2014 at 6:52 PM

Fixed it for you.

jim56 on May 22, 2014 at 11:34 PM

Now that is my Chekist!

What did you say to emily to get banned reprobate?

Murphy9 on May 22, 2014 at 11:54 PM

Answer you racist bigot.

Murphy9 on May 22, 2014 at 11:54 PM

-And be sure to use the hyphen to set your posts off.

Like you used to, you disgusting sodomite.

Murphy9 on May 22, 2014 at 11:58 PM

Exculpatory? Not. If anything exculpatory existed, including this email, it would have been released immediately. This email would have been released as the explanation for Rice’s Sunday morning blatherings.

Why would Obama and Hillary permit themselves to be covered with the Benghazi s***-stink for nearly two tears if some email could have had them smelling like roses?

I hope Gowdy zeros in on the Obama/Clinton phone conversation. Shouldn’t there be a recording of that conversation? Well, there SHOULD be – but I suspect there isn’t. I suspect their conversation about setting the video as their CYA move took place via Obama’s super-sneaky-extra-special-NSA-proof/CIA-proof-ABSOLUTELY-ULTRA-PRIVATE-Blackberry. The Blackberry he recently crowed about as his means of furthering his agenda: “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone”.

GGMac on May 23, 2014 at 12:41 AM

O and Hill (and their minions) are in thick as thieves with our enemies; i.e, they are traitors and should be tried and convicted accordingly. Benghazi is but one aspect of their treachery.

Witness O and his historical deep roots with Islamic extremists: from his dog eating days in Indonesia to Rev. Wright/Farrakhan, to Rashid Khalidi, Soros, support of Morsi and the MB, unauthorized/illegal overthrow of contained Libya, reluctance in nailing bin Laden. . .throwing Israel under the bus at every turn. . .NASA & muslim outreach (!), bowing to SA, first speech and interview in Egypt and on and on and on.

Hill and her paid off ties via Huma, Soros and others. . .

Really, I believe Benghazi was just an unforfunate bump in their road of advancing the caliphate and getting paid off in the process.

Americans are only so much fodder in their game.

Mr. Gowdy: subpena and depose everyone in the situation room that night, determine who financed and set up the video as their alibi, who in the military was complicit with the arming of our enemies in Libya AND Syria AND Egypt and ETC.

It is time to retrieve our country from the traitors who would destroy us.

Thanks in advance,

Opinionator on May 23, 2014 at 1:49 AM

ladyleader on May 22, 2014 at 10:21 PM

Speak up. .

Opinionator on May 23, 2014 at 2:20 AM

Sorry, have to disagree. This suggests confusion and picking the most visible explanation.

jim56 on May 22, 2014 at 11:31 PM

Pal, the “Secretary” doesn’t pick the “most visible” her job is to pick the right explanation…and they had that within 24 hours, she was touting that weeks after.

Do you not follow timelines? But then, “what difference does it make?”

At the “funeral” or the procession, or the photo-op, of the bodies she was still whining about the video…good grief.

Being a liberal excuse maker must be so demeaning and depressing…

right2bright on May 23, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Maybe 10 years from now someone in the regime will write a book about this and the truth may come out. When this bunch says zip it, they mean business. See Lois Lerner as an example. Too bad they don’t give some of that loyalty to the country.

Kissmygrits on May 23, 2014 at 9:56 AM

I think this probably says that the WH/Admin had gotten stuck in their previous narrative – remember that the video had already come up in relation to Egypt, and was being used as the excuse for a mob there. (There, it was being used as an excuse by the mob, itself.) So, now, instead of gathering actual intelligence and sending in resources to ascertain what is going on, they are simply making assumptions. It isn’t exculpatory, no, but it does suggest that it was less of a malice problem and more of an incompetence problem in the first hours.*

(Remember the old saw: “Never attribute to malice what can most easily be attributed to incompetence.” Sort of an Occam’s Razor of stupidity.)

GWB on May 23, 2014 at 10:01 AM

All of us have to remember…even the libs.

For hours, hours upon hours, men fought to preserve their life, and we did nothing to help.

The Commander in Chief, did nothing, the Secretary did nothing, armed services did nothing…they stood idly by, or were oblivious, as our men fought for their lives…not minutes, not a couple of hours, but over a period of eight plus hours.

No one knew how long our men could hold out…yet not one resource was provided…not one.

Think, you are in a fire fight for 6 hours, you know that America would never abandon it’s soldiers…you think.

We had drones, we had within hours special forces that could have been deployed…the CINC was AWOL, as was the rest of the state department, they allowed our men to die, fighting for their lives.

right2bright on May 23, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Can anyone find out the number of views on a video on YouTube as of a point in time ?????
Is there a way to look back – If the video in question had only a relatively few views as of Sept 1, 2012 or before or even as of Sept 11, 2012 it would be very unlikely to have been a ” cause “. (Lead Time between viewing and taking action – protest)

Lew in Colorado on May 23, 2014 at 10:04 AM

For Hillary Clinton to have released the statement condemning the video as the motive for the Benghazi attack, even before it was over and in advance of any determination as to the identity of the attackers, is in my opinion, the smoking gun. What it says is that even as the attack was in progress, there was a decision to create political cover. I can’t think of anything more deplorable.

Dan_NV on May 22, 2014 at 10:42 PM

Agree 100%!

Conservative_Hippie on May 23, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Forget the video! The pressure points should be why no help was sent and where are the survivors!

The stated reason that there wasn’t enough time is idiotic. Sending help, even if it arrives too late is action and no one could question the response unless to ask why didn’t you arrive in time. Then one could say we responded as fast as possible.

The stated course of action is what any good leader would employ if their heart was faithful to their country and those serving it like Ambassador Stevens and the nameless, faceless survivors who disappeared.

This is the bloodiest administration in the history of our nation.

HueMoss on May 23, 2014 at 10:16 AM

Why is this news?
I’m sure they were doing all sorts of things during the initial swarm of protests.

And here’s Allah in those same moments:
Can’t wait to find out which clerics and/or Islamist politicians are quietly pushing the Mohammed movie on their followers to get them excited.
– September 11, 2012 by Allahpundit

So the video was being viewed as a factor…by many at that time.

verbaluce on May 23, 2014 at 10:34 AM

If the YouTube email was conceived in good faith, why would WH/State try to block its disclosure? If it indeed supports the WH/State’s case, you’d expect they’d spotlight it.

“While the information I have cited from this e-mail is clearly unclassified, the State Department has attempted to obstruct its disclosure by not providing Congress with an unclassified copy of this document,” Issa said. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/white-house-contacted-youtube-during-benghazi-attack-darrell-issa-says/

petefrt on May 23, 2014 at 10:41 AM

A definitive and comprehensive investigative report into the curious origins of a video blamed for the attack in Benghazi

Investigative Findings: Benghazi video linked to the CIA?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63152

lynncgb on May 23, 2014 at 10:54 AM

verbaluce on May 23, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Even so, why did they keep that meme going for 3 weeks!! Continue carrying their water Verbie!!

Deano1952 on May 23, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Maybe the White House sent a tweet to YouTube, to stop the violence.

faraway on May 23, 2014 at 10:56 AM

“Forget the video! The pressure points should be why no help was sent and where are the survivors!”.
I disagree with that statement because what it tells us is that these people were already lying to CTA’s from the get go. That would tell me that they never even considered sending help because the narrative would have changed. They were only considering a follow up campaign and not a rescue mission. This is probably one of the most despicable actions in my lifetime by a sitting president. Another poster said that the admin would have flaunted this e-mail if they had thought it would support their claim of the video being the culprit but since they did not, it shows that they were concerned that it would do just the opposite!

inspectorudy on May 23, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Of course Hillary is the source of the “Blame the Video” meme. State was already blaming the video for the riot and attack on the US embassy in Cairo. The purpose there was to deflect from the actual cause of the riot, an effort to free the Blind Sheikh by MB and Al Qaeda.

Rancher on May 23, 2014 at 11:06 AM

Sorry, have to disagree. This suggests confusion and picking the most visible explanation.

jim56 on May 22, 2014 at 11:31 PM

Er, wasn’t the most visible explanation that Al Qaeda had pretty much taken over Benghazi and it was the anniversary of 9/11? If not, why not?

FishingwFredo on May 23, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Er, wasn’t the most visible explanation that Al Qaeda had pretty much taken over Benghazi and it was the anniversary of 9/11? If not, why not?

FishingwFredo on May 23, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Because that would be an admission that Al Qaeda wasn’t “on the run” and that Hillary’s Mideast policy was a disaster?

Rancher on May 23, 2014 at 11:13 AM

So the video was being viewed as a factor…by many at that time.

verbaluce on May 23, 2014 at 10:34 AM

But not by those on the ground – like the CIA Station Chief, or the African Command, or the reports back to the State Dept by those in charge in the Embasssy in Tripoli.

The video was blamed by the politicals – in the State Department and in the WH simply in the name of political expediency. They had to do all they could to misrepresent the terror attack to mask their fecklessness, their incompetence, the utter failure of their policies, and the utter failure of their meme that al-Qaeda and it’s affiliates were on the run….while 7 weeks away from a Presidential election.

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, this mendacious, arrogant, and callous Administration spent 3 weeks pushing the lie that an obscure You Tube video, originally posted in June 2012, and by September 2012 had but 12K views, was the cause of the attack – not that an al-Qaeda affiliated organization, on the 9/11 anniversary, and after infiltrating and co-opting the security of the annex, decided to attack and kill the US Ambassador to Libya and as many others as possible – just as they had already driven out every other Western nation from Benghazi.

Athos on May 23, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Al-Qaeda is attacking us, but the top priority is to remove a video from Youtube. No doubt there were many other offensive Youtube videos.

edrebber on May 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Al-Qaeda is attacking us, but the top priority is to remove a video from Youtube. No doubt there were many other offensive Youtube videos.

edrebber on May 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Jihadists pick and choose which videos and when they will take offence at depending on what the agenda is. The cartoons are a perfect example.

Rancher on May 23, 2014 at 11:53 AM

So the video was being viewed as a factor…by many at that time.

verbaluce on May 23, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Even so, why did they keep that meme going for 3 weeks!! Continue carrying their water Verbie!!

Deano1952 on May 23, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, this mendacious, arrogant, and callous Administration spent 3 weeks pushing the lie that an obscure You Tube video, originally posted in June 2012, and by September 2012 had but 12K views, was the cause of the attack –
Athos on May 23, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Now you both point out -’yea, so, they blamed the video for 3 weeks’. But that’s not what Issa is talking about here. He’s suggesting that day 1 or 2 it shouldn’t have been considered as a factor. But he – and you – need to decide what angle to pursue as proof of nefarious behavior on the part of the admin.
Either they never had a genuine and sincere concern that the video played a role…or they once genuinely did.
Which is it?

verbaluce on May 23, 2014 at 11:57 AM

All the world has become The Messiah’s codpiece.

socalcon on May 23, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Not who but what organization pushed the White house to the video.

My guess would be the MB (Muslim Brotherhood). Morsi was making hay of it in Egypt to stir support emotions at western expense and O was all to desperate to work with them. When the riots broke out then the attack O already convinced probably just didn’t trust the CIA, FBI, Military analyst and just went with his gut agreeing with the MB. His underlings fell in line Clinton had Uma in her ear parroting the MB line.

C-Low on May 23, 2014 at 12:35 PM

It seems to me the Obama administration knew all about this video BEFORE the attack. Why did they wait until after the attack to mention it?

birdwatcher on May 23, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Rush: WH said they learned the YouTube video had caused the Benghazi problem from CIA. But the problem is, WH called Google/YouTube before they were told this by CIA.

petefrt on May 23, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Sorry, have to disagree. This suggests confusion and picking the most visible explanation.

jim56 on May 22, 2014 at 11:31 PM

Yes, because rioters use RPGs to attack CIA compounds over a YouTube video!

Thank you for pointing out how confused and inept Hillary was in the midst of a “2am phone call”. Wouldn’t want to repeat THAT incredible stupidity again, would we?

dominigan on May 23, 2014 at 1:34 PM

It seems to me the Obama administration knew all about this video BEFORE the attack. Why did they wait until after the attack to mention it?

birdwatcher on May 23, 2014 at 1:04 PM

They needed cover in case anyone asked, WHY were the CIA in Libya?

dominigan on May 23, 2014 at 1:40 PM

“If the White House was thinking about the video while the attack in Bengazi was still ongoing, is that incriminating or exculpatory?”
(Question posed by AP)

Only an effen lawyer would ask a stupid question like that!

tomshup on May 23, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Sorry, have to disagree. This suggests confusion and picking the most visible explanation.

jim56 on May 22, 2014 at 11:31 PM

Romney was lambasted for speaking out – without having all the facts.

But Killary, can issue a statement condemning a movie – before the the last wisp of smoke clears from the consulate building – and that’s just “picking the most visible explanation.”

Right.

Hill60 on May 23, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Why is this news?
I’m sure they were doing all sorts of things during the initial swarm of protests.

And here’s Allah in those same moments:
Can’t wait to find out which clerics and/or Islamist politicians are quietly pushing the Mohammed movie on their followers to get them excited.
– September 11, 2012 by Allahpundit

So the video was being viewed as a factor…by many at that time.

verbaluce on May 23, 2014 at 10:34 AM

It was all just a simple, innocent mistake – in the process, they rounded-up the filmmaker and tossed him in jail. Ooopsey!

Josef Stalin would be proud.

Hill60 on May 23, 2014 at 5:08 PM

So the video was being viewed as a factor…by many at that time.

verbaluce on May 23, 2014 at 10:34 AM

That indicates they knew about it prior to the attack.

Why didn’t they ask YT to pull the thing days or even weeks before the attack if they thought it was inflaming terror groups?

You aren’t helping to explain it: you are making what they did worse.

ajacksonian on May 23, 2014 at 7:42 PM

With all that chaos and the precious amount of time in which to respond………….get the techies at you-tube on the line stat!

Yeah, that’s the first course of action I would take if I were an incompetent progressive/marxist failure trying to cover-up a mess.
Then I’d go to sleep, because Vegas.

StubbornGreenBurros on May 23, 2014 at 11:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2