Skip to main content

It is a crime when individuals are found tamping with evidence. Tampering may include a manipulation or movement of the evidence during or after the crime. Individuals can in fact be charged with being an accessory after the fact, if they manipulated evidence in any way.

Did a crime occur in the Republican caucus surrounding Darrell Issa.

ABSOLUTELY.  Evidence was tampered.....

CBS News reported that at least two of the Benghazi e-mails that were leaked by Republicans last Friday were altered.

One of the altered e-mails was from Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes. The other altered e-mail was from U.S. State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

Here's the Republican version of the Rhodes e-mail:  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.

Here's the White House version of the Rhodes e-mail:   We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

Here's the Republican version of the Nuland e-mail:  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.

Here's the White House version of the Nuland e-mail:  The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.


All Documents presented to the United States Congress are considered evidence. Evidence was tampered to imply a crime.

Under all state codes this can be either a misdemeanor or a felony.  We need these people investigated...  The law was broken. Congressional Hearings are in place to get to the bottom of the truth.  They are not intended to be kangaroo courts in which to make up evidence that doesn't naturally exist....

The law was broken.  Arrests need to be made... This is not about Democrats or Republicans... This is about the trust and truthfulness of the United States of America.

If Congress were run as were DC's Schools?   Darrell Issa would be thrown out of Congress.... From the DC school manual....... rules by which our children must abide...

Tier IV behaviors result in off-site Suspension.
(a) The following behaviors shall be considered Tier IV behaviors:

(1) Acts of vandalism, destruction of property, or graffiti (tagging);
(2) Documented theft of school or personal property without force;
(3) Interfering with school authorities or participating in a major
disruption of the school’s operation.
(4) Tampering with, changing, or altering an official record or
document of a school;

Here is the Texas's definition of tampering.   Darrell Issa would be in jail if this took place in Texas....

A person commits an offense if, knowing that an investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, he:

(1) alters, destroys, or conceals any record, document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in the investigation or official proceeding;

(2) makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation or official proceeding;

(3) knowing that an offense has been committed, alters, destroys, or conceals any record, document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or availability as evidence in any subsequent investigation of or official proceeding related to the offense; or

(4) observes a human corpse under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that an offense had been committed, knows or reasonably should know that a law enforcement agency is not aware of the existence of or location of the corpse, and fails to report the existence of and location of the corpse to a law enforcement agency.

In Texas, this is a felony in the third degree.

The evidence brought forth a week ago that inflamed the nation, was a fabrication. "Directly it was an attempt to make, present and use a record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation or official proceeding...."

I demand an immediate arrest of Darrell Issa for breaking the law....  Full Censure by the House of Representative of this common criminal is called for immediately.....

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree Issa is a loathesome scuzzball (8+ / 0-)

    but how do we know he's responsible for the email doctoring? Cheers.

    I ♥ President Barack Obama.

    by ericlewis0 on Sat May 18, 2013 at 02:41:14 AM PDT

  •  I wondered about that too but I read (4+ / 0-)

    that when they were shown the documents they were only allowed to take notes and who's to say it wasn't an innocent mistake. I'm sure they'll claim that they didn't mean to imply that they were verbatim copies.

    The emails were shared with Congress earlier this year as a condition for allowing the nomination of John Brennan for CIA director to move forward.

    The general counsel for the national intelligence director's office briefed members and staff from the Senate Intelligence Committee and leadership on the emails on Feb. 15 at a session in which staff could take notes. A similar briefing took place March 19 for the House Intelligence and leadership staff.

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Sat May 18, 2013 at 03:31:08 AM PDT

    •  The emails that were reported on... (10+ / 0-)

      ...were supposedly ”leaked” to ABC, implying that they came directly to the servers at the White House.  Now, whether the reporter in question was fluffing the source of the emails, or they actually were presented to him as ”leaked” is, to my mind, immaterial. There should be an investigation either way.

      Someone did something with the emails, and the way they were used was of not criminal, then at least recklessly irresponsible. I say investigate anyway. They love them some investigating up on Capitol Hill.

      This sig is self-aware. It is not only aware that it is a sig, it is aware that it is aware that it is a sig. It is beyond meta. It is Om.

      by Freelance Escapologist on Sat May 18, 2013 at 03:39:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  time for Jonathan Karl to fess up! (4+ / 0-)

        reveal the Republican(s) that LIED to him.

        "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

        by MartyM on Sat May 18, 2013 at 04:13:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh, no. Forcing reporters to reveal sources (3+ / 0-)

          is exactly what the White House did to AP. It is considered a First Amendment violation, and the press rightly insists that they cannot be forced to reveal their sources -- and reporters with integrity will go to jail rather than doing so.

          IMO what a reporter with integrity DOES need to do is issue a correction / mea culpa, saying now that he's seen the real texts, he was obviously misinformed and retracts the original story.

          •  Recc'd, but... (0+ / 0-)

            ... the DOJ was investigating a leak. AFAIK, at no point was the AP forced to give up their sources. However, in investigating the leak, phone records were subpoenaed. It's a fine line, and not one I'm happy about, but short of holding a seance to figure out who the leak was, I'm not sure the DOJ had a lot of other options. I mean, face it; if you leaked info to the AP about ongoing AT operations, would you 'fess up when the investigators asked?

            NB; I'm neither condoning nor condemning here. I want to know all the facts first.

            This sig is self-aware. It is not only aware that it is a sig, it is aware that it is aware that it is a sig. It is beyond meta. It is Om.

            by Freelance Escapologist on Sat May 18, 2013 at 05:52:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  interesting point. The language points both ways (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sceptical observer

      It took me two reads to understand where you were coming from... Since I heard from other sources that the emails were in Republican hands, I interpreted the  line about taking notes to apply to the briefing with  questions and answers, of which could not be on tape  with out fear of being taken out of context and put on some republican campaign ad...

      I'm still going with the part of your quote which says "it shared the emails."  
      But I see where you are coming from in your interpretation.   The language is vague enough to portend two meanings... as if, they shared the emails without letting them have them..

      However, I'll have to trust my sources.

      •  I don't have a clue what transpired. (0+ / 0-)

        I'd like to see them pilloried but experience tells me that elephants have been known to escape through mouse holes for some odd reason, whereas donkeys can't seem to escape through holes big enough for elephants.

        My guess is the worst would be a toothless and drawn-out ethics investigation.

        "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

        by sceptical observer on Sat May 18, 2013 at 07:30:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just saw this on TPM. (0+ / 0-)

          Jonathan Karl published a report that lent credence to GOP suspicions that the White House was deeply involved in preparing official talking points about the attack to tamp down the story for political reasons.

          The ABC report was based on notes taken by a still-unnamed source,

          "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

          by sceptical observer on Sat May 18, 2013 at 08:08:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  When lawyers (0+ / 0-)

    break the law, and these f**kers are all lawyers, they do so with plausible deniability.

    Of course, hearings should be held, investigations should be launched, and Issa should be embarrassed at the very least.

    I predict, as usual, the bastard will be neither embarrassed nor accountable.

    Hope I'm wrong.

    We've been spelling it wrong all these years. It's actually: PRO-GOP-ANDA

    by Patriot4peace on Sat May 18, 2013 at 03:54:28 AM PDT

  •  mm.....not sure about that. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dhonig, VClib, Neuroptimalian
    All Documents presented to the United States Congress are considered evidence.
    They're not evidence for a trial, which is really what the statute is after.  
    •  I kindly disagree. (0+ / 0-)

      If you believe that documents or other evidence presented in front of a committee are not held to the standards of a courtroom, ... try perjuring yourself in front of Congress and let me know how it comes out...

      If you tamper with evidence to embarrass and make a Congressperson look bad, they will throw the book at you.

      But to make themselves look great, it's ok?

      Sounds like a double standard to me.

  •  No (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, johnny wurster, Neuroptimalian

    sorry, but misrepresenting what an email says to a news agency isn't tampering with evidence. The actual record wasn't changed.

    This diary is, unfortunately, the sort of hyperbolic straw-grasping we find so frustrating on the right.

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

    by dhonig on Sat May 18, 2013 at 04:23:48 AM PDT

    •  not so fast (0+ / 0-)

      What you said is true...  lying to a news agency is not a crime, but turning over the actual "evidence" which has been altered to a news agency, knowing full well they will go public and put out misinformation, in this case, is tampering with "evidence".

      As responded to elsewhere, the White House gave the emails to Congress.  The republicans have had them since Feb of this year.  

      Let us assume you are being investigated.  You have emails that prove your innocence.  You send them to the police investigating the crime.  You still have the original emails on your hard drive.

      Charges are pressed against you based on a alteration of that email that was in the hands of the police... That is tampering with evidence...
      Since the Republicans did exactly the same thing, how can any reasonable person call that hyperbole?
  •  ianal ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... but lying to a newsman isn't a crime.

  •   Ahh... aarr... huhh (0+ / 0-)

    KER-CHAFFETZ ! ohwew Excuse me. . .  damned allergies.

  •  Criminal or not, I miss the good old (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, sceptical observer, myboo, Check077

    days when such an act would have, at the very least, resulted in censure.

    "Throwing a knuckleball for a strike is like throwing a butterfly with hiccups across the street into your neighbor's mailbox." -- Willie Stargell

    by Yasuragi on Sat May 18, 2013 at 06:21:34 AM PDT

  •  Which Republican was it? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ballerina X, myboo

    That's what I, and many other people, want to know.

    By the way, thanks for linking to my diary.

    If it takes a village to change a state, it'll take a city to change America!

    by DownstateDemocrat on Sat May 18, 2013 at 06:45:27 AM PDT

  •  I don't believe the original emails (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sceptical observer, GAS

    were altered.

    They were misrepresented to a journalist. We know this because the White House released the originals, so we can see what was actually said, and what was said to ABC.

    There may be some illegality here, but this isn't it.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Sat May 18, 2013 at 07:27:53 AM PDT

    •  The emails were released to Issa's committee (0+ / 0-)

      Back in February in return to Brennan's confirmation.  The "Original" emails were in republican hands for over a quarter of a year.  From them, a copy was given to ABC, purported to be the original.

      The copies were changed in "just a certain way", to imply that misdeeds were done by the White House.  This was disproven when the White House released to the rest of the world, again the exact same emails ..
      Everything said or presented to a congressional committee or said in place of a hearing is evidence and is given the same preponderance it would have in a regular courtroom.  If you think that is not true, just perjure yourself in a committee.  You will quickly find out.

      Some have speculated that since the originals were in White House hands, this is not a crime to alter a copy and legitimately present it as the original... Such is "above the law" which is why only the CIA and NSA are given free hand to do so.  Not even the FBI or Justice Department has that right....

      Since the White House gave the "evidence" to the Republicans in Congress, the "evidence" was in their hands.  Therefore to tamper, or alter it in any way, legally since it is evidence, is a felony...
      When a Congressperson commits a felony in office, he needs to be punished.  Congresspeople are citizens first,  the people's representatives second.  They must obey normal laws as does everyone else...


  •  Its a federal crime also (0+ / 0-)

    18 USC § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
         (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
         (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
         (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

    shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

    In their quest to call it terrorism --and it is-- the republicans just opened themselves up to a crime.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site