STRATEGIC MEMORANDUM
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Correct The Record
DATE: September 23, 2015
SUBJECT: Three New Stories on Hillary Clinton’s Emails, All Nothing-Burgers
Three stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails were published last night by major media outlets and not one of these stories contained incriminating information. This didn’t prevent pundits and Republican operatives from spreading misinformation. Below, Correct The Record has broken down the “revelations” in these three stories, and why these revelations are bogus and the stories are nothing-burgers.
1. Washington Post: “State Department’s account of e-mail request differs from Clinton’s”
STORY SAYS: The Washington Post says that “new information” from the State Department shows the request for Clinton’s emails was prompted by discovery of her use of personal email. The Washington Post says this is contrary to Clinton’s description of her interactions with the State Department over her email.
REALITY: First of all, this is not new information. It’s been reported previously. Secondly, this does not contradict Clinton’s account. As Mother Jones pointed out today, “And once again, I’m mystified by what the point is supposed to be. I’ve read tonight’s story three times trying to figure it out.”
2. Bloomberg: “FBI Said to Recover Personal E-Mails From Hillary Clinton Server”
STORY SAYS: Bloomberg reported that the FBI has recovered personal emails from Hillary Clinton’s server.
REALITY: The FBI is investigating the security of recently-classified information on Hillary Clinton’s server. To do this, the FBI is looking at her server – which stored all her emails, both work-related and personal. Of course, if the FBI recovers work-related emails, it would recover personal emails too – they’re all in one place. As Bloomberg itself reported, “Clinton is not accused of any wrongdoing,” while the company that maintained the server said it had “no knowledge of it being wiped.”
3. Politico: “More emails surface in Hillary Clinton Benghazi Probe”
STORY SAYS: Politico reported that about a dozen Benghazi-related emails were not turned over to the conservative organization Citizens United or to the Benghazi Committee.
REALITY: According to the court filing, it doesn’t appear that Hillary Clinton sent or received any of these emails. All we know from the story is that these emails are related to Benghazi. What is very clear is that Citizens United, a conservative organization, is communicating directly with Republicans on the Benghazi Committee who have leaked information for the umpteenth time, of course with zero context or further information.
MORE FACTS BELOW:
STORY #1: THE WASHINGTON POST
The Washington Post’s “new information”
Washington Post says “new information” shows request for Clinton’s emails was prompted by discovery of her personal email. “Throughout the controversy over her use of a private e-mail system while she was secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton has described her decision last year to turn over thousands of work-related e-mails as a response to a routine-sounding records request. ‘When we were asked to help the State Department make sure they had everything from other secretaries of state, not just me, I’m the one who said, ‘Okay, great, I will go through them again,’ ’ Clinton said Sunday on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation.’ ‘And we provided all of them.’ But State Department officials provided new information Tuesday that undercuts Clinton’s characterization. They said the request was not simply about general record-keeping but was prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system. They also said they first contacted her in the summer of 2014, at least three months before the agency asked Clinton and three of her predecessors to provide their e-mails.” [Washington Post, 9/22/15]
But this is not new information… it was reported …in March:
New York Times reported that requests for Clinton’s emails were prompted by discovery of her personal email. “As State Department lawyers sifted last summer through a new batch of documents related to the Benghazi attacks, they repeatedly saw something that caught their attention: emails sent to and from a personal account for Hillary Rodham Clinton. The lawyers, according to current and former State Department officials, were working to respond to a request from a specially appointed House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Libya. But they noticed that among the 15,000 documents they examined, there were no emails to or from an official departmental account for Mrs. Clinton. ‘This all raised the question to us: What else are we missing, and what do we need to comply’ with the request, said one official briefed on the matter.’ Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman and the State Department have cast her decision to hand over her emails as motivated by efforts to update the department’s record management system. ‘When the department asked former secretaries last year for help ensuring their emails were in fact retained, we immediately said yes,’ Nick Merrill, the Clinton spokesman, said on Sunday. But it was the review of Benghazi-related documents last summer that, within the State Department, set off the chain of events leading to the public disclosure this week of Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email account, according to the current and former department officials.” [NYT, 3/5/15]
And, as Mother Jones points out today:
Hillary Clinton’s emails are once again the subject of a front-page story, this time in the Washington Post. And once again, I’m mystified by what the point is supposed to be. I’ve read tonight’s story three times trying to figure it out.
The entire piece is based on a statement the State Department sent to the Post explaining why they originally asked for Hillary’s emails. Supposedly this statement “undercuts” Hillary’s own explanation, which she’s offered on multiple occasions. But does it? Here are the competing explanations as written by the Post:
|
Hillary Clinton
“When we were asked to help the State Department make sure they had everything from other secretaries of state, not just me, I’m the one who said, ‘Okay, great, I will go through them again,’ ” Clinton said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And we provided all of them.” |
State Department
“In the process of responding to congressional document requests pertaining to Benghazi, State Department officials recognized that it had access to relatively few email records from former Secretary Clinton,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement e-mailed to The Washington Post….Kirby added that the agency then recognized “that we similarly did not have extensive email records from prior Secretaries of State and therefore included them when we requested their records in October 2014.” |
Hillary Clinton doesn’t say anything here about why the State Department asked for her emails—though it was hardly a secret that they were responding to obsessive congressional inquiries about Benghazi. What she did say is that State also asked three other former secretaries for their emails, which is what the State Department says as well.
STORY #2: BLOOMBERG
Bloomberg story about the FBI finding emails had folks in a tizzy…
Bloomberg headline: “FBI Said to Recover Personal E-Mails From Hillary Clinton Server.” “The FBI has recovered personal and work-related e-mails from the private computer server used by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, according to a person familiar with the investigation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s success at salvaging personal e-mails that Clinton said had been deleted raises the possibility that the Democratic presidential candidate’s correspondence eventually could become public. The disclosure of such e-mails would likely fan the controversy over Clinton’s use of a private e-mail system for official business….Those e-mails, she said, mostly dealt with planning for Chelsea’s wedding, yoga routines and condolence messages. Clinton said the personal e-mails were deleted from the server and her staff turned over paper copies of the remaining work-related e-mails in December to the State Department for processing and archiving. The FBI obtained Clinton’s server from the Colorado-based company managing it.” [“FBI Said to Recover Personal E-Mails From Hillary Clinton Server,” Bloomberg, 9/22/15]
New York Times headline: “Investigators Find Emails Hillary Clinton Said Were Erased”
But the Bloomberg story has more info:
“Clinton is not accused of any wrongdoing.” “Clinton is not accused of any wrongdoing. She has said she is confident that material in her e-mails wasn’t marked as classified when it was sent and received through her server. For anyone who mishandled such information, prosecutors must prove that they knowingly did so to charge them with a crime.” [Bloomberg, 9/22/15]
STORY #3: POLITICO
Politico reported that some Benghazi-related emails were not turned over
Politico reported that some Benghazi related emails were withheld from production in a court filing and to the Benghazi committee. “The filing Monday in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the conservative group Citizens United describes about a dozen Benghazi-related emails that were withheld in whole or in part as State responded to one of the group’s requests seeking information about contacts between a top aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and officials with the Clinton Foundation. Most of the documents also appear to have been withheld from the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which is investigating State’s response to the attack. The committee is scheduled to take public testimony from Clinton on Oct. 22.” [Politico, 9/22/15]
But this has been reported previously… by Politico
The State Department notified the Benghazi committee in June that a small number of documents detailing “Executive Branch institutional interests” were not produced. “In a letter accompanying the documents sent to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Assistant Secretary of State Julia Frifield noted that State has ‘provided the Benghazi Committee with over 50,000 pages of documents’ and that ‘many’ records in the new set are duplicates of ones previously given to the panel. However, Frifield also said State is holding back some records. ‘A small number of documents implicate important Executive Branch institutional interests and are therefore not included in this production,’ she wrote.” [Politico, 6/30/15]
And is this Trey Gowdy’s ninth leak?
According to Politico, the infamous and hyper-partisan Citizens United is communicating directly with Benghazi Committee staffers. “The filing Monday in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the conservative group Citizens United describes about a dozen Benghazi-related emails that were withheld in whole or in part as State responded to one of the group’s requests seeking information about contacts between a top aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and officials with the Clinton Foundation. Most of the documents also appear to have been withheld from the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which is investigating State’s response to the attack. The committee is scheduled to take public testimony from Clinton on Oct. 22. A panel spokesman said he could not immediately confirm which of the documents had been turned over to the committee, but Citizens United President David Bossie told reporters that staffers at the House panel told the group State never produced the records to Congress.” [Politico, 9/22/15]
Fun Fact: Citizens United head David Bossie, once resigned in disgrace…after selectively editing transcripts of tapes ….in an attempt to damage Hillary Clinton. “The chairman of the House investigation into Clinton-Gore campaign financing abuses apologized to fellow Republicans yesterday for the uproar over his release of transcripts of Webster L. Hubbell’s prison conversations and removed his chief investigator under pressure from House Speaker Newt Gingrich…. His hard-driving chief investigator, David Bossie, submitted a letter of resignation later in the day, saying that he wanted to blunt the ‘unjustified attacks’ coming from House Democrats and the White House. The editing and release of the Hubbell tapes, subpoenaed by the committee last year, was described by one insider as a ‘Dave Bossie project,’ opposed by the panel’s chief counsel and other committee staffers but ultimately approved by Burton… The most controversial editing involved the deletion of a statement by Hubbell that first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton had ‘no idea’ of billing irregularities at the Rose Law Firm where they both worked. Also deleted was an assertion by Hubbell that he was not being paid hush money to keep him from cooperating with independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s Whitewater investigation. In his resignation letter, Bossie said that ‘no one on the staff ever intentionally left anything out.’ The transcription and editing process, other aides said, was in the end a crash project aimed to coincide with last week’s new indictment of Hubbell, his wife, his lawyer and his accountant on tax evasion charges.” [Washington Post, 5/7/98]
Leaks from the Benghazi Committee are nothing new:
Leak #1: Trey Gowdy committee leaked news of Hillary Clinton subpoena. ‘In a letter sent to Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Friday, the five Democrats on the panel criticized Gowdy for issuing the formal request for documents from Clinton’s term as secretary of state without consulting with Democrats and accused the committee of operating as a campaign arm of the Republican National Committee…. ‘Issuing this subpoena unilaterally with no deliberation by committee members, leaking information about the subpoena before informing Democratic Members, and providing inaccurate information at a press conference all contribute to a perception that this Committee is now targeting Secretary Clinton for political reasons rather than to clarify any remaining facts relating to the attacks in Benghazi,’ the Democrats, led by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), wrote.’ [Politico, 3/6/15]
- Rep. Cummings: ‘It seems obvious that someone on the Republican side of the Committee provided this information.’ ’Contrary to your statements warning against the disclosure of internal Committee information, the Washington Post ran a story about your subpoena before you informed a single Democratic member that it was under consideration. It seems obvious that someone on the Republican side of the Committee provided this information to an individual outside the Committee before you told any Democratic Members.’ [Cummings letter to Gowdy, 3/6/15]
Leak #2: Trey Gowdy committee leaked news of Sidney Blumenthal subpoena. ’Now, as Hillary Rodham Clinton embarks on her second presidential bid, Mr. Blumenthal’s service to the Clintons is again under the spotlight. Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a Republican who is leading the congressional committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, plans to subpoena Mr. Blumenthal, 66, for a private transcribed interview. Mr. Gowdy’s chief interest, according to people briefed on the inquiry, is a series of memos that Mr. Blumenthal — who was not an employee of the State Department — wrote to Mrs. Clinton about events unfolding in Libya before and after the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.’ [New York Times, 5/18/15]
- Rep. Cummings: Republicans on the Benghazi Committee leaked ‘news of the subpoena before it was served.’‘These latest moves by the Benghazi Committee—issuing a subpoena without first contacting the witness, leaking news of the subpoena before it was served, and not holding any Committee debate or vote—are straight out the partisan playbook of discredited Republican investigations.’ [‘Cummings Statement on Leaked Plan to Issue Unilateral Subpoena,’ 5/18/15]
Leak #3: Trey Gowdy committee leaked Sidney Blumenthal email correspondence with Clinton. ’Mr. Gowdy’s chief interest, according to people briefed on the inquiry, is a series of memos that Mr. Blumenthal — who was not an employee of the State Department — wrote to Mrs. Clinton about events unfolding in Libya before and after the death of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. According to emails obtained by The New York Times, Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, took Mr. Blumenthal’s advice seriously, forwarding his memos to senior diplomatic officials in Libya and Washington and at times asking them to respond. Mrs. Clinton continued to pass around his memos even after other senior diplomats concluded that Mr. Blumenthal’s assessments were often unreliable.’ [New York Times, 5/18/15]
- Rep. Cummings: Trey Gowdy ‘selectively leaked pages of Secretary Clinton’s emails’ to the press. ‘Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, issued the following statement in response to a press report that Chairman Gowdy intends to subpoena Sidney Blumenthal, which included selectively leaked pages of Secretary Clinton’s emails.’ [Cummings Statement on Leaked Plan to Issue Unilateral Subpoena, 5/18/15]
Leak #4: Trey Gowdy committee leaked one third of Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi emails. ‘The emails set for release, drawn from some 55,000 pages and focused on Libya, have already been turned over to the special House committee investigating the 2012 attacks on the United States outposts in Benghazi. The New York Times has obtained about a third of the 850 pages of emails. They capture the correspondence and concerns expressed among Mrs. Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, and her advisers following the attacks, which claimed the lives of the American ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans.’ [New York Times, 5/21/15]
- Washington Examiner: ‘Benghazi committee … appeared to have leaked several hundred pages of records to the New York Times just hours before the State Department published its first batch of redacted emails.’ ‘In November of last year, Clinton gave the State Department 55,000 printed pages of emails she deemed relevant to her work as secretary of state and reportedly deleted the rest. Many of those emails have been subjected to review by the Benghazi Committee, which appeared to have leaked several hundred pages of records to the New York Times just hours before the State Department published its first batch of redacted emails.’ [Washington Examiner, 6/2/15]
Leak #5: Trey Gowdy committee leaked doctored emails to Politico. ’While still secretary of state, Clinton emailed back and forth with Blumenthal about efforts by one of the groups, Media Matters, to neutralize criticism of her handling of the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, sources tell POLITICO. ‘Got all this done. … Complete refutation on Libya smear,’ Blumenthal wrote to Clinton in an Oct. 10, 2012, email into which he had pasted links to four Media Matters posts criticizing Fox News and Republicans for politicizing the Benghazi attacks and challenging claims of lax security around the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, according to a source who has reviewed the email exchange. Blumenthal signed off the email to Clinton by suggesting that one of her top aides, Philippe Reines, ‘can circulate these links,’ according to the source. Clinton responded: ‘Thanks, I’m pushing to WH,’ according to the source.’ [Politico, 6/17/15 (via Cummings Letter to Trey Gowdy, 7/6/15)]
- Rep. Cummings: “Someone who was given access to the Select Committee’s documents leaked doctored information to the press in order to make unsubstantiated allegations against Secretary Clinton.” “Documents released recently by the Benghazi Select Committee demonstrate that a Member of the Committee, a staffer on the Committee, or someone who has been given access to the Committee’s documents inaccurately described to the press email exchanges obtained by the Committee in a way that appeared to further a political attack against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” [Rep. Cummings letter to Chairman Gowdy, 7/6/15]
- MSNBC: Politico report was based in part on information leaked to the news outlet that turned out to be untrue. ’Three weeks ago, Politico published a fairly long, front-page piece with a provocative headline: ‘Benghazi panel probes Sidney Blumenthal’s work for David Brock.’ At issue, of course, is the House Select Committee on Benghazi, already responsible for one of the longest congressional investigations in congressional history, and its meandering focus…. There was, however, a problem: the Politico report wasn’t entirely accurate – or more to the point, the Politico report was based in part on information leaked to the news outlet that turned out to be untrue. This morning, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking member on the committee, sent a letter to the panel’s chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), making the case that it ‘it now appears that someone who was given access to the Select Committee’s documents leaked doctored information to the press in order to make unsubstantiated allegations against Secretary Clinton.’ By all appearances, Cummings has a very good point.’ [MSNBC, 7/6/15]
Leak #6: Trey Gowdy committee leaked details about closed-door interview of Sidney Blumenthal. ’The Clinton confidant under scrutiny on Capitol Hill over detailed Libya memos he sent to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers earlier this week he has been pulling in $200,000 a year from Clinton ally David Brock’s media operation, congressional sources tell FoxNews.com. The figure is far higher than initially reported. While the payments to Sidney Blumenthal may not reflect any apparent conflict of interest, his work with Brock’s liberal advocacy and media groups was a focus of his high-profile deposition on Tuesday before the House Benghazi committee. Republicans’ rationale for the questioning was that his financial and political interests are important context, at a time when he was sending high-level guidance to Clinton. Politico.com first reported that Republicans grilled Blumenthal on his work for Brock’s groups. But while the report said Blumenthal was making more than $10,000 a month, congressional sources say he acknowledged during the deposition he actually had a $200,000-a-year contract.’ [Fox News, 6/19/15]
- Rep. Cummings: There have been ‘selective—and sometimes inaccurate—descriptions of his [Blumenthal’s] testimony and his emails that have appeared in the press.’ ‘We believe the public record has been distorted by the selective release of Mr. Blumenthal’s emails without the full context of his deposition transcript, which provides Mr. Blumenthal’s answers to hundreds of questions posed to him about those emails. We also believe the full release of Mr. Blumenthal’s transcript will resolve public disagreements that have arisen from the selective—and sometimes inaccurate—descriptions of his testimony and his emails that have appeared in the press.’ [Ranking Member Cummings Letter to Trey Gowdy, 6/24/15]
Leak #7: Trey Gowdy committee may have leaked false information that a criminal referral was made to the Justice Department for an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email. ’An article and a headline in some editions on Friday about a request to the Justice Department for an investigation regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state misstated the nature of the request, using information from senior government officials. It addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton…An article in some editions on Friday about a request to the Justice Department for an investigation regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state referred incorrectly, using information from senior government officials, to the request. It was a ‘security referral,’ pertaining to possible mishandling of classified information, officials said, not a ‘criminal referral.’’ [New York Times correction, 7/23/15]
- Rep. Cummings: ‘This is the latest example in a series of inaccurate leaks to generate false front-page headlines—only to be corrected later’ ‘I spoke personally to the State Department Inspector General on Thursday, and he said he never asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton’s email usage. Instead, he told me the Intelligence Community IG notified the Justice Department and Congress that they identified classified information in a few emails that were part of the FOIA review, and that none of those emails had been previously marked as classified. The Benghazi Select Committee has obtained zero evidence that any emails to or from Secretary Clinton were marked as classified at the time they were transmitted, although some have been retroactively classified since then. This is the latest example in a series of inaccurate leaks to generate false front-page headlines—only to be corrected later—and they have absolutely nothing to do with the attacks in Benghazi or protecting our diplomatic corps overseas.’ [‘Cummings Responds to Inaccurate Leaks to New York Times on Clinton Emails,’ 7/24/15]
- Vox’s Jonathan Allen: ‘My reporting suggests that House Benghazi Committee Chair Trey Gowdy was fully aware of the request to the Justice Department at least a day before the Times broke the story.’ ‘My reporting suggests that House Benghazi Committee Chair Trey Gowdy was fully aware of the request to the Justice Department at least a day before the Times broke the story. If he or his staff were sources, it should have been incumbent upon the Times to check every detail with multiple unconnected sources. Gowdy’s team has been accused of leaking something untrue to a reporter before. Clearly, Sullivan thinks her colleagues didn’t do a good enough job of vetting their sources.’ [Jonathan Allen column, Vox, 7/28/15]
- Benghazi Committee Dem: ‘The leak of the Inspector General’s referral, and the mischaracterization that accompanied its leak, demonstrate once again how the Select Committee on Benghazi has lost sight of its mission.’‘The leak of the Inspector General’s referral, and the mischaracterization that accompanied its leak, demonstrate once again how the Select Committee on Benghazi has lost sight of its mission and become little more than the taxpayer funded effort to attack Secretary Clinton.’ [Rep. Schiff statement, 7/24/15]
- The Atlantic’s Norm Ornstein: ‘It would not be the first time that committee has been a likely source for a front-page Times story on Clinton.’ ‘Here is what top editor [NYT] Matt Purdy said about the story’s sources: They were ‘multiple, reliable, highly placed’ and included some ‘in law enforcement.’ What does that mean? First, it means that some of the sources were not in law enforcement. If they were from Congress, and, perhaps from Trey Gowdy’s special committee on Benghazi, it would not be the first time that committee has been a likely source for a front-page Times story on Clinton.’ [Norm Ornstein column, The Atlantic, 7/28/15]
- Salon’s Simon Maloy: ‘If it did originate from the Benghazi committee, that wouldn’t be a surprise, given that chairman Trey Gowdy has effectively given his colleagues and staff a green light to leak.’ ‘(If it did originate from the Benghazi committee, that wouldn’t be a surprise, given that chairman Trey Gowdy has effectively given his colleagues and staff a green light to leak.) Of course, the only way to know for sure would be if the Times were to burn its sources – something it’s unlikely to do, even though it would seem to be justified.’ [Simon Maloy column, Salon, 7/27/15]
- New York Times admitted to relying on tips from Capitol Hill to develop now-discredited story. ’The story developed quickly on Thursday afternoon and evening, after tips from various sources, including on Capitol Hill. The reporters had what Mr. Purdy described as ‘multiple, reliable, highly placed sources,’ including some ‘in law enforcement.’ I think we can safely read that as the Justice Department. The sources said not only was there indeed a referral but also that it was directed at Mrs. Clinton herself, and that it was a criminal referral. And that’s how The Times wrote it initially. ‘We got it wrong because our very good sources had it wrong,’ Mr. Purdy told me. ‘That’s an explanation, not an excuse. We have an obligation to get facts right and we work very hard to do that.’’ [NY Times Public Editor’s Journal, 7/27/15]
Leak #8: Trey Gowdy committee leaked details of Cheryl Mills’ interview to resuscitate a previously debunked claim. ‘Raising alarms on the right, Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff at the State Department, also told the House Select Committee on Benghazi that she reviewed and made suggestions for changes to the government’s official, final report on what happened in Benghazi, according to a separate, GOP source familiar with what she said. The source said it ‘call[s] into question the ‘independence’’ of the report’s conclusions; Democrats dismissed it as an old GOP theory that’s already been debunked.’ [Politico, 9/3/15]
- MSNBC’s Steve Benen: “Immediately after Mills spoke to the committee, the panel that claims not to leak started leaking.” “When former State Department Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills agreed to testify, she pleaded with the committee to hold a transparent, public hearing, open for all the world to see, so there’d be no concerns about misleading leaks. Gowdy and his team refused, insisting that Mills answer questions behind closed doors. Committee Democrats asked for a full transcript to be released to the public and the media, but Gowdy and his team refused this request, too. And right on cue, immediately after Mills spoke to committee, the panel that claims not to leak started leaking.” [MSNBC, 9/8/15]
- Rep. Cummings: Within minutes of pledging to protect the details of Mills’ interview, ‘Republicans began leaking inaccurate information about the interview out of context to attack Ms. Mills for political reasons.’ ‘Within minutes of making that statement, Republicans began leaking inaccurate information about the interview out of context to attack Ms. Mills for political reasons—exactly as she feared. For example, Politico ran a story on the front page of its website entitled, ‘What Cheryl Mills Told Benghazi Investigators.’ Relying on multiple anonymous Republican sources, Politico led with the claim that ‘one of the biggest surprises’ from the interview was that Ms. Mills reviewed the report by the Accountability Review Board (ARB) and made suggestions to it. According to an unnamed GOP source, this supposedly new revelation was ‘raising alarms on the right.’ Another Republican source told Politico that this somehow ‘call[s] into question the ‘independence’’ of the report’s conclusions.’ [Republicans Selectively Leak Cheryl Mills Interview Details to Resuscitate Issa Conspiracy Theory Debunked Two Years Ago, 9/4/15]