testimony of those that are on the ground which the cia had to have access to. and one final question, sir. does this change your view on whether hillary clinton should be taking more of the blame? obviously, the one person requesting, again, from the e-mail that s we have which are incomplete but yet there are 100 pages of them, the one person requesting the changes in e-mail is the spokeswoman for the state department. does that then go back to hillary? do you blame hillary clinton more? no. i have a great regard for secretary clinton. i think she ll have to answer in detail why this happened. you know, was she in contact with victoria nuland. was she dealing with her directly? did this happen below her level? how did this come about? obviously secretary clinton is a key player here and she ll have to explain what happened and why it happened and was victor why knewland acting on her own? why was she so intent on removing al qaeda? why were they so definitive about that, again, g
security council. these were not a cia product. they were revised dramatically. and also, as you mentioned before, all of our references of al qaeda were taken out. victoria nuland saying she wanted the references to al qaeda taken out because there was not enough evidence to defend that from the podium. there also wasn t enough evidence to defend the fact that these that this attack resulted from a spontaneous attack. so this was a spontaneous demonstration caused by a video. and congressman, let my follow up on that point. as you point out, victoria nuland, the spokeswoman for the state department did raise a lot of concerns about she didn t want the warnings in there which neither did mike morel, also saying don t blame sharia when we re not sure. but there is also another question i have to you which is
if he thought it was terrorists from the start, and this is a question i asked, if he thought it was terrorists from day one, why did his initial talking points refer to it being a spontaneous demonstration? was there white house interference from the start? again, the two just don t jive, especially when we hear testimony of those that are on the ground which the cia had to have access to. and one final question, sir. does this change your view on whether hillary clinton should be taking more of the blame? obviously, the one person requesting, again, from the e-mail that s we have which are incomplete but yet there are 100 pages of them, the one person requesting the changes in e-mail is the spokeswoman for the state department. does that then go back to hillary? do you blame hillary clinton more? no. i have a great regard for secretary clinton. i think she ll have to answer in detail why this happened. you know, was she in contact with victoria nuland. was she dealing with her di
spokesman brendan buck that we received, right, saying we hope this limited release of documents is a sign of more cooperation to come. they want a lot more information. they do. we should also remind our viewers that as late as today, this morning, john boehner had a press conference demanding the white house do exactly what they did tonight. so, you know, we should make that point clear because this is exactly what he was asking for. but you re right, erin. they re saying this is not enough. he said this is not enough. they believe there are other, in their words, relevant documents that the white house still won t produce. they re saying this is a hopeful sign of things to come. that s the process. talking about the substance, jessica is, of course, exactly right on the fact that critics are saying well, they think this proves some of their points. the most specific issue in here is victoria neuland at the state department e-mailing, saying she wanted things to be taken out
her argument has always been this was not this was not for political reasons but just for the fact that she was protecting her turf. and she couldn t say it from the podium so why put it in the talking points. as demonstrated by how political this whole process has become. victoria nuland was concerned about exactly what has happened. officials you talk to here will emphasize that the talking points, the e-mails were she phrased that badly, it was clumsy, they say this is a sort of process they go through with many, many, many talking points every day, and it just they don t really focus on how they re wording it, so these e-mails they thought would clear up the fact that they weren t trying to be strategic or political for anybody. it s just a process. and the one thing i would point out, erin do you think we ll get the whole reason they were having