victoria nuland in a -- moment. 8% every 10 years. wow. wow.elp fight muscle loss with exercise and ensure muscle health. i've got revigor. what's revigor? it's the amino acid metabolite, hmb to help rebuild muscle and strength naturally lost over time. [ female announcer ] ensure muscle health has revigor and protein to help protect, preserve, and promote muscle health. keeps you from getting soft. [ major nutrition ] ensure. nutrition in charge! >> jamie: she may be on administrative leave, but all of us are still paying her 6-figure salary. the suspension of the official at the irs scandal doing little to quiet the controversy. so much more on that. welcome to it brand new hour of "america live" i'm jamie colby. >> gregg: i'm gregg jarrett we are in for megyn kelly today. lois lerner testify. now she is on paid, i emphasize that word paid leave. that's your buck. a day after she pleaded fifth, the fifth on capitol hill and we hear she actually refused requests from her superiors to resign. mike emanuel is live in washington with more on this

i think victoria nuland is sort of an interesting study in this.st of all, she's the one who wanted to at one point -- i think it was on the night of the 14th, which was friday. she sent an email and saying knowing the line about extremists who were demonstrators will come back to us at the podium, you know, answering how do we know who they are. she was worried about that. she's worked very -- she's been a republican administration employee, a democratic administration employee, and she's now a very strong advocate in this. her name appears all over it. she's interesting. the overriding question i have, why didn't everyone tell the truth from the get-go? what's wrong with admitting terrorists? we need to know if there's a risk out there. i don't like all this scurrying around, hiding emails, classifying this dog and pony. we've got jay carney, who i don't know how he faces the white house press corps now having said that ridiculous stylistic thing, how is he supposed to have credibility on behalf of the president? for one simple reason, they didn'

victoria nuland is operating on behalf of, quote, her building. she said they aren't happy and they near touch with the national security staff. who was at the state department that was unhappy? sheryl mills, the chief of staff to secretary clinton? secretary clinton? who were they talking to at the white house? were they talking to donalyn. the chief of staff? who were they talking to? frankly, i am a little bit, you know, it gives me comfort that adults were trying to resolve this, not all of these press types, running around. and was it pelton at u.s./u.n. who briefed susan rice? did pelton come up with the lie about the video? were they in conservation, whoever it was with rhoads and vitour. was it them or their bosses? did they tell the staffer, here's what susan rice needs to say. this is the biggest lie. we had it told over and over again by a wide variety of people who is responsible for propagating it? and the american people deserve to know. >> let me add one thing, when it's a matter of life and death, i think we ought to be honest. in

all seem to agree nuland is well qualified for the promotion. shannon?shannon: james, thank you. quite a special occasion on this memorial day weekend in southern california. former prisoners of war who attended a huge white house celebration four decades ago are reuniting. correspondent william la jeunesse has the story from verlinda. [siren] >> 40 years after their emotional return to the u.s. vietnam enjoyed another homecoming at the nixon presidential library. some 200 pow came here to then president nixon may 24th, 1973. >> very emotional time. but i think it was really great, perhaps early thing by the nation. for all of us is a great welcome home. >> dinner largest ever at the white house marked end divisive chapter in u.s. history point of closure for the returning pows. >> the american people wanted to have something good out of vietnam. and we were something good. we were something that they could look at and say these guys went through it. >> though vietnam signed the geneva convention american soldiers were bound, beaten and starved. >> it's

we're talking about victoria nuland not being important 0. how damaging to you think this week's revelations and the whole affair are to hillary inton? >> that will remain to be seen. the fact of the matter is that we first have to know that this had an impact on 2012 election because the truth didn't come out before the election and now in 2016, i don't know. you can't predict. one thing for sure, secretary clinton has to be accountable here and she has more questions to answer. that's just a fact. how she answers them, we'll see. >> and, kim, forget about the politics of it for a minute. forget about 2016. i know, amazing. what about the fact hillary clinton on the day that those caskets were brought back to andrews air force base from libya, what about the fact that she talked to the families of the victims and she said at that time that this was all about the video when she had every reason to know that was not the case? >> because this is what's important that came out this week, she was briefed, the state department, pentagon, all of th

much the benghazi evidence we are getting this week focuses on the role of victoria nuland, why? >> the email traffic published recently by "the weekly standard" and abc news shows that victoria nuland objected early on to a cia draft that noted how many warnings the issued about benghazi. the early cia draft could be abuse by members of congress she wrote in one email to beat up the state department for not paying attention to warnings. why would we not want to feed that either, concerned. when revised talking points still included al sharia nuland warned we don't want to prejudice the investigation. national security official pushed back telling nuland the fbi did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a minor couple suggestions that's when ben rhodes weighed in suggesting that the talking points should, quote, reflect all agency equities. >> i can't speak in this specific case to the exact contest of who is being referred to, but, in general terms, when we as public affair officers or spokes people inside of an organization are negotiating, sometimes we make

nuland a well regarded policy analyst. diplomat and spokesperson.ublished by the weekly stashed and abc news show that nuland was early and pivotal player to delete references to terrorism, al qaeda and the like. this morning's talk shows revealed for some democratic senators rising to nuland's defense some other appear defend the woman who she served former secretary of state hillary clinton. >> there has been serious questions raised about individuals within her chain of command with respect to the talking points and what happened afterwards. i think those are fair questions when we have obviously four americans murdered. >> victoria nuland who represented in the state department had a long career and public service. was not a partisan. she worked for dick cheney. she was very much interested in making sure that the state department's position and their. >> you are saying this is interagency problem. >> this is classic issue of interagency's battle about who will say what. >> so where is it all heading next? lawmakers in both houses indeed in diff

victoria nuland was concerned about exactly what has happened.ials 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 these conversations is, it was a request from here in congress. a senior democrat wanted them to give members of the republicans and democrats what they can say to the media. it was an issue of what's classified and what's not, not what is politically accurate and what's not. >> all right, thanks to all three of you, that, of course, raises the questions to those of you thinking about this, imagine if there had been talking points like this put out after th

nuland warned that quote will come back to us at podium. how do we know? who they were, etc.? 23 minutes later, without a response, she emailed again before anyone had even replied to her first expression of alarm to say, quote, i just had a convo with redacted name, and added on that basis i have serious concerns about all the parts highlighted below, and that's when they commenced the argument we've already reported on about whether language about prior security warnings from cia could also be stricken. also deputy national security advisor ben rhodes was alerted that the intelligence communitying was drafting a set of benghazi talking points as 11 right as 11:17 that morning, as was national security counsel spokesman. as late as 3:04 p.m., the talking points still included references to the u.s. government knowing that islamic extremists with ties to al-qaeda had participated in the attack. al-qaeda and attack were gone by 4:42 p.m. that day, however. and by 5:10, tommy was thanking colleagues. by 6:48, he was alerting colleagues that the man who heads the cia, john brenna

here is a quote from one of the quotes, an e-mail from cia public affairs officer to victoria nuland. they say, that being said there are indications islamic extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. the question of course being who to blame for the attacks that killed these four americans including the ambassador. then we see this is a big oft discussed part of the e-mail chain victoria nuland writing in an e-mail the penultimate point could be abused, a point about the fact the cia warned the state department that the cia put in the talking points nuland from the state department objects to this. the penultimate point could be abused by members of congress to beat the state department for not paying atoengs agency warnings so why do we want to feed that either? concerned. there have been a lot of issues about that statement because people think it suggests that victoria nuland was trying to protect hillary clinton and the state department from political concerns. but, wolf, a senior administration official tells me that long before the cia heard about that issue, the de

from the get-go victoria nuland was told you can only go out and say the fbi is investigating. she's at the podium saying it's under investigation, we can't say anything more. dutch rupersberger says we need to have something to say when we come out of this briefing with petraeus. they work on the talking points long before it was decided susan rice would go on camera. >> they completed them before she appeared on television but lawmakers who had been in classified settings wanted to talk appropriately what they could say. that is the genesis of the talking points. there were 12 iterations of the talking points. change from one was a word change, moving a word around, but from point a to the end there were significant changes. the orange talking points included descriptions of past warnings of other events that they believe were terrorist against foreign entities including the british in libya and maybe the most important thing, it said very ex-police italy that they, they meaning the administration believed that this was a terror attack, the cia analysis, the intelligence anal

the republican version notes nuland discussing: the actual e- discussing: the actual e-mail says: the actual e-mail says: the c.i.a. agreed with the concerns raised by the state department and revised the talking points to make them less specific than the c.i.a.'s original version, eliminating references to al qaeda and affiliates and earlier security warnings. there is no evidence, scott, the white house orchestrated these changes. >> pelley: major, thank you. one month after the bombings at the boston marathon we have learned more about the motive from the sole surviving suspect. you'll recall that dzhokhar tsarnaev was hiding in a boat the night that he was captured. well, it turns out while he was in there it appears he was doing some writing. john miller broke this story for us today and he's here now with details. john? >> reporter: this was inside the boat he was hiding. there was no piece of paper. so apparently thinking he was going to die-- remember, multiple gunshot wounds, he was bleeding-- he began to write on the wall inside the cabin that he knew his brother tamerlan wa

state department spokesperson victoria nuland expressed concerns about including those references in the talking points. in one e-mail previously reported by abc news, she wanted the warnings removed because they, quote, could be abused by members of congress to beat the state department for not paying teantion -- attention to agency warnings. so why do we want to feed that either? concerned. after some changes were made, these don't resolve my issues or that of my building leadership." her building, the state department, then led by hillary clinton. the final edits were made by hand, according to a senior administration official, by deputy cia director mike morell, who shared nuland's concerns. all 12 versions of the talking points included in the e-mails, as previously reported by abc news, also say the protest, the attacks in benghazi, began spontaneously, inspired by the protests in cairo. in other words, all that talk of protest began with the cia. that doesn't change in this. what changed was the context, taking out all references to the terror threat in benghazi. >> you are th

in an e-mail according to abc, state department spokesperson victoria nuland took issue because it, quote, be used by members of congress to beat up the state department for not paying attention to warnings. why would we want to feed that, either? the entire paragraph was eventually scrub. all the news today made for a testy white house press briefing with press secretary jay carney clearly playing defense on the talking points. >> jay, you told us that the only changes that were made by stylistic. is it a stylistic change to take out all references to previous terror threats in benghazi? >> well, i appreciate the question, again, and i think that what i was referring to was the talking points that the cia drafted and sent around to which one change was made. and i accept that stylistic may not precisely describe the change of one word to another. >> this was not a change of one word to another. these underwent extensive changes after they were written by the cia. >> there was an interagency process which is always the case. >> that was jonathan carl asking that question. he's one who bro

susan rice for obvious reasons.c victoria nuland, the one who changing the talking point who says my building's leadership is not satisfied and congress will use this al-qaeda information against us.hi also on the right, sheryl mills is a fierce defender of the clintons since 92. she punished hicks and demoted him and wanted to muzzle him. beth jones was the one who knew it was al-qaeda and omitted that from the talking points as well. general petraeus, who was frustrated and voiced as much in an e-mail said why are you editing my talking points? we gave you the right information. carney, who lied from the inset and said these talk points were from the intelligence community and ben rhodes, the one who responded to victoria nuland's concerns said they were valid and said they would be resolved. the next day, new messages went right to susan rice. those are the peopleay that need to be graduate brought to the hill. >> greg, your picture is absent from that line - up. i know you've been doing the investigation about who pushed the video. >> that is true. just a few points, dismissing a

. >> chris: did you know that vectorria nuland said they had been warning for months because i didn'tw about that. >> warning what? >> chris: warning about threats. >> that came out in the report which said admiral mullen and ambassador pickering said the security lapses occurred and people at state got fired. >> chris: they didn't say the ci i'm put it in the talking points and the state department wanted it out. >> they sade there was a lack of proper security there and the state had not is responded adequately.m >> the key point is not victoria nuland whe buately. >> the key point is you have the state department that was headed by secretary of state, hillary clinton, until then, not by a bunch of assistant secretaries and it was a terrible failure by the obama administration and this has shed more light on the failures. >>chris: one last subject because we running out of time, congressman, as i discussed with the two congressmen at going, a couple of conservative groups came up with you have to call them attack adds against hillary clinton and benghazi and limping her. we are talk

another e-mail that contains a sort of an attempt to try to assuage the concerns of victoria nuland.the number two at the cia mike morell was doing handwritten notes and there were further discussions from the national security council and the white house, the state department and the cia. >> so kelly, to ask you here then to sort of reset this for everybody. >> sure. >> we have two hours, the talking points were changed 12 times. this is something that, a, obviously house republicans are going to want to get to the bottom of and hammer the administration on but this is sort of admitting here then that we had a real change of policy from what we heard originally from susan rice on the sunday morning show when she went on. >> some of it is a window into the process and normally this would fall under executive privilege. any president would say you don't need to have this, which is why this was a real opportunity for the white house to try to negotiate with congress. they provided these with the express promise from congress they would not block the nomination. the points are interesti

the documents show then state department spokeswoman victoria nuland repeatedly pressing interofficeleagues so soften the discussion of the perpetrators of the attacks. the line about knowing there were extremists among the demonstrators will come back to us at podium, nuland said. how do we know? who are he they? et cetera. that she wrote at 7:16 p.m. 23 minutes later she emailed again saying quote i just had a convo with redacted name and added on that basis i have serious concerns about all the parts highlighted below, and that's when nuland argued as we have previously reported that language about the cia's prior security warnings in benghazi should be stricken. at 6:48 p.m. that day a white house aide cautioned that john brennan, then white house staff now director of cia, quote: will have edits and brennan's changes passed along four minutes later included striking a line about the intruders having hailed from across many sectors of libyan society. that contradicts press secretary jay carney's claim this week that the white house's only change was a stylistic one replacing cons

in an e-mail according to abc, state department spokesperson victor victoria nuland took issue because it, quote, be used by members of congress to beat up the state department for not paying attention to warnings. why bould would we want to feed that, either? the entire paragraph was eventually scrub. all the news today made for a testy white house press briefing with press secretary jay carney clearly playing defense on the talking points. >> jay, you told us that the only changes that were made by stylistic. is it a stylistic change to take out all references to previous terror threats in benghazi? >> well, i appreciate the question, again, and i think that what i was referring to was the talking points that the cia drafted and sent around to which one change was made. and i accept that stylistic may not precisely describe the change of one word to another. >> this was not a change of one word to another. these underwent extensive changes after they were written by the c aria. >> there was an interagency process which is always the case. a lot . >> that was jonathan carl asking that

that got taken out after victoria nuland at the state department was saying how concerned she was. gets wiped and scrubbed. and then you can see the shortened version of number 3. take a look at full screen number 2 some of the terms that got taken out. what got taken out, jihadist, islamic extremist, threat of extremist link of al qaeda benghazi. concerns that previous surveillance had taken place of the consulate in benghazi. that all got removed and that, steve is now what we believe led susan rice to go out on the sunday talk shows and say don't know anything about terrorism but they were very upset over a video and that's what led to the protest. >> yeah, at least in parts that's what led susan rice to make those claims. i think she had to go quite a bit beyond those initial talking points or those final talking points because frankly there wasn't much information. so she had to go well beyond what was in those talking points and sell a different story. let me go back and just be very precise and fair to the white house on this. you know, when we are talking about 12 different

victoria nuland on behalf of her boss.they took out, this is what we were supposed to be telling susan rice to tell the world, but we didn't. on 10 september, agency notified embassiy cairo of social agency reports calling for a demonstration and uncouraging jihaddists, stricken. the agency produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-qaeda in benghazi and eastern libya. stricken. all of that came out because it looks, it appears that victoria nuland was voicing her, quote, serious concerns about that draft and worried that members of congress would use the talking points to criticize the state department for, quote, not paying attention to agency warnings. right on, victoria! >> yep. she's spot on. and as a communications professional, i can understand trying to put the best spin on it. i could never understand asking the intelligence community to absolutely change the facts of the guidance they were providing and then two days later -- that's friday night. they go through three rounds, there is a 6:3

miss nuland was writing statements saying you, you know what?olitically this isn't going to look good. sounds like hillary clinton's fingerprints are all over these talking points and you know, really her resignation was the beginning but she never really fully accepted culpability. she needs to accept culpability for this disaster in benghazi. bill: in addition to hillary clinton, that is the person you want to talk to then? >> well, yeah, because she has been saying she had nothing to do with these talking points. sounds like her spokesman, which is essentially her, is e-mailing back and forth saying she is having conversations that night presumably with state department leadership, i would think that includes hillary clinton. bill: does then, does this also clarify to you or raise more questions as to how susan rice was collected -- selected to go on the sunday shows? >> maybe. maybe to deflect a linkage to hillary clinton. but the whole point is, hillary clinton has resigned but she hasn't accepted responsibility for this. not only was she i

. >> chris: did you know that vectorria nuland said they had been warning for months because i didn'tw about that. >> warning what? >> chris: warning about threats. >> that came out in the report which said admiral mullen and ambassador pickering said the security lapses occurred and people at state got fired. >> chris: they didn't say the ci i'm put it in the talking points and the state department wanted it out. >> they sade there was a lack of proper security there and the state had not is responded adequately.m >> the key point is not victoria nuland whe buately. for all kinds of reasons. i go to angie's list to gauge whether or not the projects will be done in a timely fashion and within budget. angie's list members can tell you which provider is the best in town. you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare. now that we're expecting, i like the fact that i can go onto angie's list and look for pediatricians. the service providers that i've found on angie's list actually have blown me away. join today and find out why over 1 million members count on angie's li

but victoria nuland had been up for a promotion for some time, at least in line for it. now the president is making a nomination that has many in washington concerned. are you, and if so, tell us why? >> she has had a distinguished career. but there are very real questions about her role in preparing the talking points. you can see that she was concerned that it was going to come out that al qaeda was involved. she was very concerned -- how do we address this issue? she wasn't concerned about defending the use of the videotape as an excuse. she is one person at the center of this, as to who was there when the decisions were made, who from the white house, who from the cia. so her confirmation is very, very important. >> >> jamie: her nomination is a bit more controversial. >> absolutely, yeah. >> jamie: you said we have not had diplomats as we did -- killed in 30 years. and the talking points just to remind folks, described what happened that night and there were changes, victoria nuland involved in email changes on that. i have to ask you this question, with the irs inv

that's does mean nuland has doing anything wrong.an answer are pertinent to this investigation. you have known her for years and she is qualified. >> i would vote to confirm her but i would have a long interview with her. martha: house speaker boehner slamming the white house. he says the lights are on but nobody is home. we'll have a fair and bammed debate. tell me what you think. send me a tweet at martha maccallum. bill: after the penalty phase of this high-profile murder trial end with a hung jury we'll have the latest with a live report and how she reacted. it's amazie people are when you tell them they could save a lot of money on their car insurance by switching to geico...they may even make you their best man. may i have the rings please? ah, helzberg diamonds. nice choice, mate. ...and now in the presence of these guests we join this loving couple. oh dear... geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. martha: the jury in the jodi arias case is unable to reach a unanimous decision whether she should get li

because state department spokesperson victoria nuland asked the cia to delete a paragraph because, and i'm using her words, "that could be used by members of congress to beat up the state department for not paying attention." >> right. here's the -- i mean, again, i think in this instance -- >> that sounds quite significant, doesn't it? >> it does, however, what do we know about the behavior of the gop? we know that congressman chaffetz leaked into a hearing a cia installation that was supposed to be secret, by the way. we know time and again republican leaders of the house have leaked important information that if a democrat ever did that, i mean, they would be, you know, tried for treason. so my point is, i think we need more information about what was her concern. not just about necessarily from a political context, beating up the state department, but, again, there could have been a concern that, well, if we put this out there right now and we don't have the facts to back it up, because we don't know all of the facts, that could create a problem, let's go with what we know. let's g

similarly page 47, victoria nuland, from the state department, these don't resolve all of my issues or those of my building leadership. all of this points to political consideration, when we now know they knew the truth. so the word "cover-up" has to come in to play here. your reaction. >> yeah, look. i think it's very clear that many of the things that the white house told us about the talking points, told us about the attacks, then told us about this process, are not true. you have to go back and sort of look at this in totality. one of the things that i think is most striking about these documents there's nowhere in the 12 drift travis o drafts of theg points was there reference to a youtube video, and only on page 93 and 94 is there any reference at all to a movie. those emails, with that reference to a movie, the emails that come out of this deputy's committee meeting on saturday morning where many of these changes were implemented. so i think, you know, that raises additional questions about if -- if all of these people are contributing their ideas, trying to figure out what to t

and here is one e-mail, one portion from an e-mail from victoria nuland, she is the spokeswoman for the department. and she says in this one e-mail "why do we want the hill fingering ansar al sharia when we aren't doing that ourselves? and the penultimate point could be abused to beat the state department for not paying attention to agency warnings, so why do we want to feed that either? concern, dot dot dot. and later on that evening, same person, victoria nuland sent an e-mail to various people who are in this e-mail exchange saying "these don't resolve all of my issues and those of my building's leadership, they are consulting with nss, a." and you would know that is referring to the national security council staff with the obama administration. now, according to these e-mails, guys, this exchange went back and forth over the course of maybe 24 hours. the e-mails stop and then apparently saturday morning, if you look at these e-mails, there was a meeting that went on among several top level obama administration officials about these talking points. and then later on saturday afternoo

. >> chris: did you know that vectorria nuland said they had been warning for months because i didn'tat. >> warning what? >> chris: warning about threats. >> that came out in the report which said admiral mullen and ambassador pickering said the security lapses occurred and people at state got fired. >> chris: they didn't say the ci i'm put it in the talking points and the state department wanted it out. >> they sade there was a lack of proper security there and the state had not is responded adequately.m >> the key point is not victoria nuland whe buately. all business purchases. so you can capture your receipts, and manage them online with jot, the latest app from ink. so you can spend less time doing paperwork. and more time doing paperwork. ink from chase. so you can. >>> i think the irs would like to apologize for that. it was not intentional. as soon as we found out what was going on we took steps to make it better and i don't expect those things to reoccur. >> this is a complete and total abuse of power by bureaucrats and they're distributioning the power that they have -- abus

victoria nuland, you see his name surfaced a couple times, she's been 234078 nature ford a new job. to and her all these questions? will you get a chance to, i should say, and will you? >> yes. and i won't be on the committee, but she will be asked. she suggested that the original talking points by the cia that said clearly it was a terrorist attack and an al-qaeda affiliate and they have been warned about previous attacks, she pushed back because she doesn't want the state department to be blamed by congress. but she told me personally she has no idea who changed the talking points. the last time she saw the talking points was on trinight. they got changed saturday at the white house. who was at the white house, what did they talk about, and how did the talking points get changed? that's what i want to know. >> senator, thank you very much. i suggest you tell your friends on the house side of the hill to use subpoenas to get someone who knows who are the survivors and ask that person under oath in regard to the survivors. that would be the easy way to do it. >> and secretary kerry

. >>> president obama nominated vectoria nuland for santa secretary of state. she has become under criticism for editing the talking points on the attack in benghazi, think your date for prom was cool? how about taking the future president? >> the guy in the middle. >> the future president of the united states. "time" magazine releasing this photo of barak barak and another date. after he wrote that note you see there, tuesday, calling her, quote, extremely sweet and foxy. >> wow, i think michelle will have a good night out on the town, treat her. >> treat really nice. he wished, in skranl politics. saying she was sweet and foxy. mr. foxy, himself, mr. kiereins. >> yeah, crazy weather over the weekend, soggy. >> shall we say cool? >> nothinged is not pretty. yesterday was obviously an ugly friday and by far the worse forecast around the country will be in new england. yesterday, the rain relentless. let me show you nyack, new york. this is a quaint little village on the main street. you are looking at main street, people. it's on a hill. when it poured, it just

nuland argued that it "could be abused by members of congress to beat up the state department for noting attention to warnings." but today, white house press secretary jay carney faced a battery of new questions, insisted again there was no effort to hide anything. >> we believed based on the intelligence assessment that extremists were involved, and there were suspicions about what affiliations those extremists might have but there was not hard, concrete evidence and so ambassador rice in those shows talked about the possibility that al-qaeda might be involved or other al-qaeda affiliates might be involved or non-al qaeda libyan extremists which i think demonstrates there was no effort to play that down. >> sreenivasan: republicans have insisted the administration botched security in benghazi and the response to the attack, and ever since, have tried to cover it up. they're promising more hearings to come. the internal revenue service has admitted it flagged some conservative groups for more aggressive reviews during the 2012 election. they were singled out if their applications for

ben ga -- benghazi and all of that at the in assistance of hillary clinton spokeswoman, victoria nuland said it would be used by congressional opponents to beat up on the state department. we didn't know about any of that. one of the things raised in our panel on "fox news sunday" if we didn't know about that, what did we not know about other things, what happened before, during the attack. we've certainly learned some new things this week about the talking points. this is only going to increase the demand for more of an investigation whether it's individual committees, whether it's a select committee, a joint committee of the house or maybe the house and the senate. clearly the momentum for war investigation is going to continue. mike rogers, chairman of the intelligence committee says now that these two whistleblowers were received so well and stirred up such a fuss, he said there will be more whistleblowers coming out in the future. >> as you said, there will be more pressure for more investigations. what exactly does that mean? if there is a select committee, what is that, they have

spokesperson victoria nuland e-mailed that the mention of prior attacks could be abused by members of congress to beat the state department for not paying attention to agency warnings. so why would we want to feed that either. concerned. at white house meetings the following day, other officials further diluted the language eliminating the reference to terrorism and previous attacks. that sunday u.n. ambassador susan rice followed the talking points on all five talk shows. >> what happened in benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in cairo. >> reporter: once that assessment was discounted, the white house insisted it had only changed one word and on friday stood by its story. >> the cia was the agency that made changes to the edits -- i mean to the talking points and then produced the talking points. >> reporter: a thorny issue for the obama administration and analysts say perhaps a larger problem for former secretary of state hillary clinton, said to be eyeing a possible presidential bid in 2016. >> it strikes me she had a pol

at 7:30 that night victoria nuland, a 30-year career diplomat objected e-mailing, why are we encouraging members of congress to start making assertions to the media that we ourselves are not making because we don't want to prejudice the investigation? officials say she was trying to stop the cia from shifting the blame for not protecting benghazi where most of the personnel were attached to the cia. at white house meetings saturday, other officials further watered down the talking points. in all there were 12 separate drafts in the end eliminating all references to terrorism, but keeping the point about the cairo demonstration being the spark that set off the attack. on sunday, u.n. ambassador susan rice followed the guidelines on five talk shows. >> on benghazi was a spontaneous reaction -- >> reporter: in january hillary clinton denied a role. >> i wasn't involved in the talking points process. >> reporter: congress demanded to see the controversial e-mails in march before agreeing to confirm john brennan as cia director. the white house was claiming it did not weigh in. >> the cia mad

victoria nuland. we'll examine. "fox & friends" soon with michael bolton starts now. ♪ ♪ >>steve: hi everybody. today is officially the start of summer here on "fox & friends." because today we're kicking off the summer concert series. we've got michael bolton. he's going to take that stage live about three hours from now. if you're in midtown manhattan, be here in the 8:00 hour. you'll see him. you'll have famous dave's. it will be a great kickoff. >> love is a wonderful thing. when a man loves a woman. new hits as well. >>brian: if you have a phrase that needs further definition, for example, i needed this defined: how can we be lovers if we can't be friends? >>steve: why are you looking at me? >>brian: that is an example of a phrase. >>steve: you want people to define what's he singing about? >>brian: right. we'll talk to him at 7:30 eastern time and then watch him sing. this will be exciting. >>steve: i'm playing susaphone. ♪ when a man loves a woman ♪ we've got a busy day. anna is joining us. >> good morning. >

so i think what -- i've another victoria nuland a long time. i think she's an honest person.der oath and ask her what superiors at the state department she was referring to. my experience under six secretaries of state is that their assistant has total abscess to them and those who they really report to. >> megyn: thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> megyn: lots of breaking news, including look at this, live in cleveland as gina dejesus arrives home to her family after ten years in captivity. this child was taken when she was 14 years old. now we're seeing the aerial shots on screen left. this appears to be a reporter trying to get a live shot ready on the right. we believe this is the car and she will be emerging from as she pulls into her family home and we saw some of the folks there. you can see there for yourself, embracing as they get their long lost daughter, sister, cousin back after just presuming that something had happened to her. perhaps that she had been murdered. what a bittersweet day as you celebrate the life of your family member that you must have had

victoria nuland said why do we want lawmakers on the hill fink iring ansar al ha shia? 13 minutes later a official wrote back to nuland, on that very issue, victoria, we're waiting to hear back from the bureau. about an hour after that, a cia told you in land, we further discussed talking points with your comments and concerns in mind. fbi did not have major concerns with the points and offered only a couple minor suggestions. within an hour after that, a cia official confided to his colleagues at langley, quote, fyi, fbi says al qaeda, not al qaeda in the u.s. lame muck ma greg was involved. so they're pursuing that theory. we're not ahead of law enforcement. are we clear to send talking points to congress? the answer came back, no. as we know the talking points went through some 11 rewrites, gregg. gregg: james rosen live at the statement department. james, thank you very much. uma there is breaking nug on the investigation into the irs targeting of conservative groups. one head just rolled. lawmakers are saying a lot more has to be done. last night the acting commiss

the official who changed it at the state department, the weekly standard confirmed was victoria nulandworried that members of congress would use the points to criticize the state department for not paying attention to agency warnings about security in benghazi. in an attempt to address those concern, cia officials cut all references to ansar al sharia and made minor tweaks. but in a follow-up e-mail, new land wrote that the problem remain that her superiors, he she didn't say which ones were unhappy. the changes she wrote did not resolve all my issues. you suggest she's playing politics with the aftermath of all of this. but chairman, didn't the cia and the intelligence community have the final word on what the accurate talking points would be? >> no. not at all. if you keep pushing back, you get a first report from the cia, that's their report. then you push back. you get a little different. you push back, you get a little different. that's manipulating the cia to get the truth. >> the cia can't stand up for itself and get the facts, saying, these are the facts? >> the fact is, there

nuland chimed in again. these don't resolve all of my issues or those of my building's leadership. are consulting with nss, national security council staff. one minute later secretary of state hillary clinton's deputy chief of staff e-mails we'll work it through in the morning. then ben rose a top national security official warns the talking points shouldn't jeopardize the investigation and tables the discussion for a white house meeting the next day. when it appears the decision was made to drop the reference to the terror group. the end result? this e-mail to rice. you are doing the sunday morning shows and need to be aware of the final postures these points took. the big changes run counter to what white house secretary jay carney told reporters last november. >> the white house and state department have made clear the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two, these two institutions were changing the word consulate to diplomatic facility. >> carney's explanation now? officials were concerned about protecting the integrity of the investigatio

congressional republicans-- and cbs news did not see directly-- state department spokesman victoria nuland argues that the investigation into the attacks was still on going and she objects to language that could be abused by members of congress to fault the state department for not paying attention. then on saturday, september 15, following a meeting of agency deputies, references to islamic extremists and violent demonstrations were removed from the talking points as well as mentions of previous attacks in benghazi and possible surveillance of u.s. facilities. press secretary jay carney today insisted under intensive questioning that there had been no intent to deceive. he acknowledged that the original talking points were wrong in citing a demonstration outside the diplomatic post before the attack which killed ambassador stevens and three others. >> the talking points that have gotten so much attention-- and, let's remember, these are talking points, not policy, talking points-- to this day have been shown to be wrong in only one instance and that was the existence of demonstrations pre

that information was kept out. >> tucker: you know who did it was toria nuland long time.d for republicans. very bad reputation in washington revealed herself to be primarily interested in cia and political ramifications and by the way still employed. >> she is the one who took out the references to al qaeda and the references to the threats beforehand that there would be more attacks. but we don't know yet at least i don't unless you guys can clarify this what the white house did. we don't know what the white house took out of the. now the state department changed it there is still questions whether the white house changed one minor word. >> victoria nuland acting as political operative on behalf of hillary clinton and the white house. >> clayton: meanwhile talk about the irs. a bit of an apology coming out. ever hear of that going after people? they have flitted that they were wrong when they specifically went after those individuals who were working towards tax exempt status with the words tea party and patriot in their titles during the 2012 run-up to the election. >>

now, major player in all of that was then state department spokeswoman victoria nuland. at 7:16 p.m., she e-mailed quote, the line about knowing there were extremists among the demonstrate evers will come back to us at podium. how do we know, who are they? 23 minutes later without any reply to her earlier e-mail, she wrote again, quote, i just had a convo with redacted name and added on that basis i have serious concerns about all the parts highlighted below. that's when she commenced the argument we have been reporting on for more than a week now, about whether or not we want to be feeding any narratives about how cia gave previous warnings and so forth. >> as i read these talking points that were originally put together by the cia, they do make reference to a spontaneous attack, then they change it to spontaneous demonstration. what they say is this is the first version before our state department weighed in. we believe based on the currently available info, that it was spontaneously inspired by the protests at the u.s. embassy in cairo. to me that in part answers the