they were controlled by the cia, not the host governments. the cia had a facility in morocco. that was not a cia-run prison. that was run and controlled by the moroccans. big difference between what the cia was doing and what's happening now. there are examples of governments such as the kenyans, the somalis. you name the government -- holding people. they are probatixies for us. we go and visit them but we are not holding them. >> don't afghan intelligence services, agency, doesn't it have a pretty tight lockdown on country? >> we don't need a black site in afghanistan. they are part of a covert action. when the afghan intelligence service picks up people and takes them to a facility, the cia has an office there. they have people there. they can go. they can visit. but technically, the after gans are holding them. >> did her offered a definition of black sites: >> that's my definition. >> the 9-11 commission report recommended that there be specific guidance on treating foreign prisoners. almost a decade later, have we established a uniform law on ho detainees? the answer is

the white house knew, the cia knew. new at fox news the next day that it wasn't that, and so it's very curious. so you've got the controversy of the cover-up, and you've got all sorts of problems right now. they're stonewalling, but they can't anymore. what's interesting though to me is hillary rodham clinton, right? why didn't she go on the sunday show? probably was because she was told, okay, we want you to tell this lie? she goes, i don't think so. one of these days i'm going to be done giving my $400,000-a-pop speeches, and i'm going to run for president, so i can't do that lie. >> kirsten, we were speaking earlier before the program about this and kind of your take on it, which i think is unique. >> yeah. well, i think there are two scandals going on. there's the scandal of what the white house has done. and, look, we did know this was knowable information in the beginning. the station chief said it was the video. for them, you know, to have said this, they had to know that it was wrong. and if they didn't know it w

bob, you work for the cia. you understand what is going on. tly there were disagreements in 20007 between the national security council, the cia. do you help this guy? do you bring him to the united states or do you just go ahead and hikill him? he had sensitive information that the u.s. wanted. >> well, wolf, the problem -- the political problem is asgari was a key player. he could give witness to the iranian regime and now is the question, do we want to prosecute iran for it or go to war? it's clear that the iranians were involved in. high being gentlemani hijacking the planes and it's a political problem. i can see why they are so sensitive about this at this point and, you know, it's a real problem. >> and the book is about robert ames, who was a top official of the cia who was visiting beirut back in 1983 during the reagan administration when all of a sudden that embassy was blown up and so many people, including robert ames, was blown up, including other people. we're going to continue this conversation right after this. ♪ (train horn) vo

did the cia have a hand in the frightening outbreak of pole low in pakistan this year? before you dismiss that as conspiracy talk, remember, the agency used a evacuation ploy. now trying to get the world to trust what is in vaccines again. >>> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to "the lead." i'm jake tapper. we'll begin with the money lead. the "closing bell." just seconds ago on wall street, there are days when the bell can feel like jackpot on a slot machine. and then there are days when it can feel like somebody pulled the fire alarm. and this, regrettably, is one of those alarm days. the dow dropping 170 points at one point and ticking back up before trading ended but still closing with a triple digit loss. let's go to alison kosik. what happened there today? >> jake, it was all about words spoofing the market today, especially when it's coming from the president of the federal reserve, the group which sets interest rates. we saw most of the dow end in the red after a couple of them considered raising interest rates earlier than expected. now, loan rates were expect

i'm not talking about the cia talking points. ing about the talking points used on that program that day, which were monumentally misleading and/or and have since been shown to be false and based on no intelligence of any consequence that we know of. >> my answer to that is, no, there wasn't a conspiracy. they didn't have turned out to be accurate. >> how did it happen? >> i think that people made -- at the time their best guess at the facts. >> where did the idea that the video had anything to do with benghazi come from? >> where did it come from? >> yeah. >> i think it wam from people who weren't sure about tshg but i would not say -- >> can you identify -- can you identify any cia information? can you identify -- >> ben talks about the movie five times in this memo. >> my view is having been around at the time that this was not deliberately misleading. it turned out to be wrong, but it was not deliberately misleading. >> on that, we're going to take a break. we'll see you all a little later. i don't think we're going to solve t

the hunt for bin laden went to the highest levels but what we don't was att is if the cia the merits of this policy. >> the program has been stopped. public opinion might change in pakistan or has the damage just been done. >> the damage has been done not but sinceogram september 11, 2001. we've had public threats and warnings from american officials. former state department officials has really blown words about pakistan. the us is the latest in a long line of sources of friction. >> something like this is a program that is caused serious problems and stoped antipathy towards america. what is the process within the intelligence agency for reassessing or trying to figure out if they screwed up? my feeling is that the triggering was his very public letter from these academics in these schools. your policies have endangered the lives of workers and immunization workers. world health organization officials are warning that a de facto showing base for travelers carrying the disease overseas. upause we don't know how far the decision to enact the program went, it's not clear how high up t

. >> was written by the cia based upon their best current intelligence. - >> you didn't answer my question -- >> no -- >> i asked you -- >> not true. [ overlapping speakers ] >> my fact is -- >> the state department -- >> the cia. >> lanny -- >> are you going to -- >> president -- >> answer the question -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> answer -- >> i ask the questions and you answer them. >> i can rebut it. >> the day after beth jones said sharia was responsible to the attack to the president, how did that evolve into an entirely different story and as it relates to langly, why didn't they listen to the station chiefs on the ground? >> the answer that the cia said is that we made a misjudgment -- >> judgment. >> based upon current intelligence. i ask you to answer my question -- >> when you get a show, i'll answer your question. >> you won't answer the question until you know the truth, sean. >> i can answer the question. it's simple. on the evening of september 11th, hillary clinton put out a statement, which in part blamed the video, when you fast forward

we're investigating it. >> do you need a copy of the cia talking points? the only thing in that e-mail that refers to benghazi is a cut and paste from the talking points which many to your disappointment and your boss' disappointment turned out to be produced by the cia. >> beyond that attack, carney's point is rhodes' e-mail was based on nan partisan analysis and thus was not an effort to shield the president from fallout over a terror attack in the 2012 election. while the rhodes' e-mail prepping rice for the sunday shows stress she was not talking politics, the memo downplayed talk of terror and advised rice in the preelection tv appearances to focus on the anti-muslim video and tell viewers, quote, people have come to trust that president obama provides leader shap that is statesman like and steady. >> if it's not about benghazi, why opportune it over in a benghazi suit? >> you'd have ask the state department. >> the state department is run by secretary john kerry and is not a rogue agency. officials were responding to a lawsuit from the conservative gr

clearly than ever before that these were most likely not suicides, but rather homicides and are tied to the cia >> we'll look at one of the great mysteries of guantÁnamo human rights attorney scott horton and also speak about the obama administration's decision to finally release the secret memo outlining when the u.s. can assassinate a u.s. citizen. then as the tea party suffers setbacks and midterms, we will take a look at the most influential republican political operatives, the koch brothers. >> their the poster boys for the top 1%. their money and power fuels the inequality in america. >> the name koch has become a four letter word. day in and day out, their purchasing politicians and policy. it is taking a terrible toll on democracy. >> we will speak to the film's director robert greenwald will stop republicans tried to block a capitol hill screening of the documentary this week. then daniel schulman, author of the new book, "sons of wichita: how the koch brothers became america's most powerful and private dynasty." all of that and more coming up .ill stop this is democracy now!, democrac

what the cia said was spontaneous demonstration. specifically that the video story did not have anything to do with the cia. we did not provide that information. hillary clinton said that, said that on the evening of september 11th before there was ever any mention -- >> you're not the host. get over it. >> she said that. >> i have a question. excuse me, gentlemen. i have a question for steve. as it relates to point about it being a spontaneous demonstration -- >> that was wrong. >> i'm asking a question. i know you're obsessed with the clintons and you can't control yourself. calm down. >> i think you're obsessed with interrupting. >> you can't handle the truth. you're afraid this is going to effect her presidential run. >> i'm not going to allow you to talk over me. >> did you ever hear of a case of spontaneous demonstration where rpgs are in the back pocket and they happen to fire them and we don't send anybody in to help? >> that's not the case. there was some preplanning and some organization to those attacks. by the end of the

valerie plame left the cia. is going to be put out into past tur into management. >> reporter: no comment from the government about the status of the station chief, whether he's being recalled or reassigned. the administration has sent the message on and off the record that concerns for this official's safety are getting the highest priority. it treated as a serious mistake. wolf? >> joe, thanks very much. valerie plame, the former cia officer, the author of "blow back" here in the situation rwih us now. when you heard the name of the cia station chief was disclosed, what went through your mind? >> well, it was colossally stupid, of course, what an error of huge proportions with tremendous consequences. but no way is it equivalent to what happened to me. >> why is that? >> it's a false equivalency put out there. it all comes down to intent. what happened with me, my name was intended to be leaked in retaliation against my husband, who was a fierce critic of the bush administration and the iraq war. >> when richa

>> the cia drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points. the fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this but the only edits were non-substantive. the cia made edits to the talking points and produced the talking points. >> just a lie, a provable lie. 100% not true and there's now an arsenal of smoking guns to prove it. there's more. he perpetuated the lie that a youtube video was to blame. this wasn't true also. >> this is a fairly volatile situation and in response not to united states policy, not to, obviously, administration, not to the american people. it was in response to a video. we find the video that has been so offensive to muslims to be disgusting and reprehensible. reaction to the video was the precipitating factor in protests and violence across the region. >> remember baghdad bob? he'd be proud. time magazine's former time reporter tried to rewrite history when he said this. >> were we trying to play down the fact it was an act of terror? again, a hollow claim when the president himself called it an act

and the question had always been, had this come from lower downs? had this come from cia? what's important here is that it says, and he's telling her what the goal of her appearance is to be, to underscore that these protests are rooted in an internet video and not a broader failure of policy. the only explanation of the white house, and this is what carney had been pushing for a week, is that this had nothing to do with benghazi. this had to do with all the other demonstrations. that is a preposterous proposition. the reason susan rice was on the show, the reason she got the prepping, the reason she had to be told "our goals" was because of the benghazi deaths. it was not because anybody would have cared about the cairo demonstrations. when he says "the protests" gives the implication is that every protest around the world, but not the benghazi one? of course he was including the benghazi one. there wasn't a protest, there wasn't a demonstration, the video was irrelevant. this was a way to tell her to tell the nation a story about a video that would, in essence, politicall

but the fact is this is a deadly war. so this is even worse than some cia agent being outd in a random situation. afghanistan is a deadly war and now everybody knows who he is and the real point it's not just the media. it's the tal i want -- taliban who know he is. >> the safety of him and his family. his career. if you are a pitcher for a major league baseball team, this is like shattering that arm because then you are not going to be able to do that same job anymore. you might still work in baseball but in a different capacity. >> or give the other team the signals by accident and they could read your signals. administration's can make mses but this administration makes mistake, after mistake. oops, we didn't know about benghazi, fast and furious, oops we accidentally outed one of our cia station chiefs. you man up. there's some other news -- >> we just found out before we went to air would be that the white house chief of staff has said there will be an internal review and some recommendations he expects -- >> so many internal reviews. >> they have a sp

here's a statement from the cia. ate that the assertion that cia arranged for the defection of ali reza asgari to the united states is false. that is from the cia. >> they're not denying other u.s. agencies, intelligence agencies had a hand in the defection. he went through turkey apparently. that's where he defected, and later brought to the united states. are they saying that the fbi, the other intelligence agencies had no role in bringing this guy to the united states? or are they just saying the cia? >> they're saying the cia had nothing to do with it. i pressed them on if other agencies have done this. i haven't gotten an answer yet. i'm working with them throughout the day to get some of these answers to these questions. they're saying right now that they had no role in this. >> we'll speak to the author of this book. we'll speak to others, including a lawyer representing families later in "the situation room." so we'll go in-depth on this story later today. lots of families potentially going to be very, very up

were prepared by the cia. and in this case, overall issue of unrest in the muslim world. >> so then, why did the white house hold back this e-mail, a document that was originally classified before being released to congress, but in retkapbgted form, to protect the author and recipients if there were always two sets of talking points, why was it released at all, if it did not pertain to benghazi because that was the specific request by the frie freedom of information asserted by. >> you dishial watch, jay -- judicial watch, jay carney was asked and would not answer. >> why were you holding back this information, why was it not turned over to congress, this is relevant, why did you hold it back. >> john, again. >> why did it take a court case to release this. >> john, i can say again and again, i know, you can keep asking, this document was not about benghazi. >> it was prep if sunday show. >> it was not her only prep, john, she relied on her for her answers on benghazi on document repaired by the cia. as did mem

-- they used some of the cia talking points, cia said they did not. so clearly you have to take one or the other. i'm going to rely on what the cia said about it. so that talking point did not get in there from the cia more than likely. second, the information you have now is sthe commander of afrr i con saying they could have gotten there, they're not sure. they should have tried. but the one thing that strikes me is both president obama and hillary clinton met the families of the four at the air force base and still at that point, which was after susan rice if i'm not mistaken brought up the issue about the video, this gets back to greg gut feld's age-old question, there is yet to be a single bit of information that where the video came from and who put it into the process. >> we haven't gotten more on that. one of the questions i asked today was, why if i went back and checked the record on 9/12, the day after the terror attack, jay carney himself was asked about -- i want to be clear, the specific question i'm losing. who was behind this or who ins

. >> ed, do you need a copy of the cia. >> you can read them out. ned, the only thing that refers to benghazi is cut and paste to the talking points much to your disappointment turned out to be from the cia. what was not accurate was addressed by folks in the cia and folks elsewhere. it is a human enterproiz analysis and gathering. and those men and women who serve in the intelligence community do so in service of their nation and do the best job they can every day. what they prous was what they thought was, what they thought they anyhow in a difficult and murky situation. >> kathryn harris has the latest. >> reporter: the testimony of the retired officer laud bear the facts that the senior military intelligence office knew it was a direct assault and not a protest to a video. >> it was early on in the evening. before throw:15 in the morning? >> yes, absolutely. absolutely. we dismissed that notion by then by working with other sources. >> reporter: two hours later a mortar attack killed navy soles glenn and tyroen. they waited for the okay from the

director at the time informed the white house before susan rice went on the cia station chief on the ground descented from the protesting. there is a document, there is one other document that we do not have or a series of documents that we do not have that can get answers for this, which is let's get the presidential daily briefs for that week after the benghazi attack. president bush after 9/11 showed the cia warned ben laden was planning to attack america. why doesn't to release the brief that will tell us exactly what the intelligence community told him about the pro -- whether there was a protest, how high a level of conference they had in that and whether there were descenting views and when they told him that. >> as for the spin that's in this document where the white house is telling people it's all about the video, the white house today seems to be saying i'm telling you even though there are references to benghazi, that was guidance about the protest in general in the middle east despite the fact it was about susan rice's appearance on five sunday talk

and the white house accidently outs the cia chief in afghanistan. is his life now at risk? >>> and deadline day for donald sterling as the nba demands that he ends the ownership for his team as his wife already found a buyer for the clippers. i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." 12 1/2 years after the united states went to war in afghanistan, president obama has announced a new plan to end america's military involvement but that plan calls for thousands of u.s. troops to remain in a hostile environment beyond this year. it will require the cooperation of afghan leaders and it's certain that the taliban and al qaeda will not be cooperating. cnn's barbara starr is standing by. i'll speak with the national security adviser. first, let's go to jim acosta. jim? >> wolf, for months the white house has not specifically said how many troops will be in afghanistan after 2014 but today the president put his plan on the table. declaring the combat mission in afghanistan over by the end of the year, president obama laid out the final chapter for the nation's longest war. >>

the question had been had this from cia? what's important is that it sayr he's telling her what the goal e of herll appearance is to be to undiscre undiscredit the int vit video not a broader failure of policye the only explanation of the white house this is what carney had been pushing for a week is w this had nothing to do with benghazi it had everything to ds with demonstrations. the reason susan rice was on the show the reason she got to prep itit she had to be told is becae of the benghazi death. when he says the protest is thes implication of the. white house that what he was talking about is every protest around the ti worldon cairo, sri lanka but no the benghazi one. of course he was including the benghazi one. there wasn't a protest or demonstration. the video was irrelevant.t. this was a way to tell her to tell the nation a story about a video that would exonerate the t president sixe weeks before an election. >> this stirred it all up again. >> stirred it all up again. i think it did give the story a new set ofive

the cia chief testifying last month that was not the case about the video. but clearly the talking points indicated that the video was involved. there's some conflict here obviously in how the administration was discussing all of this. i think there are -- the question is still do we know everything we need to know. and the broader debate, andrea, there will be some who will debate, did the government did everything they could to save four americans killed. bigger debate hillary clinton will face, this is what happens when you invade a country and then decide to have a light footprint afterwards when things go side ways and become chaotic, was the policy wrong to have such a light footprint. that's the stepback question. >> exactly. in fact, the general, the brigadier general from the africa command, they were stationed in germany, italy or germany, didn't have a forward basing. they were hours and hours away. that's one of the takeaways. have we improved security at these consulates and embassies? have they met that obligation since? >> that's an ongoing qu

they show that the white house and not just the cia know acting director mike morel took part in the alteration but the white house, highest levels in the white house altered those talking points to remove references to al-qaeda, to it being a terrorist attack and for the crass political purpose of shielding a presidential campaign. >> many of your former colleagues in the cia where you work, i am curious of how they reacted to the fact they were scrape goated through the whole process and it was their fault and they changed the talking points and they said don't send anyone in and change the security, i have to think that there are people deep in the agency who are utterly frustrated and angry they are blamed for things over which they had no control. could you speak to that and tell me is that an accurate assess am? >> i have been out of the cia for many years, i would expect many good and patriotic people serving there that are frustrated by what happened in libya and in benghazi. i would have to say in in addition to the talking points which the cia participated, think about the

>> barbara starr, thank you so much. >>> earlier, as you know, i spoke to the former head of the cia and the national security agency, general michael hayden, he applauded the obama administration's efforts to get involved in hunt for boko haram but cautioned this could put another target on america's back. >> there's acost, all right? you've got this al qaeda franchise movement from pakistan to west africa. pakistan, afghanistan, those al qaeda guys are committed against the far enemy, you and me. boko haram is not. boko haram is local. and now we're making a choice, i think it's right, but it carries consequences. we are putting an american face on opposition to boko haram. an organization that doesn't target americans yet. we may accelerate that process because of what we've done. again, i think it's right thing to do. but i can see why we had been hesitant to do it up until now. >> can boko haram strike us here in the u.s. or are you concerned about american targets in africa? >> more concerned about american targets in africa, nigeria, in the capital, western targets. they have a

we were told she went off the cia talking points. we know there was a memo that was communications people from the white house. lean on this internet video. this is not a policy issue here. and the press across the board except for here and a few other places just laid down and said okay. that's the story despite everything this general is saying. >> what the general is saying backs up previous reports which is they knew within hours that this was a terrorist attack and not the result of a protest over some obscure video. his question that you raised about why didn't we act, we should have at least tried. that's one of the big jut standing questions here. who gave that standdown order. this gets to doug's point. how did this transpire in ben rhode did not freelance that men owe. it came from -- did not freelance that memo. it came from a higher up. did it come from him? did the president and the secretary of state hillary clinton sign off on this? where were they that night? >> when were they told? when did they learn what general lov

on one hand, you have the cia, the u.s.vernment looking at their strategic objectives of catching bin laden, and on the other hand you have the taliban whose agenda is basically to destroy pakistan, to spread terror in any way they can. and the tragedy is, neither side seems to care at all about the pakistani people who are caught in the middle. so now the u.s. has osama bin laden but the fact is, in the three years after that raid, we have a polio outbreak in pakistan and extremist groups have been able to increase the number of attacks. the casualties -- pakistan is now the number one country in the number of terrorist attacks anywhere in the world, more than iraq and afghanistan. the question becomes, for americans, what has the war on terror really accomplished? not only do you have these extremist groups able to expand their areas of operation, but now you have a huge public health crisis in pakistan. i think dr. zulfiqar bhutta gave a really great insight on how pakistan does not have the resources to contain both of

because that was not in anything that the cia had produced. he said the video caught him by surprise. now, it's strange as we watched a lot of reporters today ask these questions to jay carney. abc, cbs, the new york times, pressing him on this for many, many months. jay carney has said they didn't have any guidance. one more thing. this e-mail was classified at first. it was classified, so it didn't go up to the hill originally. then it was declassified and put up there redacted, so they couldn't see who sent it and who received it. the judicial watch request was for benghazi e-mails or documents. nothing else. and the judge ordered that they had to comply. this is an e-mail that came out and jay carney says it is not a benghazi e-mail. >> this is what i believe is a smoking gun. do you think it's a smoking gun? do you think jay carney's explanation was plausible? >> i don't know if it's a smoking gun. i'll let that be for others to decide. it's clear when you look at the narrative by multiple obama administration officials they were all readi

some of those customers are the ones you'd expect like the cia and department of defense fence, but othersre the department of agriculture and department of conquer -- commerce. clear, ample, mountains of evidence that the nsa engages in exactly the kind of economic spying they have vehemently denied the american people think h in. >> ones like presented by the nsa and gchq show targets include petrobras, the russian oil company gas prone, and the russian airline. it says in 2009,, shannon wrote a letter to keith alexander offering his gratitude and congratulations for the outstanding signals intelligence support that the state department received regarding the fifth summit of the americas . he wrote, the nsa gave us deep insight into the plans and intentions of the other summit participants. shannon went on to name cuba and venezuela government -- the cuba and the venezuelan president hugo chavez. >> this is a fascinating story because this is part of what we had to report on in result. amazing thing about the summit was the summit was actually spearheaded by then president of brazil who

he said the cia was trying to do in making some of its own disclosures. why would morell making changes to the talking point that differ with his then boss, why isn't the head of the cia doing this? why is the deputy director able to overrule him? why is the white house working with him on this effort to massively overhaul those talking points? i think there are a lot of unexplained things that we still need to know answers to. >> we both live in washington. if there are four unsolved murders in georgetown right now from september 11th, 2012 it would still be front page news at the washington post and other places. >> yeah, i think. >> this is not front page news. >> i would say regardless of the spin from the opinion blogs that get picked up and they're trying to counter this story because their surrogates are representing those they feel are being accused, despite that spin, a neutral look at this story will look at it as a very important story in history. when it's looked back upon and the journalist -- those of us that didn't cover it as aggressively a

to hell he'd been there many times before, but now the law does say the only way to cuba is with the ciaam worthy isn't worthy to enter our door went down to cuba, he's not american anymore but somehow it is strange to hear the state department say you are living in the free world, in the free world you must stay five thousand dollars or a five year sentence may well be for a man who had the nerve to think that travelin' is free oh why'd he waste his time to see a dictator's reign when he could have seen democracy by travelin' on to spain? william worthy isn't worthy to enter our door went down to cuba, he's not american anymore but somehow it is strange to hear the state department say you are living in the free world, in the free world you must stay so, come all you good travelers and fellow-travelers, too yes, and travel all around the world, see every country through i'd surely like to come along and see what may be new but my passport's disappearing as i sing these words to you well, there really is no need to travel to these evil lands yes, and though the list grows larger you must

and that is the 1953 cia sponsored overthrow of the mose a -- government in iran, the capitol of tehran. this is public information. the iranians never forgot about that. the seize your of the embassy was one of the consequences them support of the shah turns into the ayatollah. so there are many streams like that one has to put together to understand 9/11 in the political manner that you ask about. yes. >> host: professor miller, would you define the 1953 overthrow in iraq of a state sponsored terrorist act? >> guest: yes, i would, indeed. i have trouble with state are sponsored, also, i might add, because finding the difference between what a state sponsors and what a state actually does is a fine line in some cases. there are instances where it's quite clear. we use the term with regard to libya for years. but in terms of the operation here, the british and the americans were directly involved in a long campaign -- by the way, this might be a footnote to your question -- i found out -- again, i'm not revealing any secrets here -- that the ayatollah khomeini was on the payroll of the

talking about four americans being murdered, the government, the president, the state department, the cia, the national security council have an obligation to tell the truth. and they have not done this to this time. >> i think it is hard to boycott something where four americans have died, you have an ambassador killed asked for more backup and support. even moving forward, how do we prevent this from happening in the future? i think it's going to be tougher for democrats. >> hard to do. though george's point about it being transparent as a matter of raw politics is true. to that point, one of the things that democrats and many others are concerned about is the notion this will be a transparently political exercise. and it will run on forever. so is there a way in which the select committee's duration could be limited so that you wouldn't be looking at the potential of an ongoing investigation that would go out all the way through the end of the 2016 campaign and

the cia. now we see a document that comes from the white house not the cia attributing the protest to the video. >> the fact that there were protests around the region, threatening our embassies, it was entirely appropriate to have question and answer document prepared for the video it was based on what we knew at the time. >> why were you holding back this information? why was the email not turned over to the congress? why was it not released when you released all the other emalsz? this is directly relevant? why did you hold it back? >> this document was not about benghazi. >> it was a prep for sunday shows. >> it wasn't her only prep, john. >> you said at the podium last year that the white house and the state department only changed one word. we now know, obviously we know for some time that is not true. can you correct the record on that. >> when it comes to correcting records, you know, we can get into that. i am happy to recite and for as long as you like. >> okay. we just saw it but wha