Re-Thinking A CREW Apology

Regarding the CREW issue from yesterday. Many from the Left expressed their opinion that an apology was in order. After having reviewed the coverage and given it some thought, I've come to agree with them.

The watchdog group that first provided the FBI with suspicious e-mails from then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) said yesterday that FBI and Justice Department officials are attempting to cover up their inaction in the case by making false claims about the group.

Turns out there was no cover up after all. See pdf in this article for full report.

If CREW wishes to be taken seriously as a non-partisan government watchdog organization, I feel it's important that they shouldn't make unfounded knee-jerk accusations that undermine government institutions, though pointing out flaws in them is certainly a public service. The FBI could have communicated better in the Foley matter.

However that doesn't excuse CREW's irresponsible accusation. Hopefully CREW will have the courtesy, maturity and sense of mission to own up to their mistake.

CREW should promptly apologize to the FBI instead of gloating as if they'd won something.

I'll wait.

Comments

[dave™©]

Shorter moronic brownshirt Riehl: "Lalalalalalalalala I got my fingers in my ears and I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Pathetic. Typical.

[dave™©]

From Page 19 of the OIG report:

"We found that the statements attributed to the FBI and the Department about CREW and the Foley e-mails were not accurate. First, we found that the redactions in the e-mails, which the FBI learned soon after receiving the e-mails from CREW were in place when CREW had received copies of the e-mails, were not significant redactions. The only redactions on the e-mails appeared to be the name or e-mail address of the person or persons to whom someone had forwarded the e-mails. However,
no language in the body of the e-mails was redacted. Significantly, the e-mails still contained the full names of the pages and the House employee to whom the e-mails were sent. Moreover, as we described above, the redactions in the e-mail did not factor into the FBI’s decision to decline to
investigate the matter.

Second, we found that the FBI did not seek any additional information from CREW, other than the one follow-up phone call the Public Corruption Squad Special Agent made to Sloan after initially receiving the e-mails. The Special Agent told the OIG that, although she is not sure, she may have asked Sloan during that call to reveal who provided the e-mails to Sloan and that Sloan declined. The Special Agent remembered that she asked Sloan other questions which Sloan answered,
including whether the e-mails were from Foley, whether Sloan knew anything about the redactions, and whether Sloan knew anything about the House employee whose name was in the e-mails. However, Sloan said the Special Agent never asked her at any time to reveal the source of the e-mails. Sloan told the OIG that the only question the Special Agent asked during this phone call was whether the
e-mails were from Congressman Foley, to which Sloan said yes.

Third, the e-mails were provided to CREW in July 2006, not April, and CREW sent them to the FBI within days of receiving them. The OIG was unable to determine from the interviews it conducted
who was responsible for making these inaccurate statements to the media. The three FBI media representatives we interviewed said they do not recall making any of these statements to any reporter. However, we determined that two of the three media representatives mistakenly believed, probably based on incorrect information from the Public Corruption Special Agent, that the FBI had sought additional information from CREW and that CREW refused to provide it. This mistaken belief also was likely passed to other FBI spokespersons and Department spokespersons who discussed
the Foley e-mails with the media. Thus, we believe these misunderstandings may have contributed to inaccurate information being provided to the media.

In addition, it appears that a misreading of the draft chronology of events prepared by WFO contributed to the inaccurate perception that the FBI requested additional information from CREW and CREW refused to provide it. The draft chronology stated that the Special Agent who spoke
with Sloan had a “vague recollection of asking Ms. Sloan who she got the emails from and Ms. Sloan did not want to reveal her source.” The draft chronology also stated that the Cyber Crimes Squad SSA decided the investigation was not warranted “especially in light of the fact Ms. Sloan,
CREW, refused to provide the identity of her source.” Whether or not Sloan declined to reveal the source who gave her the e-mails, the e-mails CREW provided contained the identity both of the former page who received the e-mails and two other potential witnesses. Further, we determined that this issue was not a factor in the FBI’s decision to decline to investigate the matter, notwithstanding the suggestion in the draft chronology.

Finally, several news stories reported the inaccurate statement that CREW had the e-mails since April. We do not know who may have supplied the media with this inaccurate information. In sum, the OIG concluded that the information provided by the FBI and the Department inaccurately portrayed the information that CREW provided to the FBI, and inaccurately suggested that CREW’s actions were
the cause of the FBI’s decision not to investigate the e-mails. We believe that the inaccuracies were caused by a misinterpretation of the description of events that was disseminated within the FBI and the Department, both verbally and through the written draft chronology of events, regarding the
FBI’s actions in response to the e-mails it received in July."

End. Of. Story.

[agave]

"Regarding the misstatements to the media regarding the information CREW provided to the FBI, the IG found that “statements attributed to the FBI and the Department about CREW and the Foley e-mails were not accurate.” First, the IG found that contrary to the FBI’s claims, the emails CREW forwarded were not redacted by CREW and that the “emails still contained the full names of the pages and the House employee to whom the emails were sent.” Further, the IG found that despite statements to the contrary, the FBI “did not seek additional information from CREW,” other than one follow-up phone call. Finally, the IG found that the emails were provided to CREW in July 2006, not April as an unnamed FBI source had claimed. "

And you say; "The FBI could have communicated better in the Foley matter."

They LIED!
And CREW told the truth.

Amazing!

.

[scarshapedstar]

This isn't the apology you're looking for.

You can pass.

[Carl]

Funny how there is no mention of current events - the Iraq clusterfuck worsening and Bush being at 28% - NIXON LEVEL - in the polls. Oh, and wait until Libby starts talking, you rightwing asshats are going even lower!

[Purple Avenger]

"and wait until Libby starts talking"

[yawn]

[Crust]

Re [yawn]:

See e.g. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002395.php. The Libby trial is turning out to be a lot more interesting than I for one expected.