The CIA’s Five Lies

As a number of you have pointed out, the House Intelligence Committee have revealed preliminary results of its investigations into the CIA’s lies and found–wait for it–the CIA lies.

In a hearing of the House Intelligence committee this afternoon, Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jan Schakowsky, both Democrats, pointed to at least five instances going back to at least 2001 in which the C.I.A. withheld information from or lied to Congress.

Those five lies are:

  1. Lies about torture (to Pelosi)
  2. The assassination program that started this probe
  3. The Peruvian plane shoot-down that got Crazy Pete Hoekstra on board
  4. The destruction of the torture tapes
  5. ???

So, first of all, I’m wondering where number 5 is–I’ll follow up tomorrow on that. Was this hearing designed to let CIA know that HPSCI was going to reveal number 5, or did they do so today?

But I’m interested in the inclusion of the torture tape destruction. Is HPSCI asserting that CIA lied about the desruction of the tapes … which would imply that the Committee asked about it in the first place? (I’ll remind you that when the tapes were destroyed, Jane Harman was still on the committee making a stink about the CIA’s other lies about torture)? Or is the Committee just including the torture tape destruction as one misrepresentation among others?

Update: Here’s how The Hill describes it (and they, too, list just four lies).

In addition, the CIA may have failed to properly notify Congress about the 2005 destruction of videotapes recording the interrogation of al Qaeda operatives by intelligence officials, Eshoo and Schakowsky said.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

46 Responses to The CIA’s Five Lies

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @barrettmarson It was nasty all the time.
39mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @barrettmarson @troyhaydenfox10 I miss the old CB-6. That was fun.
41mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Gonna be a lot of this for a very long time https://t.co/4OpGOjTg3t
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ryanlcooper Cable is going to be fantastic. All Trump, all the time. You'll love it!
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @imillhiser Same, and I am not convinced that Cruz wouldn't be worse in many ways. Not convinced Trump is better either.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @sahilkapur And disputing that its an acceptable justification for the difference in way Clinton/press acted then and way she is acting now.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @sahilkapur No, just disputing that the relative difference is of any current materiality as to whether Sanders stays in race.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @sahilkapur And the fact that relative delegate counts were a little different doesn't ratify the propriety of the situation; condemns it
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @sahilkapur Bullshit. The entire weight of the DLC/DNC and press lackeys were not oriented cravenly against Clinton then as are Sanders now.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @sahilkapur I think the statement speaks for itself.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @sahilkapur Dewey beats Truman! Let the people vote.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @sahilkapur And it is hilarious, if not flat out ridiculous that the press holds Sanders to a relative standard they didn't Clinton in 2008
2hreplyretweetfavorite
October 2009
S M T W T F S
« Sep   Nov »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031