ED HENRY: If the email was not about Benghazi as you said yesterday, and say again today, why did the White House turn it over to the conservative group seeking information about Benghazi?
JAY CARNEY: You would have to ask the State Department about how they respond to FOIA requests. I would again point you to the fact that, all you have to do is read it, Ed. Alright? Top line points, goals, that kind of stuff. The only mention of Benghazi in the email is a question about: What's your response to a story by The Independent newspaper in the UK that says we had intelligence 48 hours in advance of the attack, it was ignored. Not aware of any actionable intelligence was the answer. And then, what does it do? It cuts and pastes the same line from the CIA talking points that, again, was what Ambaassador Rice used.
ED HENRY: If its not about Benghazi, why turn it over in a Benghazi suit?
JAY CARNEY: You would have to ask the State Department about their process for responding to FOIA requests. Again, you can just read it, and decide for yourself. As many people have now said and written, like this is a conspiracy theory. Part of a conspiracy.
ED HENRY: A group comes in and says, "we want Benghazi documents." The administration says this is not a Benghazi document, so we're not turning it over, right?
CARNEY: Again, I don't, this is a State department FOIA request response. But again, whether it was released Monday, or a week ago Monday, or whatever, it doesn't change the fundamental facts about the so-called talking points, which despite efforts by your news organization and others, have been proven not to be a conspiracy. Mike Morell, deputy director of the CIA, at the CIA for decades under administrations of both parties said that he felt no political influence when he was directing the compostion of those points,