State Dept. Press Briefing Video Had Tough Fox News Questioning Excised, Streisand Effect Takes Over

from the hmmm dept

We have covered all kinds of Streisand Effect type stories here at Techdirt, but I don't recall a whole ton of them featuring the actual United States federal government. Typically, those stories mostly deal with individuals and companies trying to keep something hidden and instead mega-upping the interest in that very would-be-hidden thing. This is different, as this story consists of the State Department apparently attempting to disappear some tough questioning by a Fox News employee. And, man, is it stupid.

Some background is in order. Back in 2013, the State Department held regular media briefings on the Iran nuclear deal. During one of those briefings, Fox News' James Rosen pressed then State Dept. spokeswoman Victoria Nuland as to whether the negotiations had begun in 2013, as the administration indicated, or in 2011, as some reports were indicating. The reason why the question is important is because the Obama administration has always portrayed this deal as having coincided with the ouster of former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, considered a hardliner, and the introduction of new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, considered a moderate. If it was found that Obama's State Department was actually negotiating with the hardliner, well, that's a story of public interest. Nuland denied to the press that any such previous negotiations had taken place.

Fast forward to later that same year, where we have another press briefing conducted by new spokeswoman Jen Psaki. Rosen, having continued to hear reports of previous negotiations, recited the previous exchange with Nuland for Psaki and then posed the same question to her. She didn't answer directly, prompting Rosen to then ask if it is the State Department's view that lying to the press to facilitate this kind of foreign affairs negotiation was kosher. Psaki's response was illuminating.

James, I think there are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that. Obviously, we have made clear and laid out a number of details in recent weeks about discussions and about a bilateral channel that fed into the P5+1 negotiations, and we’ve answered questions on it, we’ve confirmed details. We’re happy to continue to do that, but clearly, this was an important component leading up to the agreement that was reached a week ago.

That's as close as it gets to a State Deparment official admitting that, yes, they're happy to lie to the press when it suits them. Now, fast forward again to the present, with a recent profile of Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication, by the New York Times' David Samuels. In his piece, Samuels again accuses the Obama administration of lying to the press and the public about when these negotiations took place, stirring all this up once more. That prompted Rosen and Fox News to go back to the State Department video archives to review the briefing Psaki had conducted.

Rosen's questions and Psaki's answers had been deleted from the video recording. To blame? Well, first the State Department said it was a glitch in the video, one which apparently only removed the exact recording time of a tough question and answer exchange. But shortly after, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs John Kirby admitted the footage was removed deliberately.

A portion of the State Department’s December 2nd, 2013 press briefing was missing from the video that we posted on our YouTube account and on our website. That missing portion covered a series of questions about U.S negotiations with Iran. When alerted to this, I immediately directed the video to be restored in its entirety with a full and complete copy that exists and had existed since the day of the briefing on the Defense Video and Imagery Distribution system website otherwise known as DIVIDS. I also verified that the full transcript of the briefing which we also post on our website was intact and had been so since the date of the briefing. I asked the office of the legal advisor to look at this including a look at any rules that we had in place. In so doing, they learned that a specific request was made to excise that portion of the briefing. We do not know who made the request to edit the video or why it was made. To my surprise, the Bureau of Public Affairs did not have in place any rules governing this type of action therefore we are taking immediate steps to craft appropriate protocols on this issue as we believe that deliberately removing a portion of the video was not and is not in keeping with the State Department’s commitment to transparency and public accountability. Specifically, we are going to make clear that all video and transcripts from daily press briefings will be immediately and permanently archived in their entirety. In the unlikely event, that narrow compelling circumstances require edits to be made such as the inadvertent release of privacy protected information, they will only be made with the expressed permission of the Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs and with an appropriate level of annotation and disclosure. I have communicated this new policy to my staff and it takes effect immediately.

Laudible aims, but the damage has been done. In predictable fashion, the original exchange that was supposed to be buried is now not only unearthed but is making headlines once again, three years after it originally occurred. All because someone in the State Department wanted it covered up. And that someone will likely not be found, as the State Department appears to be uninterested in investigating this any further.

It's exactly the wrong thing to do. First, nothing is gained by the attempted coverup. In fact, the story is more widely known now than it would have been otherwise. And now we can add a dash of intrigue to this mix, by adding the story of the video edit on top of it. For a subsection of the population, this will confirm their paranoia and mistrust. And, looking at this story, it's tough to blame them.

But, thanks to the Streisand Effect, at least we know that the State Department is perfectly happy to lie to the press to achieve its goals, and then attempt to cover it up. I wonder if there are any current politicians running for office that this might reflect poorly on?

Filed Under: iran, james rosen, jen psaki, nuclear deal, state department, tough questions, transparency, victoria nulan, video editing


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Yes, I know I'm commenting anonymously, 3 Jun 2016 @ 3:58am

    The governement lies to the press.
    This also makes it more likely again that gag-orders will force the re-publication of warrant-canaries.
    (As in the `compelled speech' threshhold is closer to be broken).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2016 @ 4:05am

    Sleeping Dogs

    So the US lied, lied about lying, censored the video to have that lie, lied about censoring the video, then lied about not knowing anything about how all the lying happened.

    The Obama Administration is quite clearly "the most transparent administration in history."

    Transparently deceitful.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2016 @ 4:07am

      Re: Sleeping Dogs

      Obama and his heir apparent Hillary are two of the most lying government officials we have probably ever had. If they tell you it is raining, you better look outside because there is a good chance you will need the sunscreen.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 4:13am

        Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

        "Obama and his heir apparent Hillary are two of the most lying government officials we have probably ever had."

        So, if that's the biggest problem why is a prime bullshit artist going to be the nominee on the other side?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          AJ, 3 Jun 2016 @ 4:21am

          Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

          No one said the "other side" was any better. Your choices are coward-liar-criminal, or complete bullshit-artist-circus clown. Go freedom!!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 4:33am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

            "No one said the "other side" was any better"

            Just checking. If they're going to attack Obama and Clinton for something, it might be useful to have another option that's not guilty of the same or worse. (Given the tone of the comments I was responding to, I'll guess they're not interested in Sanders).

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2016 @ 4:55am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

              This is what always amazes me about the left. Anyone says anything about "their guy", even if it is true, and they attack the "other guy". This article is about the current administration and their tactics so my response was about the same. Why excuse their actions? I certainly don't excuse the actions of "my party". I guess it is a way to divert attention from the issue at hand.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 5:11am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                "This is what always amazes me about the left."

                It's a shame some people have to label everything with simplistic notions. Everything has to be left or right, and then attack the "other". No need for nuance and shading, so long as you can defend a "team", right?

                "Why excuse their actions?"

                Where did I do that?

                "I certainly don't excuse the actions of "my party"."

                But, your party (assuming you're a Republican) is nominating someone just as guilty at the things you're attacking the current administration for. He just hasn't had the chance to do them in a government role yet. You might want to consider that while attacking "the left" (where neither Obama or Clinton reside, one a global scale at least).

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2016 @ 5:19am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                  If they're going to attack Obama and Clinton for something, it might be useful to have another option that's not guilty of the same or worse.

                  You excuse their actions by stating that the other side is as bad or worse. Nobody said anything about the other side, the article and my comment was about the current administration. So why divert attention from the current subject?

                  I don't defend the Republicans. I hate them for the Patriot Act among other things. But I am not blindly loyal as you appear to be.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 5:44am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                    "You excuse their actions by stating that the other side is as bad or worse"

                    No, I note that you're making a one-sided attack. That's "this happens everywhere and you shouldn't be a hypocrite for attacking only one "side"" not "look a squirrel!".

                    "So why divert attention from the current subject?"

                    The subject is behaviour that both "sides" have participated in. If you attack one "side" with criticism, it's noteworthy when the other "side" is guilty of the same things. Glass houses, etc.

                    "I don't defend the Republicans. I hate them for the Patriot Act among other things."

                    Interesting that your hatred doesn't extend to supporting a party or candidate that doesn't deal in the things you dislike. I don't believe your country's politics will change for the better while you've convinced yourselves that there's only binary options for everything. you support people you hate just because you dislike the other team more. Sad.

                    "But I am not blindly loyal as you appear to be."

                    I'm not even American, my loyalties do not lie anywhere. I just note the sad comedy inherent within the team-based sport that American politics has become.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2016 @ 5:47am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                      No, I note that you're making a one-sided attack.

                      Apparently you just don't get it. The article was about the current administration removing video footage and getting caught. I commented on their dishonesty. But you and the other guy can't handle criticism of that party so you attack the other party. This is why we keep getting people like Obama and Hillary in office! Can you not stay on topic? There are plenty of other articles here where you can get your shots at the other party and you would be on topic.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 6:14am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                        "The article was about the current administration removing video footage and getting caught. I commented on their dishonesty."

                        ...and I commented on the fact that the other major party is also full of liars. For some reason you have taken great exception to that.

                        If the subject is murder and you attack Jeffrey Dahmer, it's not off topic to note that you support John Wayne Gacy.

                        "But you and the other guy can't handle criticism of that party so you attack the other party."

                        Once again, I support nobody, I'm not even in your country. I can handle criticism of anyone in your political system, I just prefer it to be even handed. It's possible to criticise both sides without picking a team.

                        "This is why we keep getting people like Obama and Hillary in office!"

                        I'd rather them than Trump or Bush for a multitude of reasons. I'd prefer more it if you didn't have a binary choice between "pretty bad" and "utterly horrific", but there you go. I don't have a vote there, so I have to watch from the sidelines and hope that you make what I consider to be the best choice, as I will be affected by whoever you choose. I wish you would consider more options than the team sport you've created, but there you go.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2016 @ 6:21am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                          and I commented on the fact that the other major party is also full of liars. For some reason you have taken great exception to that.

                          No, I don't take exception to it. Frankly anyone who wants to be President is probably not somebody you want to be President. What I do take exception to is that nobody can talk about O or H without the defenders coming out of the woodwork to trash the other side. Can you not admit that "your guy" is a liar? Its a diversionary tactic used by the left all the time. Hey look over there, never mind what is over here! Can we not discuss the party in power just one time w/o somebody yelling squirrel?

                          I hate we have a binary choice too but it is what we are stuck with for the moment. The 3rd parties are not much better and a vote for them is a vote for the loser so we have to pick the least worst of the 2 choices we have. Frankly the Dems don't stand for anything I do so I am left with little choice but to vote Repbub.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            PaulT (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 7:06am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                            "What I do take exception to is that nobody can talk about O or H without the defenders coming out of the woodwork to trash the other side"

                            Noting the truth is now trashing someone. OK.

                            "Can you not admit that "your guy" is a liar?"

                            Once again, numbnuts, I have no "guy".

                            "The 3rd parties are not much better and a vote for them is a vote for the loser so we have to pick the least worst of the 2 choices we have."

                            That is why your political system is doomed to failure. You'll vote for Pol Pot because, hey, at least he's not that Satan guy on the other team! But don't you dare point out the Khmer Rouge while discussing hell's atrocities...

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2016 @ 6:23am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                          as I will be affected by whoever you choose.

                          Why don't you vote for somebody who will stand up to the US?

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            PaulT (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 6:57am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                            Yeah, the US has such a sterling record at dealing with those who stand up to them...

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2016 @ 7:04am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                              Wasn't it you that said:

                              If they're going to attack Obama and Clinton for something, it might be useful to have another option

                              So you speak ill of the US and it's political system while you are unable to get your country to stand up to the US?

                              Didn't you also say:

                              Glass houses, etc.

                              Now see why it is better to stay on topic?

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                PaulT (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 7:15am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                                "Wasn't it you that said:"

                                You missed out a few words in your quote there, very selective of you. It's clear what I was saying, which is that criticising one side while the other side does the same is pretty hypocritical. But there's the problem with politics as a sports game when people decide they have to pick a team and stick with them.

                                "So you speak ill of the US and it's political system while you are unable to get your country to stand up to the US?"

                                I don't know what you're blathering on about here. I vote in the way I see fit but I can't magically change the way either country I vote in does things overnight. At least I don't fool myself into thinking I have to vote for someone despicable because I'm sacred of the other team, my politics are rather more nuanced than that.

                                But, I can also have an opinion of your system, even if that opinion is "what a bunch of assholes". I can say that while also accepting that there's assholes on my side of the pond, who I wish would stop your country from bullying the world. Funny how honesty works, isn't it?

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2016 @ 7:23am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                                  It's clear what I was saying, which is that criticising one side while the other side does the same is pretty hypocritical...while also accepting that there's assholes on my side of the pond

                                  So what you are saying is your are a hypocrite? You speak ill of the US but now cannot take criticism of your own country? The very same thing you said about me criticizing the current administration, which was the subject of the post.

                                  I don't know what you're blathering on about here. I vote in the way I see fit but I can't magically change the way either country I vote in does things overnight.

                                  But yet you say we will fail because we can't change things overnight.

                                  At least I don't fool myself into thinking I have to vote for someone despicable because I'm sacred of the other team, my politics are rather more nuanced than that.

                                  So how many choices do you have when voting and just how far apart are those choices on the issues? My politics are more nuanced as well, but I have 2 real choices and I suspect you don't have much more choice. Yet you say we will fail without mentioning that your country will fail as well for the same reason?

                                  Also, when you start with the name calling it shows you are losing. I am only using your own words against you. If that upsets you, then you obviously have a hole in your reasoning that should be addressed rather than resorting to name calling.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    PaulT (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 8:00am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                                    "You speak ill of the US but now cannot take criticism of your own country?"

                                    Oh, so now you're just making shit up. Where did I say anything like that? You've not even named my country, let alone criticised it.

                                    "But yet you say we will fail because we can't change things overnight."

                                    I'm saying you will fail because not only are you not trying to change, you won't even consider a different option to the binary one you've settled on. You think both parties are bad but you'll vote one into power anyway. How does that change anything except for the worse?

                                    But, hey, I'm finishing work now so won't answer for a while. I may respond later, but honestly now that you're literally making things up there's probably no point.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2016 @ 8:19am

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                                      Oh, so now you're just making shit up. Where did I say anything like that? You've not even named my country, let alone criticised it.

                                      Making stuff up? You spoke poorly of the candidates, you say your country won't stand up to the US thus implying we are bullies and you say we are doomed to fail. Those are all clearly your words.

                                      you won't even consider a different option to the binary one you've settled on

                                      You have said as much about yourself:

                                      I vote in the way I see fit but I can't magically change the way either country I vote in does things overnight.

                                      I can't change the 2 party system overnight so do we agree neither of us are magicians?

                                      You've not even named my country, let alone criticised it

                                      Why do I need to name your country, you admit your vote changes little and that they are to weak to stand up to the US. I did criticize it by basically saying their choices are no better than ours and they are weak.

                                      Oh, and cursing is like name calling, it shows you aren't confident in your position. So let me summarize the discussion here:

                                      I make a point about the current administration being dishonest, which goes right along with the blog post. You pipe up and say, yea, well what about those other guys. You say you don't have a guy yet you say you are for Hillary. You say the US will fail due to the political system. So I use your tactic and say oh yea, what about your country. You admit your countries system won't change over night either and that they are to weak to stand up to the US. None of that is relevant to the current blog post but it got you on the defensive which is what you were trying to do to me to distract from the original story. So I repeat, see why you should stay on topic? If you are going to switch topics, then you better not live in a glass house.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        PaulT (profile), 9 Jun 2016 @ 5:59am

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                                        "Making stuff up? You spoke poorly of the candidates, you say your country won't stand up to the US thus implying we are bullies and you say we are doomed to fail. Those are all clearly your words."

                                        OK.

                                        WTF does that have to do with your claim that "(I) cannot take criticism of your own country)"?

                                        "I can't change the 2 party system overnight so do we agree neither of us are magicians?"

                                        Indeed. But, one of us is at least in a position to do something. I just have to watch from a distance as your country does things that directly affect me without me having a say.

                                        "You admit your countries... are to weak to stand up to the US."
                                        No I didn't. Stop lying about the things the person you're talking to is actually saying, then you might learn something.

                                        As for the rest of your rambling - everyone running for president in your country is dishonest. One is worse than the other, but they're both bad. Noting this is not an attack, just a hope that people there will actually change the system so that it's not a choice between someone who will cause havoc across the globe and one whose stated wishes threaten to destroy it.

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        AJ, 3 Jun 2016 @ 6:33am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                        "But you and the other guy can't handle criticism of that party so you attack the other party."

                        Don't drag me into this shit. I was just pointing out that no one said the "other side" was better. That is a statement of fact. You were not claiming one side was superior, you were pointing out the flaws of the side featured on this story.

                        I also pointed out that IMO, neither candidate is worthy of being the president for the reasons I mentioned above.

                        Go Freedom!

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                mcinsand, 3 Jun 2016 @ 5:56am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

                FTFY:

                >>This is what always amazes me about partisans.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Uriel-238 (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 10:28am

                We commonly complain around here about there being no good presidential candidates.

                Especially since FPTP locks it down between the most popular two (DNC and GOP) because Americans are forced to vote defensively against the greater evil, and get only one vote by which to do it. Viable third parties tend to be spoilers for their own party.

                Kennedy was kinda a people's guy, and look what happened to him.

                But we've worked it this way since the 18th century, when robber barons were choosing candidates. Chester A. Arthur got enlightenment in the office, and we can hope for something like that, but not likely.

                The only choices we're being given are people who will toe the oligarchy line while lying to the people. That's what we get. That's all we get.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  The Wanderer (profile), 5 Jun 2016 @ 7:50am

                  Re: We commonly complain around here about there being no good presidential candidates.

                  As you implicitly note in passing, the only way out of this bind is to eliminate first-past-the-post single-choice voting.

                  And I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the only way the better option (ranked-choice/ranked-preference voting) will ever get implemented, at least in the U. S. of A., is if it's done from the bottom up - in towns and municipalities, then in counties, then in states, then for federal elections one state at a time, and finally on a nationwide level (if only for the electoral college, if that even still exists by the time we get that far).

                  I'm moving towards activism in that direction myself, for my own area; if you get a chance to push for it in your own local government, you never know what bit of advocacy might make the difference.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mason Wheeler (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 7:15am

          Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

          Because he's not a government official. Apparently that makes it better somehow.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Wendy Cockcroft, 6 Jun 2016 @ 5:43am

          Re: Re: Re: Sleeping Dogs

          So, if that's the biggest problem why is a prime bullshit artist going to be the nominee on the other side?

          Because, for many people, he's "our" B.S. artist. They project their hopes and dreams onto Trump in the naive belief that they can exert some kind of influence on him. Good luck with that.

          People are sick of the establishment and too caught up in Rep V Dem culture wars and the fear that the candidate they hate more than the other one will get in if they vote for a third party, so they vote for a rank outsider in the Tweedledumber party in the hope that he'll a) beat the Tweedledumb party's candidate and b) shake things up a bit, i.e. make the establishment respect the wishes of the voters.

          Still others vote for Trump in the hope of watching it all burn to the ground so we can start again. I can understand it, but even Bruce Bartlett has been quiet about it lately as the realisation sinks in that the GOP establishment is a) rallying around Trump and b) attempting to manage him. Good luck with that.

          If he does make president he'll soon discover that there are a) limits to his power and b) a long line of toadies desperate to win his favour (and some of his money) by doing what he wants.

          Buckle in, people, we're in for a rough ride if Trump gets in. If Hillary gets in, expect business as usual.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Andrew Cook (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 4:38am

    And that someone will likely not be found, as the State Department appears to be uninterested in investigating this any further.

    If the only evidence is a sticky note saying "plz cut per b(6)", how can they investigate that? At least they're going to try to be more accountable in the future, or so they say.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    NitroLab (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 5:02am

    The most transparent administration ever!!!!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    pronky pronked pronk, 3 Jun 2016 @ 5:22am

    vote these clowns out now you idiot american twits

    vote clinton out and vote for someone else. anyone just someone else. keep doing this every election until you get someone who is transparent, honest or at lease mostly honest and is for helping the people because otherwise you will get what you have got and that is H1B visa shit and nobody cares for you. exercise your rights now and vote the fuckwits out all the time,everytime. get rid of all incumbents all the time or you will die you stupid american cunts.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Eponymous Coward, 3 Jun 2016 @ 7:31am

      Re: vote these clowns out now you idiot american twits

      Apparently you've bought the same fiction as the American voters as to how this "democracy" actually works.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      scotts13 (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 7:56am

      Re: vote these clowns out now you idiot american twits

      But all we have to vote for is other clowns... Non-clown don't have the budget to buy a media win, so no-one "wastes" their wote on them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    kallethen, 3 Jun 2016 @ 5:57am

    To be honest, the fact that they may have started negotiations sooner doesn't bother me. It probably didn't lead to much anyways until Rouhani.

    That still doesn't excuse the lying, deleting media coverage, etc.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2016 @ 6:30am

    That pesky Rosen guy again...

    I thought it quite funny that when questioned about the source of the request for the editing of the video, the Public Affairs Department said they were unable to find info on where/from whom the call came. James Rosen's comment to that was essentially that there certainly weren't any difficulties when DOJ/FBI was digging into his phone records and e-mails, and that Public Affairs should just ask get those agencies to get the information.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    I.T. Guy, 3 Jun 2016 @ 6:55am

    "In so doing, they learned that a specific request was made to excise that portion of the briefing. We do not know who made the request to edit the video or why it was made."

    Bullshit. Complete bullshit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Steve Swafford (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 7:14am

    First time in a long time I regret reading the comments.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jlaprise (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 7:55am

    So What?

    Indeed, so what? Anyone with any knowledge of history and foreign policy knows that deception and dissimulation is a tool of the trade with any state's foreign policy organization.

    *shrug*

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2016 @ 8:08am

    Fox News actually reporting news? Oh wait it's just another opportunity to show how much they don't like Obama. For the record I do not support erasing parts of the interview. I know when it comes to politics there is a lot of stuff that will never see the light of day but to try and cover up something embarrassing isn't helping their case.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2016 @ 8:14am

    Is it going to be like this around here until election time?

    Please TD, don't let this site go the way of so many others by trolling the pinheads and those with marginal self-control by using a story pretty much guaranteed to generate bickering and flaming.

    (Yes, I've heard of free speech and this was mine).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 8:42am

    Motherfucking eagles meet fox. Starring Barbra Streisand.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anon, 3 Jun 2016 @ 11:31am

    Ironically...

    Ironically it was Richard Nixon (discussing Alger Hiss) who said that "the coverup is what gets someone caught more often than the original crime".

    How true.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2016 @ 1:42pm

    If you could tag articles, i'd tag this one as

    "Proof history is created by the victors"


    What past history has been "modified" like this

    I suspect, the reason their so scared with difficult questions like this, is the eventual followup question

    Where else have you done this?or Have you done this before

    Official
    (Nervous) No!Never!

    3 Months later, proof of lie

    Official
    Ah, shhhit!


    You know, im here just randomly contemplating things, and ive come to an idea, kinda just snuck up on me, these damn filthy independant thoughts..........anyways........why are there some sort of litmus tests for the representatives.........with such positions, i would thought that, the effort they put into making policy for EVERYONE, they make a LITMUS policy for themselves.........it almost irresponsible bordering criminal, that they dont clean their OWN house

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2016 @ 1:56pm

    Commit a crime that hides criminal actions by your government you get rewarded, expose said crimes and you are persecuted and harassed.

    Long live the glorious 3rd world dictatorships this would be acceptable in.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2016 @ 10:25pm

    What a stupid, stupid thing to bother lying about.

    As a wise man once said, "We make peace with our enemies, not our friends."* I mean, it's not like they secretly worked with the British to engineer a coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran and then replaced him with a torture-happy autocrat, right? Or illegally sold weapons to Iran via an accommodating intermediate country and then used the proceeds to illegally fund an insurrection against the democratically elected government of Nicaragua, right? Or helped destroy Libya and then secretly shipped captured Libyan weapons to Al Qaeda affiliates fighting the Assad régime in Syria, right? Having a little chinwag with Ahmadinejad about curbing nuclear production in exchange for ending sanctions is pretty small beer by comparison.

    *Okay, so the wise man in question was Tyrion Lannister. It's important to use references that millennials can relate to. If it makes anyone happy, I can attribute it to Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, or Winston Churchill instead. Really, I have no problem making up an attribution. As Winston Churchill once said, "Americans always end up attributing quotations to the right author, after attributing them to everyone else first."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.