No “Glitch”: State Department Admits That Press Briefing Was Intentionally Edited To Remove Passage . . . But Insisted It Cannot Find Official Responsible

Screen Shot 2016-06-01 at 10.34.11 PMScreen Shot 2016-06-01 at 10.34.37 PMYou may recall the controversy of a press conference at the State Department was later edited to remove an embarrassing question and answer regarding the Iran negotiations. When the exchange with Fox New Reporter James Rosen was found missing, Elizabeth Trudeau, director of the press office insisted that “Genuinely, we think it was a glitch.” Now, the State Department is admitting that it was not a glitch but an intentional editing of the transcript to remove the exchange. However, State Department spokesman John Kirby insists that they cannot determine who ordered the deletion.

The exchange occurred in 2013 when Rosen got then-spokeswoman Jen Psaki to admit to misleading the press on the Iran nuclear deal. (Psaki is now White House Communications Director). Rosen reminded Psaki that he had asked in February whether there were bilateral talks with Iran on the issue. Then-spokesperson Victoria Nuland denied that such talks were underway by saying “on a government-to-government level, no.” In fact, there were such talks underway. In December, Rosen asked Psaki “Is it the policy of the State Department, where the preservation or the secrecy of secret negotiations is concerned, to lie in order to achieve that goal?” Psaki responded: “James, I think there are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that.” That seemed to confirm the obvious that the Administration had lied to the media and the public.

When Rosen later tried to retrieve the exchange however it was gone. When he raised it, it was described as a glitch.

Now, Kirby has admitted that “There was a deliberate request [to delete the footage] – this wasn’t a technical glitch.” He said that an official contacted the video editor to “excise” the exchange. He further admits that it was a State Department public affairs official who made “a specific request … to excise that portion of the briefing.” Yet, he insists in this relatively small group, they could not find the culprit.

Moreover, that would indicate that there is an official at the State Department who is actively hiding his or her conduct in the matter. Since there was no rule expressly prohibiting such editing, there will be no investigation. That is remarkably convenient since, even if there was no rule per se, the Administration admits that the action was “unacceptable.” Moreover, there is an official who took this unacceptable action who has remained silent despite efforts to discover the responsible party. That would seem worthy of an investigation.

36 thoughts on “No “Glitch”: State Department Admits That Press Briefing Was Intentionally Edited To Remove Passage . . . But Insisted It Cannot Find Official Responsible”

  1. I would be willing to bet there are not more than a dozen people at the State Department who could order this edit. And there are probably fewer than a half dozen outside the State Department that could give that order and have it acted on without question.

    That means there’s probably less than 20 people in the entire government who could have ordered that a portion of this video be deleted, So, how is it that the person who acted on that order can’t remember who gave that order?

    Because it came from someone who must be protected at all cost.

  2. Isaac:

    Let me add some qualifiers to your statement. My comments are in parenthesis.

    “Bill Clinton (who lost his law license for lying and was accused of everything from sexual harassment to rape where he savagely bit his victim’s lip and paid off many of the accusers and gave millions of dollars from his non profit foundation to an alleged mistriss and has flown with a convicted pedophile on his Lolita plane which he stocked with underage prostitutes and a bed to his orgy island also stocked with trafficked underage sex slaves) was an effective and positive leader regardless of what people think. He (the possible rapist and pedophile and serial cheater who’s slept with so many women after he married Hillary Clinton that he may be dirtier than the floor of a taxi cab) made mistakes and could have done a better job. However he (the possible rapist and pedophile) was light years better than the three stooges.”

    Who is he better than? Ted Bundy?

  3. Okay, clearly we need to actually write a rule that you cannot lie to the American public when creating transcripts of conversations with the media that occurred on the record.

    Is this like all those safety warnings, like “Warning! Do not ride your bicycle at night without a light or you might experience bodily injury.” Warnings and rules that should be obvious but that we apparently need to write down.

  4. Wait a moment…

    When asked if the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, who has a long history of lying to the public and the media, had lied to the public and the media about the Iran negotiations, a State official excised the question, thus misleading the media in the transcript, State lied to the public and misled the media calling the omission a glitch in 2013, and then they lied and misled the media AGAIN in 2016 claiming that although they have identified the personal responsible as a State official, they cannot find him or her or recall their name?

    My sides are hurting from laughing. It’s true! Monty Python actually is running our government and putting us all on. There is no other explanation…well, that or we are becoming a banana republic with a government ruling class not subject to the same accountability as us peons.

    But (laughing) voters will just pretend it never happened and still vote for her, the head of this totally unaccountable office! Or they’ll say she’s “not as bad” as any alternative…while she’s the only candidate under an FBI investigation for multiple criminal charges, including selling State favors to China and the Middle East, and according to the law she must lose her security clearance!

    Aren’t politics just grand?

  5. The difference between Hillary lying like a rug and Trump lying, almost constantly, is that Hillary is a weasel and won’t own up to it. This shows a modicum of guilt and understanding that she has made a mistake. It also illustrates the nature of the system of leadership, never admit wrong, never apologize.

    The public likes to pillory its higher ups. The public likes to see its leaders brought down to earth from time to time. Bill Clinton was an effective and positive leader regardless of what people think. He made mistakes and could have done a better job. However he was light years better than the three stooges. The same is true with Obama, light years ahead of any Republican options like McCain and Palin, please. It was entertaining to see Bill squirm about getting a hummer from Monica, but it meant nothing vis a vis the running of the country. More mature and enlightened societies would not even bother with it. Americans are basically prudes and hypocrites, or at least half of them.

    Trump could care less what people think. He says whatever comes into his mind and if it is proven a complete untruth, he states that he never said it or meant it or that the press is out to get him. The difference between Hillary and Donald is that Hillary realizes that she makes a mistake and tries to squirm out of it. Donald could care less. Somehow the entertainment of seeing a leader squirm is now supplanted by the ‘attaboy’ given to a complete whacko who says anything that pops into his mind, in bits and pieces, on the go.

    In reality the actual false statements made by Trump well eclipse those made by Clinton. The bizarre reality of half of the American people is that they respect someone who could care less and despise someone who tries to hide their mistakes, thus admitting them.

    Half of Americans prefer the paint job and fins to the technology under the hood. It’s kind of been that way with Reagan, Bush, and now Trump. The cause of this superficiality is the fact that money runs politics. Therefore paint is the first stop for most. If the only vehicle a candidate had was the issues at hand then perhaps that wold be the deciding factor.

    Again, Hillary is far less dangerous to the evolution of this country regardless of her pandering and weaseling. Trump lies so consistently how on earth could any one trust him to do whatever he has promised?

  6. I don’t understand how the video recording isn’t considered an official public record. Alteration of an official record isn’t against the law?

  7. This is so creepy. Our “press” is managed by the govt. and corporations.

    The lies are so blatant. Or course they know who ordered it. Of course they didn’t have the right to strip it out in the first place. They are editing out reality and replacing it will their own constructs. Muck rock has a document from the NSA showing their intent to engage in just this type of behavior. It makes for an interesting read. Your tax dollars at work!

  8. This administration becomes more transparent every day. In this case the State Department readily admits wrongdoing and then scoffs at the MSM telling them so what…we aren’t going to do anything about it. Next question. Good luck reigning in the next administration.

  9. In his business dealings and personal life which include a substantial sideshow of just about everything people on this blog complain about in Clinton, Trump trumps any and all. Hillary appears as a choir girl next to the Donald. The question is if and when he becomes President and cuts a rug through all that Turley and his fellow complainers hold sacred; will the same vitriol and whining take place, here on Turley’s blog.

  10. The Obama Administration makes the crooked Nixon Administration look like ham n’ eggers. We should note, this reporter, James Rosen, a good Fox reporter, had his phones tapped by this Administration. If Obama and Hillary were Republicans they would have been run out of their respective offices by the MSM. I’m beginning to see that Trump’s skewering the press, and saying what we all think about them, may be his greatest legacy. I think he’ll be a one termer but he will shake things up. Hell, he already has.

  11. Too bad the word ‘glitch’ wasn’t common usage during Nixon’s tenure.

  12. “As soon as Winston had dealt with each of the messages, he clipped his speakwritten corrections to the appropriate copy of ‘The Times’ and pushed them into the pneumatic tube. Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames.”

  13. “There is no rule prohibiting the editing.” What an outrageous position! If it’s a transcript, by definition, it is not supposed to be edited unless it is specifically labeled as such. A transcript is supposed to be a true record of the meeting or exchange. Perhaps from now on the first question to be asked at every press conference should be: are there any rules prohibiting you from lying to us about the issues you plan to discuss with us to day?

    And politicians wonder why the people don’t trust them!

  14. I wonder if John Kerry has a private email server or service. I wonder if that is why he did not run for President this year. I wonder if Obama uses a private email service.

    I wonder if Iran is between Iraq and a hard place. Whoever is between Iraq and a hard place on the nuclear issues will be radioactive.

    What are we doing to keep the midget in N. Korea from getting a missile to deliver his atom bomb to the U.S.?

    Is it not time to resume the Korean War and get rid of the midget?

    The times they are a changing. Was that the name of a Bob Dylan song?

  15. It only seems probable that an organization headed by a person who continually involves herself in scandal, corruption, influence peddling, and cronyism would also exhibit the same type of behavior in of itself and by its staff. A company almost always follows the example of its management or leadership.

    Though it is not mentioned in the news, why hasn’t there been many questions posed to Secretary of State John Kerry about how he is moving the organization he now leads to become more transparent and benevolent?

    I suspect if a non-establishment president is elected and he/she makes it a pet project to clean up the State Department’s act there are going to be a great many rats leaving that ship.

  16. They are not brave enough to step forward and admit they did it, either. Why are we not surprised?

Comments are closed.