Kerry: video cut 'clumsy and stupid and inappropriate'

[Judi Lynn]

Last edited Sat Jun 4, 2016, 06:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: Reuters

Kerry: video cut 'clumsy and stupid and inappropriate'
By Yeganeh Torbati and Arshad Mohammed

June 3, 2016

PARIS/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It was stupid, clumsy and inappropriate for someone to edit the video of a State Department briefing in 2013, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday as two U.S. lawmakers demanded information about the incident.

A Republican congressman asked the State Department inspector general to investigate why part of a public briefing that dealt with Iran nuclear talks was cut before it was posted online while another demanded documents about the incident.

The excised portion of the Dec. 2, 2013, briefing included a question about whether an earlier spokeswoman for the department had misled reporters about whether the United States was holding secret direct nuclear talks with Iran.

The spokeswoman had denied there were such talks, which were later made public. The State Department this week said she did not know about the secret talks when she denied their existence.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-lawmaker-demands-probe-missing-state-dept-iran-180411927.html?nhp=1

[Jesus Malverde]

1. Any speculation why they hid it?

It's a weird case.

[Laughing Mirror]

2. They can't trace the call ...

back to whatever person in authority placed the order for the deletion, which might help clarify the why of it. But since there were no rules in place safeguarding the integrity of the video, what could become of this is anybody's guess.

It is weird, like you say. Weird and murky.

[Babel_17]

7. They can publicly order that the person identify themself

And then we'll see if this person, and they know their gender, is willing to risk even more. And there's a fairly limited pool of likely candidates, afaik. So let's at least make an effort here, before it's demanded, and the Department of State is once again seen as requiring being compelled to require accountability, and even then kicking and dragging its feet.

[karynnj]

9. I agree - and the effort should start with the person who cut it and the supervisor

This was a weird request - and that is why the supervisor was brought in. Obviously someone - and they say someone in that bureau (essentially PR) called and made the request. Several possible people have denied that it was them. As you say, there is a very small pool of people it could be -- and I would bet the supervisor or the technician probably might remember more than is now said.

On the other hand, this is VERY overblown. It was a public briefing attended by many reporters and the Psaki comment was reported at that time in many places. In addition, it was never excised from the written transcript -- which may explain why they initially thought it was a glitch. CSPAN also shows the daily briefings.

So, the question is who would benefit from removing the video -- at a point where there were other sources of it, while leaving the written transcript? If I know that the transcript and video are BOTH available from the same tab on the State Department web site, surely ANYONE in their PR department does too. (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/index.htm ) Not hard to find, under media center, and then daily press briefings.

So, was it someone who did not want the video, but did not care that it was in the transcript and it was part of a public brief?

Not to mention, the cut was Psaki answering a question, after the Obama administration spoke of initial secret talks, concerning a 2012 briefing where Nuland was asked if we were negotiating with Iran. These were SECRET talks. Is it surprising that the spokesman was NOT informed they were happening?

What is happening is the right, still angry they failed to stop the Iran deal, is using this along with some comments from Rhodes in a puff piece NYT article to suggest that Obama lied to the American people on the deal. In fact, it was NOT Rhodes who either negotiated the deal or who testified to Congress. That was nuclear physicist, Secretary of Energy, Moniz and Secretary Kerry. (One thing they are conflating is a Rhodes comment that they did speak of the secret talks -- which was true in December 2013 - not when they started in early 2013 -- or earlier when they tried to open a path starting in 2010. )

The facts still stand that it is a good deal - Iran is now a year rather than 2 months from a nuclear bomb AND they are under extensive monitoring whose design was led by Moniz.

[Babel_17]

11. Overblown in importance but reflective of a culture that allows muddling operatives to meddle

I'm a fan of government but this doesn't help its image. And neither does the inability to deal with this mess. I don't see it as partisan, I think the person was operating on behalf of the appearance of the institution. What you so insightfully wrote indicates a somewhat inexplicably confused mindset at work. What motivates someone to blatantly, and ineffectively, edit an official record when there are sources for it?

This is the real head-scratcher, imo. What was going through the mind of the person(s) in question? Not finding that out doesn't inspire confidence, especially in an environment where a judge openly wonders if the State Department was playing games with FOIA requests.

[karynnj]

13. Exactly

The fact that they did not - and really could not have changed the record and that there was absolutely nothing wrong with Jen Psaki's answer, makes it hard to understand which person or person benefits from it not being there.

The fact is Secretary Kerry was the first emissary to speak to Oman on this at Obama's request when he was secretary and he was involved in setting up the secret path. This is an accomplishment. Similarly, Clinton and Obama speaks of the secret talks as an accomplishment. So, at the highest level, there was no problem that the beginning was necessarily secret.

Remember that it was AFTER the Obama administration explained some of the back story to the Iran deal that they were then working on with the P5 +1. The interim deal that froze Iranian efforts to get enough enriched uranium in exchange for minor sanctions reductions was announced on November 24, 2013 - before this briefing.

The question was by Jay Rosen and was about the 2012 denial that there were secret talks - something denied then by Victoria Nuland. I suspect that Nuland, wife of Neocon, Robert Kagan, very likely was not given any information on this - especially as she was HRC's spokesperson and why would you give secret information, that she had no need to know, to a spokesperson. Psaki's answer was not that controversial when she made it.

Now, the right is using the lack of trust in the State Department caused by HRC's email, to make this inexplicable action bigger than it is. It seems that they are putting it together with a NYT article - written by a neo con who wrote in favor of bombing Iran in 2009 - that twisted comments by Ben Rhodes to suggest that the Obama administration tricked the country to accept the Iran deal.

[karynnj]

3. It is very odd because it was a public breifing

The State Department briefings are covered live by CSPAN and may be archived there as well.

At the State Department, the transcripts itself was always there and as soon as this was questioned the video was replaced with the complete one. The content was Jen Psaki answering honestly that an email earlier answer by Victoria Nuland in 2012 was inaccurate is not really something embarrassing. The question was asked when the administration gave some of the history. That was when the interim deal was done.

It is very likely that Nuland as a spokeswoman did not know what was being done that she likely would not have agreed with. They were SECRET TALKS.

I hope they can identify who called. One would thing that as it was a very unusual request, it had to be someone they thought had authority. They did rule out Psaki and Harf, the two ex spokeswomen.At any rate, Kirby says they are setting up clear policy against this ever happening again.


The importance is the right is trying to use this and the Puff piece Rhodes article to illigitimize Obama's getting the Iran deal.

[7962]

4. I just dont get how they think they'll get away with this in this day & age.

And its not the first time they've done it either.
idiots. SOMEONE made the order to do it. Bet we never hear WHO

[Angel Martin]

5. "I just dont get how they think they'll get away with this "

but they constantly get away with this sort of thing, especially the Clintons.

The Clinton's have been pulling this sort of crap to cover up previous faux pas since year minus one of their political career.

[7962]

6. Well, i cant argue with you there.

But if you bring up specifics here, you get called a right winger

[Angel Martin]

17. i call them like i see them

whether it's Nixon's "accidentally" erased tapes, or Hillary's magic billing records, insider trading by senators and congressmen during the financial crisis, or a thousand other scams, secret deals, special interest favours for future "clients", etc. politicians in Washington have earned their disreputable reputation.

One that particularly irks me is the number of these scumbags that have stayed in DC after retiring or being defeated and became lobbyists or corporate "consultants".

https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z

And the Clinton's can go toe to toe with any of them on dubious ethics.

Biden and Sanders are just about the only people who have been in Washington for a while and have not become rich.

[Babel_17]

8. It was sort of by accident that the server was "discovered"

Something to do with the the Benghazi hearing exposing a previously unknown source of emails, so then it followed that FOIA requests that had been only partially satisfied needed to be looked at again. IIRC

So, yeah, that secrecy was almost gotten away with. And that makes me think that there have been successes in the past, and that's why people keep doing it.

[karynnj]

10. This is NOT anywhere near the coup of finding that Clinton used a private server and then kept all

her email for 2 years after she left office.

In the first place, the missing few minutes were from a public briefing before many reporters and it was reported on at the time. In addition, the transcript - available at the same link - here's this month's http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/index.htm - was never taken down.

It was stupid and it should not have happened, but absolutely no information was hidden. Not to mention, the video was restored as soon as it was pointed out to the State Department.

[Babel_17]

12. Yes, but my point is that it looks like stupid things do get left unexposed

The server is just an extreme example.

Edit: So, yes, people will think that some silly idea can be realized, and gotten away with, even if we see it as futile in the first place.

[karynnj]

14. I agree - I just can not figure any person or any agenda that benefits from

eliminating the Obama administration's response that Nuland did not know that there were secret talks. Certainly the Obama administration had no problem with either having had secret talks - which they disclosed before the Psaki briefing, not is it not allowed. If they were embarrassed that Nuland, when they were secret, denied them -- wouldn't they delete the Nuland briefing as well - if they thought there was anything to hide.

In fact, if I wanted to go conspiracy theorist, my question was what (or what country) was the source of any rumors that the US WAS looking to open talks and then talking that led to the 2012 question.

[Babel_17]

15. It's hard to make sense of

Might come down to someone having been epically confused, and then making the epically bad decision to pick up the phone.

Anyway, have a nice weekend!

[karynnj]

16. Same to you - it is gorgeous here nt

[Skittles]

20. there are a lot of stupid people who can be made to believe ANYTHING

even here on DU

[Angel Martin]

18. I thought the server was discovered by

"Guccifer" who leaked some of Sidney Blumenthal's emails to Clinton and thus exposed her secret email accts?

Serves Clinton right that an incompetent sleaze like Blumenthal lead to this exposure.

Obama was very wise to refuse to allow Blumenthal to be employed by the State Dept.

He would have been even wiser if he had passed over Hillary as well.

[Babel_17]

21. Might that reveal be connected to the hearings?

I lack the motivation to check, at the moment. But thanks for the reminder of that angle!

[Angel Martin]

22. I just had a very quick look on wikipedia

(not the last word I know) but they claim Blumenthal was hacked by " Guccifer" and in his emails to Clinton, the existence of the server was discovered

but it would have been anyway because there were FOI requests for Clinton's emails as SOS, which initially came back "we don't have any".

well, that story was never going to be accepted, so the email server would have been uncovered one way or another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Initial_awareness

[Onlaketime]

19. I believ this is the restored video in question.