I can’t help but wonder if this, reported by the Washington Post, is standard practice at the State Department:
The State Department acknowledged Wednesday that someone in its public affairs bureau made a “deliberate†request that several minutes of tape be cut from the video of a 2013 press briefing in which a reporter asked if the administration had lied about secret talks with Iran.
The embarrassing admission by State Department spokesman John Kirby came three weeks after another spokesperson insisted that a “glitch†had caused the gap, discovered only last month by the reporter whose questioning had mysteriously disappeared.
“This wasn’t a technical glitch, this was a deliberate step to excise the video,†Kirby told reporters.
Somebody help me out here. Refresh my memory. Aren’t videos public records and, consequently, subject to Freedom of Information Act requests? And aren’t they records distinct from the written transcripts?
In other words isn’t the State Department’s editing a video to remove an embarrassing segment a violation of the Records Act?
I’ll leave up to the real lawyers to decide if legal/illegal. However, since the wrong people are complaining, expect it to drop off the radar fast. I mean every one knows this the most transparent administration ever.
Here’s the problem: governmental overreach has no political party. Each successive administration tests the boundaries a little bit more.
I suspect that PD will weigh in. However, on the radio this AM I heard that yes, it is a violation of the Records Act.
In any event its obvious obfuscation. It was deleted the same day it was discovered, and the investigation as to who gave the order has been deep sixed under a flimsy guise.
You can call it overreach. You can say both sides do it. I’ve never witnessed anything like this administration. It won’t matter, though. 71% don’t care.
I can tell you what I think should be done but it’s pretty draconian. Somebody should put in a FOIA request for it. State will say it doesn’t have it. The case should go to a court. The judge should order State to produce it. When it says it can’t, the relevant officials should be jailed for contempt. Until State produces the video.
Unless we start taking this stuff seriously, the idea of open, transparent, and honest government is dead.
And therein lies the rub, partisan interest always trumps the national interest. However, the correct video (or so they say) has been found. Now, if this was my administration, some folks would be talking to the FBI while looking forward to their new jobs as cleaners at the most remote Indian Reservation without indoor plumbing I could find.
Your article says they have already restored it. The official written transcript was, according to your article, available.
” He asked the State Department about it, and it said that it had found an intact video in a repository and restored it.”Have a hard time seeing this as breaking a law. Not exactly sure of the motivation either. Your article says it was deleted three years ago, They didnt know then that someone would would write a partisan hack piece on Rhodes.
Steve
Steve
As we can see, some people just don’t care. You know, you have to laugh when Camille Paglia and I are on the same page. Paglia noting wrt the IG report – innocent people don’t have to twist themselves/their stories into pretzels.
Steve:
The New York Times is running right wing hit pieces? When did this begin?
You are unaware of the neocon influence at the NYT? I find that hard to believe. I also hope you know that Samuels is one of those who publicly campaigned against the Iran deal.
Also, just to clarify, if they have already restored the video, what would be the point of an FOIA request? Any idea on why they didn’t eliminate the written transcript also?
Steve
“You are unaware of the neocon influence at the NYT?”
Conspiracies abound.
Steve, your claim was that the article was partisan:
That is so fatuous as to be mindboggling. Resign yourself to the reality: not every criticism of the Obama Administration is partisan or racist or ideological. Sometimes the Administration is just wrong. Besides that it’s still no justification.
“You are unaware of the neocon influence at the NYT?”
Well, if you actually listen to the Neocons you’d know they much prefer Hillary (or some magical independent “conservative”) to Trump.
I don’t know if what happened was illegal and, yes, it was corrected, but as a civil servant I don’t think any quarter should be given when other civil servants purposely edit out portions of official documents subject to FOIA requests. Anyone who works in government should know that is wrong and there is no justifying it.