The State Department’s Cover-Up Tactics: So This Is Trustworthy, Transparent, Honest Government Under Barack Obama’s Leadership, Is It?

tapper-300x197[Warning: I want to apologize for the snarky and perhaps unprofessional tone of the following post. On second thought, I don’t.]

Barack Obama’s approval ratings have been rising in the wake of the realization that Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are his likely successors.  I can’t blame the public too much for this, as irrational as it is. Place Steve Buscemi next to the Elephant Man, and after a while he’ll seem like George Clooney.

Still, the fact that so many Americans accept/ enable this incompetent, divisive, corrupt and untrustworthy government under Obama is a major reason such unfit candidates as Clinton and Trump have gotten this far. Never before has such incompetent leadership been so extolled, especially by the news media. The standards for what Americans would accept as Presidential leadership have been lowered catastrophically under Obama, and this is one of many horrible results.

Now the State Department—you know, that major Cabinet Department Hillary Clinton ran, the one that looked the other way while its Secretary violated its policies regarding classified material, then tried to cover it up? That one—  has  admitted that a question from Fox News reporter James Rosen about the government’s secret discussions with Iran was deliberately edited out of a video to re-write history and deceive the public. The section related to secret meetings with Iran prior to the nuclear deal—you know, the one that Obama’s foreign policy advisor Ben Rhodes boasted about how it was foisted on the American people by duping the media. That one. When Fox News first flagged the missing exchange, Obama’s government dismissed it as a “glitch.”

You know. Like The IRS said that it couldn’t find Lois Lerner’s e-mails.

But this week, finding that it couldn’t stonewall any more, the State Department  told reporters  that “a staffer” had erased part of the footage from the December 2013 briefing before it was posted on the Internet. This censor reportedly did so, the State Department admitted, after receiving a phone call from an “unknown” department employee ordering him or her to do so. “There was a deliberate request—this wasn’t a technical glitch,” State now says.

Though they first said it was. When it wasn’t. To put everyone off the track. Because this is the most transparent administration ever, and has never had any scandals. None.

Do I seem annoyed? I am.

 In the censored portion of the video, Rosen asked a State Department spokesperson whether the department was lying when it denied a report that the government was holding secret talks with Iran outside of normal diplomatic channels. Rosen had asked earlier  whether such discussions were taking place, and a department spokesperson then said they were not. When Rosen asked then-spokeswoman Jen Psaki to explain that denial, there was this exchange:

Mr. Rosen: “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?”

Ms. Psaki: “James, I think there are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that.”

Translation: “Yes. We lied. Yes, it is policy to lie under certain circumstances. “

After Rhodes, President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, proudly boasted in a recent interview how the administration had manipulated the press about the government’s dealings with Iran, Rosen went back to look at the video of the exchange he had with Psaki. He discovered that it was missing, all eight minutes of it.

Now State says 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.” You know, like refusing to use the State Department’s proscribed e-mail system isn’t policy.

State keeps using this word “policy.” I don’t think it means what they think it does. Policies that aren’t followed at the whim of Secretaries and lower level employees aren’t policies. They are subterfuge.

On Twitter,  Psaki swears that she was not involved in the editing of the briefing video, and she did not know about it until it became news. “I had no knowledge of nor would I have approved of any form of editing or cutting my briefing transcript on any subject,” she tweeted.  Well, that settles it, right? After all, Hillary said she had approval from the State Department to ignore all of its e-mails policies. And never handled any classified information. OK, never handled any classified information that was marked classified. Well, maybe a few. Why would we doubt these people?

Jen Psaki is now Director of Communications for the most transparent White House ever—Barack Obama said it was.

Of course she is.

The missing portion of the video has now been restored, but the State Department says it has hit a “dead end” in its investigation into who ordered the deletion. “We believe we’ve carried out the necessary investigation. We have hit a dead end in terms of finding out more information,” said State Department spokesman Mark Toner.

Do you trust that statement? Let me rephrase a bit: Are you an blithering idiot?

Here are the top two possibilities of what Toner’s statement really means:

“We investigated, and holy cow, you wouldn’t believe who ordered that cut! But the President, as usual, won’t fire someone who should be, so we’re just not going to let anyone know.”


“We went into various offices and shouted, “Hey, anyone know who did this?” and nobody answered. So that’s that.”

Mirabile dictu, as my old Latin teacher Miss Rounds used to say—she hated me; I think she was Mexican…and that’s great!—-an actual journalist is as annoyed by this as I am. CNN’s Jake Tapper, perhaps the closest thing to fair journalist in captivity—so if a toddler slips into his cage, please don’t shoot him!—told a radio interviewer,

“That looks like a completely cut-and-dried case of censorship. They took something they didn’t like and pretended it didn’t happen. People in the media whose personal leanings might be sympathetic to President Obama and to President Obama’s State Department should not let their personal bias get in the way of the fact that this is a true outrage.”

He then said that reporters must “complain consistently” about such shenanigans in the Obama Administration,  or they won’t have any ground to stand on if “hypothetically, President Trump and Secretary of State Omarosa do the same thing.”

That’s a good line, but your call for fair and competent criticism of the Obama Administration is a little late, don’t you think, Jake? Maybe if you had been saying this for all 8 years, aided by Jon Stewart and other alleged “truth-tellers,” it might have made a difference. Better late than never? Sure. That still doesn’t excuse the late part.

Tapper wasn’t finished, though.  On his own show on CNN, he stated that Psaki clearly “lied” to reporter Rosen and to the American public, noting that there were three  major lies to deal with now: the lie about the secret talks with Iran, the censoring of the section of the video, and the initial “glitch” excuse. Tapper concluded,

“Just as the public has a right to know the truth, we have a right to know who lied to us. And why.”

Go get em, Jake!

By the way, your CNN show has been moved to 2 AM.


A personal aside: I have some good friends, real ones, on Facebook, who simply refuse to accept criticism of Barack Obama. Both are active Democrats; one is a retired Washington journalist of some note. They like to dismiss my analysis of Obama as biased ranting, that I write that he is the worst President ever and has never done anything worthwhile. This is a form of ad hominem attack by hyperbole.

Frankly, I don’t know how they can look at themselves in the mirror. This State Department episode isn’t unique; it is typical of a badly managed government rotting from the head down. It seems like the progressives (and African Americans, of course) just decided at the outset that they would regard Obama’s presidency as a monumental success, and they have done so, in complete defiance of reality. )Admittedly, this skill has proven invaluable as the same people deny that Hillary Clinton has ever done anything to suggest she isn’t trustworthy. )

And I’m the villain for challenging their fantasy.


Sources: Mediaite 1, 2; WSJ, The Hill

17 thoughts on “The State Department’s Cover-Up Tactics: So This Is Trustworthy, Transparent, Honest Government Under Barack Obama’s Leadership, Is It?

  1. With the reality of having either Trump or Hillary in the White House, how long will it take for the political left to propose (again) getting rid of the 22nd Amendment so we can reelect Obama to a third term.

    Heck maybe we can go a step further and suspend Presidential elections all together, it’s just law, who cares; this could easily be accomplished with a memo from the office of the President to all agencies ordering them not to enforce Presidential election laws.

    I knew there was an alternative to choosing Clinton or Trump.

      • Zoltar, this has been mentioned several times, by myself and others, numerous times. The response has always been that it cannot happen, because the Constitution forbids it. I respond that whoever controls the armed forces controls the Constitution. It’s a lead-pipe cinch SCOTUS doesn’t. Please note that the no-handguns law is still being enforced in D.C. in spite of having been found to be un-Constitutional by SCOTUS.

        • dragin_dragon said, “it cannot happen, because the Constitution forbids it”

          This might sound like a conspiracy theory, that’s really not what it’s intended to sound like.

          The Constitution does not forbid changing the Constitution, and yes I know there is a legal process for changing the Constitution.

          A Presidential action in the form of a memorandum not to enforce selective laws can effectively do just about anything if the “order” is followed by subordinates until a legal process reverses the “order” and that could take time, maybe significant time, with rulings and appeals that could go all the way to SCOTUS. Remember, protests from an outraged public can steer and inspire political action but it doesn’t “force” immediate action. Think about that for a few minutes.

          I don’t “think” I said anything that’s actually false but I’m absolutely sure someone will correct me if I did.

          There I painted a bull-eye on my forehead, ready, aim, fire! 😉

    • 8 years ago we were hearing the same thing about Bush suspending the constitution and serving a third term.

      16 years ago were we hearing the same thing about Clinton? I don’t recall, but it wouldn’t surprise me..

      The names change, but the conspiracy remains the same sometimes.

      • Diego Garcia,
        A Democrat actually proposed a bill after Obama was elected to change the 22nd Amendment, don’t remember who it was but I remember reading it. I don’t remember the same thing from Republicans, but that’s not to say that it didn’t actually happen.

          • There are also some bad arguments. Remember FDR and his fourth term? Most of his close advisors knew that he would probably die in office and his judgement at Yalta basically gave Stalin everything that he wanted.

        • 1) Typically, when a change such as this is made, the current office holder(s) is grandfathered in (or in this case out). Thus, when the 22nd Amendment was adopted, Harry Truman was exempted — he was still eligible to run as many times as he wanted. When the Constitution was adopted, Alexander Hamilton was grandfathered into the natural born citizen requirement so that he would be eligible to become president.

          2) And more to the point, any one of the 435 Representatives can introduce a bill to do almost anything. It means little unless something actually happens with it.

          • To be fair, FDR is exactly why the 22nd can be justified. He ran for re-election knowing he was dying; he picked a VP without adequate vetting (we got lucky.) He considered himself President for life.

            • And, as it turned out, he was President for life.

              It is somewhat amazing, given the haphazard way we tend to choose our Vice Presidents, that so many of them have risen to the task and become at least adequate, if not good, Presidents when they succeeded to office.

  2. A bit of an aside but I loved the opening, ‘Barack Obama’s approval ratings have been rising in the wake of the realization that Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are his likely successors’.

    I was listening to a guest on The Diane Rehm show’ this morning make this same point about Obama’s approval rating. Dianne jumped in immediately and wagged her finger with a, ‘Don’t take anything away from Obama.’ type comment. I turned the station.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.