When Logic and Proportion Have Fallen Slopppy Dead

The Daily Press Briefing imbroglio spins even further out of control. See Diplopundit for how the DPB Goes Down the Wabbit Hole.

This exchange, quoted from the link, illustrates exactly why you should never agree to talk to the news media - or the police, for that matter - multiple times on the same topic. You will inevitably say something different the second time, and that will be seized upon, however disingenuously.

Wabbit Hole: How many other people have been ruled out?

QUESTION: But basically, all the person could remember was that they were called and asked to do this, and that they believed it came from elsewhere in PA. I’m told that the person also, however, said that they had no – that they didn’t think it was former spokesperson Jen Psaki. Is that correct?

MR TONER: That’s correct.

QUESTION: Why weren’t we told that on Wednesday? I mean, you said all they can remember is X, but now it turns out it – they remembered more than just X. And I don’t understand why you would say they only remember X and then it turns out they remember more than that, and then we – we learn about it later.

First came the excuse of a technical glitch, followed by an admission of purposeful video editing, followed by a once-over-lightly investigation by the Office of the Legal Advisor, followed by apologies all around and a promise not to do it again. Now, as surely as this is an election year, this lame affair has escalated to an OIG investigation and Congressional oversight hearings.

Not that I presume to tell Spokesperson-Admiral Kirby how to do his job, but really, wouldn't it have been better to say much, much, less to the press? They are not your friends, after all.

Suppose that instead of trying to placate the press, you had let a legal investigation run for a couple weeks - during which time you would, of course, refuse to answer questions - and then announced the lawyers found no crime or administrative offense had been committed and, due to the passage of time, there was no reasonable expectation of finding out more. Suppose you had then pointed out that you have instituted rules to prevent a repetition. And further pointed out that the public record of Ms. Psaki's interview with Fox New reporter James Rosen was never eradicated in the first place, since a transcript exists in State's DPB archive as well as the complete video on a separate DOD site. Hey, members of the press, get over yourselves.

There simply must be more important things PA could be talking about at the Daily Press Briefing.

"There Were No Rules in Place" (Or, The White Flash of Candor)

I like that term the news media keeps using for what happened to the eight-minute video record of Jan Psaki's exchange with Fox News reporter James Rosen in 2013 - a white flash. "Poof! Where the exchange once existed, a flash of white light replaced it" according to Erik Wemple of the WaPo. That makes it sound practically supernatural.

The video clip has now reappeared, and that brought on the big Washington news story of the day: State Department admits tampering with video of tough Fox News question.

As for the charge of tampering, it's a fair cop, as our British cousins say. But let it be noted that what Ms. Psaki told Rosen back in 2013 was not a lie, but the truth. She acknowledged that bilateral contact with Iran had been going on, contrary to an earlier, misleading, statement by another official. That fact is getting lost in the noise.

Come to think of it, since someone was tampering with old video files, why didn't he or she make the original lie disappear rather than Psaki's admission of the truth? And what kind of inept conspiracy is it that removes video of a press briefing but leaves the written transcript intact, not to mention a separate video record of the same press conference on a site maintained by DOD? And what could anyone hope to gain by deleting that Psaki clip in the first place, when it was run on Fox News the same day it occurred?

James Rosen is still doing victory laps as the story keeps growing. The latest twist is a call by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Royce for State's Inspector General to investigate the matter.

Come to think of it some more, so far as I know there is actually no requirement for State to maintain a record of its press briefings. As Spokesperson-Admiral John Kirby said to the WaPo, there were no rules in place to prohibit the deletion of a record of a press briefing. So, what if State decided tomorrow to delete all records of past briefings and tell the press that from now on they can take their own notes and run their own pool camera? Not that I think that would be a good practice - keeping a record is in State's own best interests - but, if it did just that, would there be any offense to investigate?

Oh, and my girl Marie Harf? She is not guilty. If we know nothing else, we know that.