Posted tagged ‘Lies’

Trump’s Right — the FBI Is in Tatters

December 4, 2017

Trump’s Right — the FBI Is in Tatters, PJ MediaRoger L Simon, December 3, 2017

In a series of heavily criticized tweets (aren’t they always) Trump is asserting that the FBI’s reputation is in tatters.  Of course, he’s right.  This isn’t justice as it’s supposed to be, not even faintly. It’s Kafka meets Orwell in the Deep State.

Robert Mueller may not realize it, but the conclusion of his investigation, whatever it is, will never be accepted by a huge percentage of the public. As the French say, Mentir est honteux.  Lying is shameful.  Mike Flynn may have lied, but so, undoubtedly, has the FBI, multiple times, more than Flynn could ever dream of doing or be capable of doing.  And they’re the ones we’re supposed to trust in the end.


What’re we supposed think when it’s revealed the man running the Hillary Clinton email server investigation (Peter Strzok) was a married Hillary supporter conducting an adulterous affair with a government lawyer, while dissing Donald Trump in his clandestine billet-doux text messages?

(Was he auditioning for Harvey Weinstein’s next movie, assuming Weinstein is ever allowed to make a movie again or even would make one that in any way besmirched his good friend Hillary?)

As an FBI agent, Strzok’s use of text messaging for such an enterprise was nothing short of moronic in this digital age, but nevertheless he was not fired but simply and quietly sent to FBI  “Siberia” last summer, his activities only miraculously coming to public attention last week.

Why the secrecy? Many reasons, probably yet to be determined, but it comes down to this: the FBI, like the Mafia, practices omertà.

They have a code of silence as Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, who spends his life trying to pry information from our supposedly premier law enforcement agency, can tell you.  Ditto, now, the House Intelligence Committee, whose chairman Devin Nunes, as Byron York reports for the Washington Examiner, is apoplectic.

Word of the messages and the affair were news to Nunes, even though the committee had issued a subpoena that covered information about Strzok’s demotion more than three months ago. The committee’s broadly worded subpoena for information related to the so-called Trump dossier went to the FBI and DOJ on Aug. 24. In follow-up conversations on the scope of the subpoena, committee staff told the FBI and DOJ that it included information on the circumstances of Strzok’s reassignment.

On Oct. 11, Nunes met with deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. In that meeting, Nunes specifically discussed the committee’s request for information about Strzok.

In an Oct. 31 committee staff meeting with the FBI, bureau officials refused a request for information about Strzok.

On Nov. 20, the committee again requested an interview with Strzok. (Three days earlier, on November 17, Strzok met with the Senate Intelligence Committee.)

On Nov. 29, Nunes again spoke to Rosenstein, and again discussed Strzok.

On Dec. 1, the committee again requested to speak with Strzok.

Obviously nothing has been forthcoming until now.  But speaking of FBI stonewalling, there’s this new revelation from Fitton, concerning the “happenstance” meeting between Bill Clinton and then AG Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix airport.  The “accidental” encounter supposedly resulted in some chit-chat about grandchildren, but only a few days later then FBI director Comey announced he wouldn’t recommend prosecution of Hillary Clinton:

Because of the revelation in our other lawsuit, the FBI – without our knowledge—”reopened” our [July 7, 2016] FOIA request. The agency supposedly found about 30 pages of information, which it needed six weeks to review. The FBI finally gave them to us late Thursday.

Now we know why the FBI played shell games. The documents show that FBI officials were concerned solely about the leaking of details of the tarmac meeting. None of the documents show top agency officials cared one whit about the propriety of the meeting itself, but only about who blew the whistle on the covert tête-à-tête.

In one email, an FBI official writes “we need to find that guy.” And in another we learn that the Phoenix FBI office was contacted “in an attempt to stem any further damage.” An FBI official working on Lynch’s security detail even goes so far as to suggest non-disclosure agreements to keep the full facts from coming forth.

No wonder the FBI didn’t turn these documents over until we caught it red-handed, hiding and lying about them.

Simply put, the FBI appears to be fully complicit in a cover-up that attempted to influence a presidential election for a favored candidate – Hillary Clinton. And the truth was trampled on a Phoenix tarmac.

Sense a pattern here, Watson?

The FBI seems suddenly concerned with leakers when it affects them. Well, that’s only a part of the story — but a significant part.  Like most bureaucratic organizations, whether in law enforcement or not, as they grow self-preservation increasingly becomes the dominant motivation.  In the case of the FBI, it’s self-preservation leavened with a significant dollop of political bias, conscious and unconscious.

In the case of Strzok, the bias was clearly a bit too conscious for his own good, but who could doubt, given the dramatis personae of Mueller’s investigation, that many of his cohorts share the same views but have the horse sense to leave them out of their text messages.? (Apropos Strzok, it’s interesting he wasn’t fired.  Was it because they feared he would go rogue?)

In a series of heavily criticized tweets (aren’t they always) Trump is asserting that the FBI’s reputation is in tatters.  Of course, he’s right.  This isn’t justice as it’s supposed to be, not even faintly. It’s Kafka meets Orwell in the Deep State.

Robert Mueller may not realize it, but the conclusion of his investigation, whatever it is, will never be accepted by a huge percentage of the public. As the French say, Mentir est honteux.  Lying is shameful.  Mike Flynn may have lied, but so, undoubtedly, has the FBI, multiple times, more than Flynn could ever dream of doing or be capable of doing.  And they’re the ones we’re supposed to trust in the end.

The Associated Press Goes To War With Trump

January 24, 2017

The Associated Press Goes To War With Trump, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, January 24, 2017

[A]s we saw during the campaign, Trump can be accused of exaggeration. But the liberal press is far more guilty of outright falsity, and its accusations vastly overstate Trump’s purported sins.


As of January 20, the liberal press has a new mantra: no more mister nice guy! We’re going to call a lie a lie, damn it! That would have been a nice practice during the last eight years, but better late than never, I suppose.

The Associated Press manifests its new attitude–all-out war on the president–with today’s “news” story: “Trump bridge-building overshadowed by false voter fraud line.”

Even as President Donald Trump starts reaching out to lawmakers and business and union leaders to sell his policies, he’s still making false claims about election fraud.

That’s a bold lead sentence. It would be interesting to try to find an instance in the last eight years when the AP attributed “false claims,” without qualification, to Barack Obama.

During a bipartisan reception with lawmakers at the White House Monday evening, Trump claimed the reason he’d lost the popular vote to his Democratic rival was that 3 million to 5 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally had voted. That’s according to a Democratic aide familiar with the exchange who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private meeting.

There is no evidence to support Trump’s claim.

The assertion appeared to be part of a developing pattern for Trump and his new administration in which falsehoods overshadow outreach efforts.

Extraordinarily harsh words. Note, however, that the AP takes at face value the report of a “Democratic aide…who spoke on condition of anonymity.” That is a very thin reed on which to base the assertion that Trump lied.

What about the AP’s flat assurance that “[t]here is no evidence to support Trump’s claim”? If Trump said that three million illegal immigrants voted in the election, the AP is simply wrong. There is evidence to support that claim. This study by professors from Old Dominion and James Mason Universities concluded that as many as 2.8 million illegals voted in the 2008 and 2010 elections, and the illegal immigrant population has continued to grow. The study also found that:

this [illegal] participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

The Associated Press is free to disagree with the conclusions reached by Professors Richman, Chattha and Earnest, and to offer its own estimates of the extent of illegal voting. But it hasn’t done so, and the AP’s claim that there is “no evidence” to support Trump’s claim is false. The AP also describes Trump’s assertion as “debunked,” with no reference to what evidence supposedly debunked it.

The AP goes on to accuse Trump’s of further lies:

The start of Trump’s first full week in office had begun as a reset after a tumultuous weekend dominated by his and his spokesman’s false statements about inauguration crowds and their vigorous complaints about media coverage of the celebrations.

Again, the Associated Press casually accuses both Trump and Sean Spicer of making “false statements” about the crowd at the inauguration. This flap duplicates a pattern that we saw repeatedly during the campaign. It starts with a lie about Trump by the press. Trump responds with what probably is an exaggeration, which the press hysterically denounces as a lie, without acknowledging its own role in the controversy.

Here, the press started the conflict by putting out a lowball estimate that only 250,000 attended Trump’s inauguration. The New York Times deceptively tried to further that narrative by circulating a photo of the crowd that was taken before the inauguration began, and before the crowd was fully assembled. That deception, which we wrote about here, was repeated by pretty much the entire press corps.

So what was Trump’s alleged falsehood?

“I made a speech. I looked out. The field was — it looked like a million, a million and a half people.”

The president went on to say that one network “said we drew 250,000 people. Now that’s not bad. But it’s a lie.” He then claimed that were 250,000 right by the stage and the “rest of the, you know, 20-block area, all the way back to the Washington Monument was packed.”

Trump didn’t say there were a million people there, he said it looked like a million when he looked out from the podium. And there were people extending back to the Washington Monument, although it probably wasn’t “packed” there. So Trump exaggerated, but there is only one flat-out falsehood in the picture: the original press report that only 250,000 people attended.

What was Sean Spicer’s alleged falsehood?

Spicer has taken heat for his main claim that “this was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe,” while offering other inaccurate statements including that Trump’s was the first inauguration in which white floor coverings were used on the mall. White floor coverings were used during Obama’s second inauguration in 2013.

I assume the press isn’t going to try to create a credibility gap out of the white floor coverings. Spicer’s sin is saying that the largest ever international audience witnessed Trump’s inauguration. But whether that statement is true or not is unknown. While television ratings were higher for Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration, online viewership around the world could indeed have been enough to make the Trump inauguration the most-watched.

Here, as we saw during the campaign, Trump can be accused of exaggeration. But the liberal press is far more guilty of outright falsity, and its accusations vastly overstate Trump’s purported sins.

It is hard to say how the all-out war on Trump by the Associated Press and other liberal outlets will end. But so far, Trump has done pretty well by running against the media.

DHS: Hamas-Tied NJ Imam Must Prove Why He Shouldn’t Be Deported

December 7, 2016

DHS: Hamas-Tied NJ Imam Must Prove Why He Shouldn’t Be Deported, Investigative Project on Terrorism, John Rossomando, December 7, 2016

Evidence being used against him in the Department of Homeland Security’s effort to deport him is the product of torture and is not credible, a Hamas-connected imam testified Tuesday in a Newark, N.J. immigration court.

Mohammad Qatanani is imam at the Islamic Center of Passaic County. Immigration officials have been fighting to deport him since 2006, alleging he failed to disclose connections with Hamas when he applied for permanent residency. When he came to the United States 10 years earlier, he claimed he had never been arrested or belonged to any terrorist groups.

That history makes Qatanani subject to deportation, DHS says.

Tuesday’s hearing centered on Qatanani’s October 1993 arrest and conviction by an Israeli military court on charges he provided support to Hamas. He claims Israeli authorities detained him and never charged him.

“No lawyer prior to 2008 ever told me that I had a conviction,” Qatanani said.

U.S. Immigration Judge Judge Alberto Reifkohl ruled in 2008 that the bulk of the evidence and testimony introduced by the Department of Homeland Security was not credible and granted Qatanani permanent residency, better known as a “green card.”

The Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals sent the case back to Reifkohl in October 2009, finding that he erred rejecting the credibility of evidence and government testimony.

In addition, DHS attorneys bolstered some of the evidence obtained from Israeli officials, including two confessions which include statements Qatanani made about his Hamas connection. Three additional witness statements came from people who told Israeli officials that Qatanani recruited them to join Hamas

Qatanani claims he never was given translations of the Hebrew-language Israeli court records and never knew what they alleged. “There is no confession to my understanding” Qatanani said Tuesday.

He also disputed that the signatures on the documents were his, saying instead they were “similar” to his signature. DHS evidence was able to match the fingerprints on the documents to Qatanani.

He claims he was mistreated in Israeli custody, but never signed any documents he thought were confessions, describing them as “finishing papers.”

The legal standard in immigration court is less stringent than a criminal conviction. This means DHS only needs to show that Qatanani had associations with Hamas that he hid on his visa application. Under immigration law, the Qatanani has the burden of proof to show he is not a terrorist, said Department of Homeland Security Deputy Chief Counsel Chris Brundage.

It’s impossible for Qatanani to get around the fact he lied when he said he never had been arrested, Brundage said.

No ruling was issued before the hearing recessed. It is scheduled to resume next month.

Cartoons of the Day

November 3, 2016

H/t Joop



H/t Vermont Loon Watch



H/t Vermont Loon Watch





DNC CFO Marshall Apologizes For Email Pushing Religious-Based Attack On Sanders

July 24, 2016

DNC CFO Marshall Apologizes For Email Pushing Religious-Based Attack On Sanders, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, July 24, 2016

Little Debbie

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is still attempting to spin out of the scandal over the recently leaked emails showing that, as long claimed by critics, it was undermining Bernie Sanders and rigging the process for Hillary Clinton during the primaries. It would seem obvious to most of us that not only should Debbie Wasserman Schultz resign, but a number of DNC officials fired for the emails, particularly DNC CFO Brad Marshall. Yet, the DNC is been largely quiet and clearly hoping that Democrats simply do not care if they have been directly misled by the DNC, which sought to engineer the win for Clinton.  It may be right.  Many Democratic voters (like many Republican voters) seem to have simply accepted that politicians lie to them and that people who are demanding honesty from leaders are naive (or do not see “the bigger picture”).  The DNC is clearly hunkering down to see with “this too shall pass” with voters.  While Wasserman Schultz has given up her speaking role at the convention, she is clinging on to the chairmanship of the party.

The sheer mendacity of the Democratic leadership in these emails is breathtaking.  At the very time that these officials were denying allegations that they were undermining Sanders at every turn, Marshall and his colleagues were secretly doing exactly what they were publicly denying.  However, Marshall was particularly disgraceful in his effort to use Sanders’ faith against him.  He pushed for an attack on Sanders as an agnostic.  That should not sit well with the millions of agnostics and atheists in this country — one of the fastest going segments of the population.

Marshall wrote that “for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.” This went to various DNS communications directors who were also busy denying that any secret effort against Sanders.DNC CEO Amy Dacey responded “Amen”  Both Dacey and Marshall have been denying such efforts and both should have been fired with other officials involved in these exchanges.

Marshall’s apology only magnifies the problem.  He wrote

“I deeply regret that my insensitive, emotional emails would cause embarrassment to the DNC, the Chairwoman, and all of the staffers who worked hard to make the primary a fair and open process. The comments expressed do not reflect my beliefs nor do they reflect the beliefs of the DNC and its employees. I apologize to those I offended.”

Really?  You send an email to other DNC officials suggesting an attack on a Democratic candidate’s religion and, after being caught, you say that it does not “reflect my beliefs”?  This was not some aside at a party but an email sent to other party functionaries.  Moreover, Marshall makes no mention of the fact that he, Dacey, and Wasserman Schultz were denying such a secret campaign against Sanders at the very time that these emails were sent.  The very fact that the DNC did not immediately dump Marshall, Dacey and others is telling.  Indeed, they should have been let go when these emails were sent, let alone after they were forced to acknowledge their dishonest and disgraceful conduct.

What do you think?

Cartoons of the Day

June 12, 2016

H/t Joopklepzeiker

EU over the falls


Hillary keeps lying

The Persistence of Mendacity (2)

June 12, 2016

The Persistence of Mendacity (2), Power LineScott Johnson, June 12, 2016

(Have we sunk so far that often repeated lies morph into truth, or simply don’t matter? — DM)

When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, Dick Morris polled possible responses for Bill Clinton. Morris determined that truth was not an option if Clinton wanted to remain in office. “Well, we just have to win then,” Clinton concluded. Thus Clinton’s finger-wagging denial of what proved to be the facts of the case.

When Clinton was finally questioned under oath by one of the lawyers working in the office of the independent counsel operating under Kenneth Starr, Starr’s office had obtained and tested Monica’s blue dress. The lying was over, but Clinton nevertheless prevailed in the court of public opinion.

Clinton’s lying bought him the time he needed to survive. With the time public opinion came around to the new line he had adopted about the whole thing being a private matter. Clinton succeeded in lowering public opinion to meet his gargantuan needs.

The missus was instrumental in helping Clinton buy the time he needed to sway public opinion. In her infamous interview on the Today show after the scandal broke (transcript here), Hillary decried the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that she asserted was the real story of the scandal. That helped, of course, but the key point she asserted twice in the course of the interview was this. The charges against the Big Dog would not be “proven true.”

The missus took a similar tack in her FOX News Special Report interview with Bret Baier last week. Clinton persisted in the falsehoods and evasions have reflected the order of the day in the matter of her private server for official State Department business (video below at about 4:15).

Clinton’s response offered no subtlety. It did not depend on the meaning of “is.” The lying was rampant and obvious. It is the verbal equivalent of brute force.

“You said you sent or received nothing that was marked classified,” Baier notes, but she had signed a non-disclosure agreement providing that markings don’t matter. Classification inheres in the information, not the marking.

She purports not to recall that, but “the fact is, nothing that I sent or received was marked classified and nothing has been demonstrated to contradict that.”

Where have we heard that before? Ah, history!

We have seen every assertion of fact Clinton has made about the use of her private server fall by the way. As Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne now report, this one is no exception. Austin Bay has more here.

Does it make a difference at this point? As always in the scandals of Bill and Hillary, time allows us to accommodate ourselves to their lies. The best defense is the persistence of mendacity.

Today the editors of the New York Post take a look back at the week that was in Clinton emails. They have plenty of developments to review without even getting to the latest report from Herridge and Browne. The editors declare: “Hillary’s final email defense: Mass amnesia.” The Post editors ask whether anyone will hold the lady to account and provide this answer: “We strongly doubt the Obama Justice Department will indict the woman the president just endorsed to be his successor. Any ‘law enforcement’ action is up to the voters.”

I’ll take that as a “no.”

Report: Obama Admin. Lied About Rate That Criminal Immigrants Re-Commit Violent Crimes

June 5, 2016

Report: Obama Admin. Lied About Rate That Criminal Immigrants Re-Commit Violent Crimes, Daily Caller, Christian Datoc, June 5, 2016

A new report from the Boston Globe shows that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers may have lied to Congress and the public about the likelihood of criminal immigrants, who should have been deported, to re-commit violent crimes when released into the general population.

The Boston Globe reviewed the cases of immigrants who had been set free in New England from 2008-2102, rather than being deported to their native countries.

Of the 323 criminal immigrants tracked, 30 percent were found to re-commit violent crimes, “including rape, attempted murder and child molestation.”

ICE does not normally publish the criminal records of immigrants, and the Globe only learned the names of the 323 case studies by suing the federal government to release that information back in 2013.

ICE argues a 2001 Supreme Court ruling makes it illegal to indefinitely jail immigrants and will release them into the general population if not deported within six months.

The Globe also found that the 30 percent of re-offenders have a high-likelihood of committing the same type of crimes, against the same victims.

The Globe found that a Massachusetts man was supposed to be deported after he served jail time for bashing his ex-girlfriend on the head with a hammer — but ICE released him in October 2009. Three months later, he found the ex-girlfriend and stabbed her repeatedly. A Rhode Island man who had served prison time for a home invasion was also released from immigration detention in 2009; five years later, he was arrested for attacking his former girlfriend. In 2010, ICE released a man with a lengthy criminal record in Maine; a few months later he grabbed a man outside a 7-Eleven, held a knife to the man’s throat, and robbed him. 

The Globe claims that ICE officials have testified before Congress that the likelihood of these immigrants to re-commit violent crimes is less than 10 percent.


Scrubbing Texts is Nothing New for Team Obama

June 4, 2016

Scrubbing Texts is Nothing New for Team Obama, Power LinePaul Mirengoff, June 4, 2016

In a post called “On the Iran deal, lies upon lies,” I discussed the deletion by the State Department from an archived video of an exchange in which spokeswoman Jen Psaki effectively admitted that the administration lied about its nuclear negotiations with Iran. Summarizing the situation better than I did in my post, Jake Tapper explains:

There was a first lie told to us about the secret talks between Iran and the Obama administration. We’ll call that lie number one. Now Jen Psaki acknowledged lie number one later that year, 2013. But then someone removed that acknowledgement from the official video. Let’s refer to the scrubbing as lie number two. And then, three weeks ago, we were lied to again, with the whole glitch thing. We’ll call that lie number three.

The Algemeiner reminds of two past instances of record scrubbing — the kind of dishonesty evinced in what Tapper calls “lie number two” — by the Obama administration (it also cites a couple of examples from previous Democratic administrations). In both prior cases, as with the Psaki deletion, the Obama administration tampered with words in order to promote a false narrative on important matters of foreign policy and national security.

Team Obama did this so recently that when I first read about the Psaki deletion, I thought we might already have written about it. Just two months ago, during a meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House, French president Francois Hollande used the term “Islamist terrorism” when referring to the recent Islamic State terrorist attacks in Europe. As Scott noted here, someone at White House deleted this language from the official White House video.

As it initially did with the Psaki deletion, the White House official claimed there had been a “technical issue” that “led to a brief drop in the audio.” However, he could not explain why the alleged technical problem occurred at the precise moment that the words “Islamist terror” were spoken or how the glitch managed to correct itself in time for Hollande’s next words.

Hollande’s words were inconsistent with the Obama narrative on terrorism, which somehow seeks to deny that the terrorism plaguing the world is “lslamist.” Therefore, the words had to go.

Two years earlier, the White House famously edited the Benghazi talking points. Among other edits, someone changed the characterization of the violence from “attacks” to “demonstrations” before the document was given to Susan Rice for peddling on the major television networks.

Who made the change? When asked this question by Bret Baier, former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor replied “I don’t remember. . . .Dude, that was like two years ago.”

When asked the corresponding question about the Psaki deletion, State Department spokesman John Kirby gave the same answer, minus “dude” and “like.”

The original version of the talking points contradicted then-operative Obama narrative on terrorism, which held that Obama had essentially conquered it. Therefore, the words had to go.

In the case of the latest scrubbing, Psaki’s statement to James Rosen contradicted the Obama narrative on the Iran nuclear talks, which claimed they were prompted by the election of a “moderate” Iranian president. It also constituted an admission that the administration wasn’t always truthful about its negotiations. Therefore, the words had to go.

Obama’s foreign policy is predicated on a series of lies: the terrorists have been largely vanquished; they are not “Islamist;” the Iranian regime has significantly moderated; the Iran deal was prompted by Iranian moderation, rather than the desire to deal with the regime Obama however radical it may be.

No wonder the truth so often must be scrubbed.

On the Iran Deal, Lies Upon Lies

June 2, 2016

On the Iran Deal, Lies Upon Lies, Power LinePaul Mirengoff, June 2, 2016

(Here’s a video of a portion of a State Department press conference during which the Department spokesperson tries to wiggle out of explaining what happened, why, how, by whom it was ordered and how often that sort of deception occurs.

— DM)

The State Department acknowledged today that an archived video of a December 2, 2013 press briefing was intentionally edited to remove a portion of a conversation about the Iran nuclear talks. Previously, the Department had tried to blame the removal on a “glitch.”

The deleted segment of the briefing featured Fox News reporter James Rosen asking then-State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki whether the Obama administration had lied about having secret talks with Iran in 2011. Psaki essentially admitted that it had.

Rosen inquired, “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.”

The start date of the Iran nuclear negotiations is back in the spotlight because of a New York Times Magazine piece in which Ben Rhodes admitted that the Obama administration “largely manufactured” a narrative for the Iran deal in order to garner support for it. A key element of the manufactured narrative was that negotiations began in 2013 with the election of a “moderate” Iranian president.

It looks like the State Department tried, by editing the video, to cover up the administration’s lie about when Iran negotiations commenced (together with the admission that it is willing to lie), and then lied again by claiming that the cover up was the product of a glitch.

The State Department now says the edit was the result of a request made three years ago. It was just under three years ago that the “moderate” was elected, thus laying the basis for Obama’s claim that negotiations with Iran should proceed. At that point, or a bit earlier when it looked like a “moderate” might win, it would be important for Team Obama to scrub what in effect was an admission that negotiations were already under way long before election.

Who requested the scrubbing? The State Department claims not to know. It says that officials “tried” to determine who ordered the edit, “but it was three years ago and the individual who took the call [to edit the tape] just simply doesn’t have a better memory of it.”

Jen Psaki, who made the admission that needed to be deleted, is an obvious suspect. She denies responsibility.

Will the State Department launch an investigation? No, it will not. Current spokesperson John Kirby says:

There were no rules governing this sort of action in the past, so I find no reason to press forward with a more formal or deeper investigation. What matters to me — and I take it seriously — is our commitment to transparency and disclosure.

The Obama State Department just can’t stop lying.