As the State
Department's story about what happened in Benghazi crumbles, Clinton's personal
spokesperson, Philippe Reines, loses his temper. “Have a good day. And by good
day I mean Fuck Off.”
Clinton and
Reines in China in 2010
(October 1, 2012,
Washington DC, Sri Lanka Guardian) On Sunday morning, BuzzFeed correspondent
Michael Hastings emailed Philippe Reines, Hillary Clinton's longtime aide and
personal spokesman at the State Department, asking a series of pointed
questions about State's handling of the Benghazi fiasco, and Reines'
over-the-top attack on CNN. The emails quickly got personal, with Reines
calling Hastings an "unmitigated asshole" before an exchange of harsh
words on both sides.
The email chain
concluded with Reines writing that Hastings should "Fuck Off" and
"Have a good life."
The full
exchange (with one typo fixed) is below.
From: Michael
Hastings
Sent:
Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:32 AM
To: Reines, Philippe
I
Subject: Request
for comment
Hey
Philippe:
A few quick
questions for you. Why didn't the State Department search the consulate and
find AMB Steven's diary first? What other potential valuable intelligence was
left behind that could have been picked up by apparently anyone searching the
grounds? Was any classified or top secret material also left? Do you still feel
that there was adequate security at the compound, considering it was not only
overrun but sensitive personal effects and possibly other intelligence remained
out for anyone passing through to pick up? Your statement on CNN sounded pretty
defensive--do you think it's the media's responsibility to help secure State
Department assets overseas after they've been attacked?
Let me know if
you have a second.Michael
______________________________________
On Sun, Sep 23,
2012 at 11:28 AM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:
Good morning
Michael
I'm adding my
colleague Toria Nuland who I believe you know. She has addressed much of your
questions below during her daily press briefings, so I'll let her weigh in to
remind you of what's already been thoroughly answered. As far as the tone of my
email, I think you're misreading mine as much as I'm misreading yours as being
needlessly antagonistic.
But on your
questions pertaining to CNN's handling of the diary:
• You know that
all USG personnel were evacuated from Benghazi after the attack. So I'm not
sure why you're asking why State didn't find the diary first.
• On material,
I'll let Toria reiterate, but the answer is no. Though you might want to ask
CNN if they took anything else from the crime scene that they haven't yet told
anyone about.
• In terms of
the media's responsibility, I'll start with the outlandish statement that I
believe the media does have responsibilities. Your question seems to imply they
have none and any expectation of responsible behavior is too much to ask. To be
specific:I believe CNN had the responsibility to act as human beings and be
sensitive to their loss when they first approached the family.
I believe CNN
had a responsibility to not make promises to the family it would not keep.
If that's too
much to ask, I believe CNN had at the very least a responsibility to make their
intentions on the use of Chris's diary clear to the family from the outset.
I believe CNN
had a responsibility to not deceive its own viewers for more than 48 hours on
the source of their reporting, using convoluted attribution they themselves had
to clarify, before admitting it was the diary they were relying on.
I believe that
when they finally did admit to using Chris's diary, they had a responsibility
to their viewers and to the family to explain why they broke their pledge.
I believe that
many within CNN agree with everything I'm saying.
More than
anything else, I believe that CNN - since they had already read every word of
the diary before calling the family on Friday the 14th, the day Chris's remains
were returned home - had all the information they needed at that point to make
an editorial decision on whether the contents of the diary compelled them to
report on it. I believe the time to invoke their standards to justify using the
diary came six days late. I believe that CNN, if they felt strongly that they
had an obligation to use the diary should never have presented the family with
a choice in the first place that they'd later disregard.
I don't believe
that CNN should get credit for issuing a flimsy confession only when caught
with their hands in the cookie jar. I believe the statement CNN issued late last
night, 24 hours after Anderson Cooper's ill-conceived statement on air,
basically says they agreed not to use it until they didn't feel like it
anymore, and only admitted to it when they were about to be caught. I don't
believe that's much of a profile in courage.
Lastly, I
believe that you of all people, after famously being accused of violating
agreed upon ground rules and questionable sourcing, would agree that it's
important for a news organization to maintain its own integrity if it is to be
trusted. That begins with keeping its word. If you can't manage that, then
don't give it.
I
realize that the way this works is that you only you get to ask me questions,
but I have one for you: if you were in Benghazi, went to the scene of the
attack, found the ambassador's diary, read every word of it, would you have
called them and asked their permission to use it, then when you weren't granted
that permission agree that you wouldn't use it in any way, and then a few days
later just change your mind?
If the answer is
yes, then you obviously agree that CNN handled this perfectly fine.
If the answer is
no, if you would have decided its contents demanded reporting immediately, how
would you have handled this differently then CNN?
And you should
feel free to use every word above, in its entirety. Though I suspect you won't.
Philippe
______________________________________
From: Michael
Hastings
Sent: Sunday,
September 23, 2012 12:04 PM
To: Reines,
Philippe I
Cc: Nuland, Victoria J
Subject:
Re: Request for comment
Philippe:
Thanks for
getting back to me. No, you read my email correctly--I found your statement to
CNN offensive.
From my
perspective, the scandal here is that the State Department had such inadequate
security procedures in place that four Americans were killed. And then the
Ambassador's diary--and who knows what else--was left behind for anyone to pick
up. Thankfully, it was CNN--and not Al Qaeda or some other militia--that found
it and was able to return it to the family. That CNN used portions of the
material in the diary they found at the scene--material that appears to
contradict the official version of events that State/WH has been putting
out--is completely in line with practices of good journalism.
I don't know how
involved Arwa Damon has been in this. But for what it's worth, Arwa is one of
the best war correspondents working today. She's consistently risked her life
to get these stories, and to find out what actually happens in these conflict
zones.I do agree that the media has lots of responsibilities, and CNN fulfilled
its responsibility by returning the diary while still managing to inform the
American public of newsworthy information. So it's unfortunate that you are
trying to make a scapegoat out of CNN. That State was forced to flee
Benghazi--again, because of such inadequate security, leaving behind all sorts
of sensitive information--tells us more about DoS than CNN.
The
misinformation here seems largely to be coming from State and the
administration. The defense that the administration has offered that there was
no intelligence warning of an attack is weak. If there was no intel, then
clearly the CIA and other intel agents stationed in Benghazi weren't doing
their jobs well. If there was intel, then we have some kind of
cover-up--whether out of incompetence or ass covering before the election or
just the trauma of losing four good men, it's hard for me to say at this point.
All the best,
Michael
______________________________________
On Sun, Sep 23,
2012 at 12:45 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:
Why
do you bother to ask questions you've already decided you know the answers to?
______________________________________
From: Michael
Hastings
Sent: Sunday,
September 23, 2012 12:50 PM
To: Reines,
Philippe I
Cc: Nuland, Victoria J
Subject:
Re: Request for comment
Why don't you
give answers that aren't bullshit for a change?
______________________________________
On Sun, Sep 23,
2012 at 1:38 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:
I now understand
why the official investigation by the Department of the Defense as reported by
The Army Times The Washington Post concluded beyond a doubt that you're an
unmitigated asshole.
How's that for a
non-bullshit response?
Now that we've
gotten that out of our systems, have a good day.
And by good day,
I mean Fuck Off
______________________________________
From: Michael
Hastings
Sent: Sunday,
September 23, 2012 01:40 PM
To: Reines,
Philippe I
Cc: Nuland, Victoria J
Subject:
Re: Request for comment
Hah--I now
understand what women say about you, too! Any new complaints against you
lately?
______________________________________
On Sun, Sep 23,
2012 at 1:48 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:
Talk
about bullshit - answer me this: Do you only traffic in lies, or are you on the
ground floor of creating them?
And since Fuck
Off wasn't clear enough, I'm done with you. Inside of 5 minutes when I can log
into my desktop, you'll be designated as Junk Mail.
Have a good life
Michael.
______________________________________
From: Michael
Hastings
Date: Sun, Sep
23, 2012 at 1:50 PM
Subject: Re:
Request for comment
To:
"Reines, Philippe I"
Cc:
"Nuland, Victoria J"
I'll take that as
a non-denial denial.
All the best,
Michael
