
Email reveals Clinton worked with Google CEOs to keep Benghazi video blocked - doener
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/16800#efmAUgAVkAdUAdnAePAe2
======
Bud
Too much to ask for "Benghazi" to be spelled correctly? Also, this is
overblown, doesn't mention Clinton, and DOES mention that this email was
already voluntarily given to House Select Committee on Pretending That
Benghazi is a Real Issue (aka Gowdy-Doody Time).

~~~
talmand
Other than it saying "Hillary Clinton Email Archive" at the top implying where
it came from and it says "Office of the Secretary" in the email itself? I
mean, I understand the committee thing was a waste of time but don't pretend
with your obvious bias that absolutely nothing happened here.

~~~
Bud
Yes, whereas you of course have no bias! Let's be honest: everyone has made a
judgment about whether this is a real issue or not, by now.

My point, however, was a factual one: this particular email was a) voluntarily
disclosed, and b) does not mention Clinton or substantiate the allegation in
the headline, and c) also fails to show that anything untoward occurred here.

~~~
talmand
What exactly is my bias you detected in my statement?

------
Someone1234
What specific video? I mean, yes, it is interesting that state asked Google to
block something on YT, but knowing what video is highly relevant to understand
the significance.

~~~
dublinben
This is likely in reference to Innocence of Muslims[0] the movie which
allegedly prompted the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi. It can be easily
found on Youtube today.[1]

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims)
[1][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl2-NyONaL8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl2-NyONaL8)

------
obvio171
I wonder if anyone at Google would resign over something like this, or if
everyone has already rationalized it away and now just keep their head down
for the next paycheck.

Some people definitely do go in with very strong principles, but those seem to
dilute quickly.

~~~
talmand
I see nothing wrong here. It appears it was an informal request that a private
company could have nicely said "no" in response. YouTube is taking down videos
all the time due to informal requests that have no authority of law behind
them, no one complains that much about those.

~~~
13thLetter
The Secretary of State calls up and asks you to take down a video and that's
an "informal request"?

~~~
talmand
The President of the United States of America can personally call you and
request that you take the Trump sign off your lawn. That is an informal
request unless he can specify what law he is enforcing that you must be in
compliance. You can politely or impolitely respond in any way you wish
regardless of the fact of the position the man currently holds.

If there is a threat to you for non-compliance of his request, then he has
likely broken the law.

~~~
bensonn
"The President of the United States of America can personally call" I think
Barrack Obama can make a personal call but The President of the US can't.

When an email comes from @state.gov with the description of "U.S. Department
of State SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS." I don't
think it can be considered Hillary making a personal request.

Ironically this might have been a very appropriate use of Clinton mail.

~~~
talmand
It is Monday so my recollection could be incorrect, but last I checked Barrack
Obama is indeed the President of the United States of America and he can make
a personal call whenever he feels like it. I was referring to the man that
currently holds that title, not the office. But, a personal call and an
informal request can be two different things completed at the same time.

I didn't claim Hillary made a personal request. I stated that an informal
request was made, whether it be from Hillary herself or a staffer on her
behalf. It is still an informal request that a private company can politely or
impolitely decline.

------
kzhahou
YT bans videos all the time. Why does this incident make Clinton or Google
"evil"?

~~~
krapp
Because Hillary Clinton is running for President and certain parties want to
imply a criminal conspiracy on her part regarding the Benghazi attacks.

~~~
talmand
First I've heard of a criminal conspiracy between Secretary of State and
YouTube. Is there any good links on that conspiracy theory?

~~~
krapp
An email was published to Wikileaks, obviously there's a conspiracy afoot.

------
VikingCoder
If I understand correctly, it's possible that someone in the State Department
asked Google to temporarily take down a YouTube video, which they believed was
actively inciting murderous violence against our embassies.

I'm okay with that.

If the government had attacked a private individual's server, and taken it
down, that's different in my mind. But YouTube does and should reserve the
right to not host content, yes?

Perhaps the Terms of Service have changed (they probably have), but they
currently include rules like:

Violent or graphic content - It's not okay to post violent or gory content
that's primarily intended to be shocking, sensational, or disrespectful. If
posting graphic content in a news or documentary context, please be mindful to
provide enough information to help people understand what's going on in the
video. Don't encourage others to commit specific acts of violence.

Hateful content - Our products are platforms for free expression. But we don't
support content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or
groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age,
nationality, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity, or whose
primary purpose is inciting hatred on the basis of these core characteristics.
This can be a delicate balancing act, but if the primary purpose is to attack
a protected group, the content crosses the line.

Perhaps in the heat of the moment (and with lives on the line), everyone made
a bad decision. The video is actually currently available, so maybe they have
changed their minds about some or all of this.

But yeah, I'm okay with this. I may change my mind when more evidence comes
out.

~~~
zaroth
My understanding is that there was never any rational basis or honest belief
that a YouTube video was ever "inciting murderous violence against our
embassies." It was a smoke screen to try to blunt the impact of what the
expert reports at the time described as a well-planned terrorist attack.

But I guess if you have to pick between gross incompetence or lies and cover-
ups, you can take your pick, or perhaps the truth is just, "yes".

~~~
VikingCoder
Let's say they thought it was unlikely that the video was to blame.

With lives on the line, how certain would you need to be, in order to ASK
Google to temporarily take it down?

10%? 5%?

And it's interesting to me to try to picture things from the other point of
view... People think that Sec Clinton didn't believe the video was causing a
problem, so she took a politically risky move and had the video taken down. If
she didn't boast about taking the video down, then why would she do it? I
guess people picture her like they Keystone Cops, or something. Or is there a
rational way to explain this, that I'm just not seeing? Like: She arrogantly
believed it would never come to light, so why the hell not ask to take it
down, even though she believed it had 0 impact on the situation?

~~~
zaroth
I don't know if taking down the video was just part of perpetuating the
narrative that the video was somehow relevant, or if they actually believed
the video was relevant and thought taking it down could somehow help matters,
or maybe they even thought taking down the video was "right" in any case
because, heck our govt is so keen on censoring "offensive" speech...

My only point is the choices are "dumb" and "dumber" so it's pretty depressing
no matter what you choose to believe they were thinking at the time!

------
cryoshon
So... whatever happened to "Don't be Evil"?

This incident depicts the US government asking for clandestine political cover
from a multinational corporation, and receiving it. The State Department was
the organ by which this unity of corporate and political power was achieved.

A candidate currently running for election was at least in part responsible
for the underhanded censorship of information from the public.

These favors end up being repaid at some point, because that is how politics
works. I doubt we will be informed about the nature of the favor that will be
transacted from the US government to the credit of Google.

~~~
brador
> So... whatever happened to "Don't be Evil"?

Google is a for profit corporation, not a person. It has a fiducary
responsibility to maximise profit and investor returns within all legal
bounds. Nothing else matters in the long term, no matter how much you might
wish it.

~~~
RodericDay
There Is No Effective Fiduciary Duty to Maximize Profits

[https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-
fiducia...](https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiduciary-
duty-to-maximize-profits-939ae50d0572#.7xoi4zn44)

~~~
brador
It is implicit and accepted.

------
grandalf
Google is the Halliburton of information.

------
obvio171
Title taken from Wikileaks' tweet:

[https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/710855886940540929](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/710855886940540929)

------
13thLetter
If it was Condoleeza Rice who had made this request a lot of people in this
comments section would be singing a different tune.

------
devereaux
That to me seems like a good reason to have your own private email server.
(add appropriate sarcasm tag)

How will she scratch back Google once elected? What kind of favors will be
exchanged??

~~~
Jgrubb
I was wondering this the other night will looking at the bar chart at the top
of the "Democratic Primary Results" query result. Bernie's behind for sure but
if you removed the superdelegate portion, which they've had in there from day
one, it looks much less like a runaway lead.

Rather maddening as a Bernie supporter, but I guess that's the way the game
gets played.

~~~
talmand
More the way the game plays you.

