I'm astonished at a Jake Tapper interview with Clinton's campaign manager, Robby Mook.
Tapper asked Mook about a quote from the recently released FBI Clinton Email interview files. In it, the FBI asked the IT person responsible for the Clinton email server at River Platte Networks about the term, "Hillary coverup" used in a work ticket. But Tapper just selected the term, he didn't quote the actual investigation report.
In the investigation report, the IT person stated the "Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation..." was probably due to the recently requested change to a 60 day email retention policy and the comment was a joke."
It was a joke. I've been in the tech industry for almost 30 years and have seen thousands of comments and asides of this nature. Any tech knows what I'm saying.
Why would Tapper pull out the term without the rest of the investigation comment? It's not as if we couldn't fact check to discover what he did? To do so is not only stupid, it undermines the very foundation of what it means to be a journalist: to discover the truth and to report the truth.
Has he no self-respect as a journalist? As a human being?
Jake Tapper did respond in a tweet.
@crooksandliars the report said it was "probably" a joke. You assert with zero evidence that it was one. All I did was ask a question.
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) September 26, 2016
No, that explanation doesn't work. First of all, Tapper cherry picked out the controversial term without the context. That's just not done.
Secondly, the IT guy used "probably' to reference the event where he wrote that comment on a work ticket—the 60 day retention. The rest of the work ticket entry, consisting of "...and the comment was a joke" tells us it's a joke.
Of course it was.