Some context since I owned the http://state.gov  website for a time.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/christopherm51/state-department-website-trump-term-ending-employee?__twitter_impression=true

First, it's unacceptable.

Second, it is not a hack.

Third, it will not be hard to figure out who did it.

The website sits on a different server, for what should be obvious reasons. There is no incentive to hack the website. There's no access. Tondo so is the digital equivalent of graffiti.

Embassy websites are not attached to http://state.gov  for a myriad of reasons (good and bad...don't get @macon started) but bottom line, this is only http://state.gov .

For content to be changed on http://state.gov  it goes through a process of internal sign off with the average process being 12-15 people. By rule, they can't make changes without that paper trail.

For transition there is a separate process. For transition of the president, the site will be archived and marked according to the federal rule. Transition of a Secretary gets a facelift. It is orchestrated to happen at exactly the moment a transition takes place.

The team running the website are all feds. I stand by the belief that it is an inherent government duty and should not be contracted out. This is not the case for all gov websites, but incidents like these make it critical as does the necessity for accountability.

As a result, there is record of every change on every piece of http://state.gov 's 150,000+ pages of content. So this will not be hard. Also, it is not an intern. If it's a political, that would be a drastic change.

By design, feds held the keys. That was my website from a leadership standpoint, but I couldn't make a change by my keystroke. There were layers and documentation. I realize the norm is to open access on organizations to make changes directly for ease. Not the case at State.

I don't know what happened. I haven't ruled out a screw up in the already planned transition archiving that will take place at 12:01 on Jan 20. That is possible in terms of how the website is built.

I also don't buy that it's a "disgruntled employee" when these diplomats say they don't know what happened. That is an irresponsible claim, especially for a diplomat who trades on the accuracy of information. I'd be just as interested in that person's comments as well.

So rest assured, it's not a coup, or an insurrection.

But it does prove that every little detail we negotiated on the accuracy of this website is needed. It is citizen access to accuracy and truth and we should treat every gov website as such.

END.