“There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision".But the NYT chose not to cover it until late Friday night.
If Hillary Rodham Clinton’s new apology for her private email server fails to reassure jittery supporters, it could amplify the chatter among some Democrats who have been casting about for a potential white knight to rescue the party from a beleaguered Clinton candidacy.Front page, of course, all their trolling of her hits the front page.
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Secretary of State John Kerry, Senator Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Al Gore: Each has been discussed among party officials in recent weeks as an alternative to Mrs. Clinton if she does not regain her once-dominant standing in the 2016 presidential field and instead remains mired in the long-running email controversy, with its attendant investigations.Did you get a load of those names? Biden aside, are you kidding me? The whole article is an insulting mess where they just see how many ways they can say the dems need "rescuing" because of Hillary.
Others say (what the????) more than politics is at stake. “I was stunned to see that she didn’t use the State Department system for State Department business, as we were always told we had to do,” said William Johnson, a former Air Force officer who served at the department from 1999 to 2011.
Mr. Johnson said his concerns were only compounded by the discovery of classified information in the emails.
“If I’d done that, I’d be out on bond right now,” he said. He said he believed that someone should be punished — if not Mrs. Clinton, then career employees whose job was to safeguard secrets and preserve public records.Hi. Yes, that's right, that's what Michael Jeff Gerth Schmidt wrote. And could anyone seriously care any less what some random dude thinks? Doesn't matter, it fits Schmidt's narrative. This random dude, Mr. Johnson's opinion is what Schmidt chooses to share. Here said random dude is going to chime in on the level of the deed in question.
“It’s not the end of the world; she didn’t give away the crown jewels,” Mr. Johnson said. “But this is not how things are supposed to be done.”Moving on. Here's a significant insinuation of suspect activity by purposeful omission:
The email controversy breaks into three clear phases: Mrs. Clinton’s initial choices about how to set up her email; her decision to destroy messages she judged to be personal; and the discovery of classified information in an account where it is not allowed by law.But in the entire subsection of "DELETED EMAILS" (dun dun dun), Mr. Schmidt at no time states anything related to the instructions are the sender chooses. It's in the State Dept manual, it applies to other departments, and even other parts of government, Jeb Bush for example chose his emails to archive the exact same way when he used HIS private server to host his private email (Jeb@Jeb.org) for all his official business as Governor of Florida. Mr. Schmidt goes out of his way to mention what random Mr. Johnson thinks about the crown jewels but doesn't mention the State Dept manual for archiving emails? That's odd.
Scott Gration, ambassador to Kenya, resigned after a 2012 inspector general’s report accused him of flouting government rules, including the requirement that he use State Department email. “He has willfully disregarded Department regulations on the use of commercial email for official government business,” the report said.Let me clue you in on something, Scott Gration's IG report was lengthy, it included reports of his subordinates hiding in the bathroom when he came around because of how hostile he was, his telling subordinates he was going to shoot them in the head. Not checking his classified information. Etc. But Schmidt is pretending that the employee using personal email rose to the level of an ambassador fired.
The committee’s top Democrat, Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, said his concern has always been that the Benghazi inquiry — which he said comes on top of “seven or eight” investigations already conducted — would become a tool for Republicans who want to bash Mrs. Clinton. He said he believed that to a considerable degree, that is what has happened. “We have basically an unlimited budget to go after Hillary Clinton,” he said.But Mr Cummings concerns are beyond the passive "will become a tool", he is claming out loud and in print that the head of the committee is using the committee as as the tool. Big difference. But Mr. Schmidt has worked closely with Gowdy and Issa since March, so he has every reason to keep that part from getting into the news, people might actually see more of what is going on.
On Twitter, Tim Miller, Mr. Bush’s communications director, called it a “Clintonesque move to pass over chance to unite in favor of a false cheap shot.”NYT hates not to get words like "Clintonesque" in there. Fortunately they can just quote other people doing it. High five, bro!
New York Times reporter Michael Barbaro issued a gushing profile Sunday of Jeb Bush, former Republican governor of Florida, possible presidential contender, and, apparently, the smart Bush...Barbaro is so flattering you'd think he was writing about a Democrat.Newsbusters was a little confused and attributed the Jeb Bush "flattery" as a ruse to put down W., but those of us who've read the paper from the dem side know that is not the case. Here's what Newsbusters pointed out in May. Try not to puke over the unprofessional display of man-bro-love in a supposed to be legitimate newspaper:
"WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open an investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday."That's it. That only after multiple political talk shows and many online media outlets wrongly relayed that Hillary Clinton and/or her handling of her emails, were the target a criminal investigation.
The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's State Department email account late Thursday night, but provided no notification of or explanation for of the changes.
The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."
That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state."
Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.and the re-write:
Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.And notes thusly:
In the first version, Times reporters Michael Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo say that these nameless government officials are basing their request on possible misdeeds Clinton herself is alleged to have committed; in the latter, that's transformed into an incredibly vague construction: "mishandled in connection with." What does "in connection with" even mean? It could mean almost anything. What's more, this major alteration was made without any notice to the reader.
a "prolonged prologue to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s second run for the White House will reach its suspenseless conclusion"NYT re: Jeb Bush
"disarmingly playful and noticeably relaxed, quick to joke and eager to connect".NYT re: Hillary Clinton
"trying awfully hard to be down w/ the in crowd"
For the past several summers, Bill and Hillary Clinton have done what New York City’s moneyed residents have done for decades: They spent their vacation amid the prime beachside real estate of Long Island.
In 2011 and 2012, there was the eight-bedroom, 12,000-square-foot East Hampton rental with a heated pool that the couple took for part of August, the kind of house that typically goes for $200,000 per month, according to local real estate listings.
Then, in 2013, they opted for an equally pricey six-bedroom mansion in Sagaponack with a private pathway to the beach. (Mrs. Clinton worked on her memoir, “Hard Choices,” from a sunny office with an ocean view.)
This from the guy who sent 2 sheriffs to Blumenthal's house to deliver a subpoena to his wife, after he leaked Blumenthal emails to the NYT. Needless to say that never "raised questions" about the how political this effort by Gowdy is.Mr. Blumenthal handed over the emails to the committee on Friday in response to a subpoena. Dozens had never been provided to the panel, raising questions about whether the State Department and Mrs. Clinton had complied with its requests.“As some of you know, this has been an ongoing issue; I want the documents, not the drama,” Mr. Gowdy said.
"In August 2013 the model Petra Nemcova rewrote an earlier invitation asking Bill Clinton to accept a lifetime achievement award from Ms. Nemcova’s Happy Hearts Fund charity. The first invitation was declined. In this one, she offered to share the proceeds of the gala with the Clinton Foundation, which has a budget 100 times bigger than her small charity’s.
Six months after Bill Clinton accepted a lifetime achievement award at the Happy Hearts Fund gala in June 2014, the Clinton Foundation sent this invoice to the charity, run by the model Petra Nemcova. It sought to collect a $500,000 donation, equal to almost a quarter of the gala’s net proceeds"
"In Iowa, Queen Hillary and the Everyday Americans of the Round Table distribute alms to the clamoring press".Amusingly, in his tweet above he's included the other people at the table as also not more generously fulfilling his needs and they too are now objects of his spite. Clearly someone is having trouble sorting out his emotions. So creepy. It's pretty sad that the NYT would publish a personal piece and call it a "political memo".
But the press had previously mentioned that she would be speaking to them, so the boast is undeniably unearned and is just wounded pride and puffery. Sorry boys, yelling at women doesn't work as well as you wish it would.Outside, by the steps of the bike shop, Mr. Henry did a stand-up in front of his Fox camera. “The reason she had a news conference is because I started shouting questions,” he crowed to his viewers. He called that the day’s “bottom line.” Small victories.
"Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to be trying awfully hard to be down with the in crowd".
Relying largely on research from the conservative author of Clinton Cash, today’s New York Times alleges that donations to the Clinton Foundation coincided with the U.S. government’s 2010 approval of the sale of a company known as Uranium One to the Russian government. Without presenting any direct evidence in support of the claim, the Times story — like the book on which it is based — wrongly suggests that Hillary Clinton’s State Department pushed for the sale’s approval to reward donors who had a financial interest in the deal. Ironically, buried within the story is original reporting that debunks the allegation that then-Secretary Clinton played any role in the review of the sale.As reported by Media Matters, NBC News says "The NYT story doesn't hold up", ABC also agrees, the NYT doesn't hold up.
Disparate facts are treated like a logical series of events—a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," another argumentative fallacy.
"an attempt to tear down Secretary Clinton and her presidential campaign. If this is what passes for investigative journalism in the United States, it is very sad."Very sad indeed.
The problematic articles (oops) varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. -NYTOh, the informants had an agenda, (sorta like a recent source of recent article insinuating something sinister, story false) great sources then, anyone else have agenda? Based on the content of NYT articles featured in my blog and on others', I'd say it's hardly unusual for NYT to use their paper to push an agenda. But the NYT has an excuse for selling misinformation about Saddam Hussein's weapon aquisition, and it's also part of their regular method of operation; not taking the time to verify.
"Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper". -NYTWell that's interesting. Well surely after a mistake (?) that helped sell a war that killed 5,000 Americans and 200,000 Iraqis that would be sufficient enough to make sure the next time you insinuate or claim that a country in the Middle East has weapons of mass destruction you would double, triple, quadruple check. But that didn't happen, this did: (2) They pushed the exact same falsehoods regarding Syria/WMD.
“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.That's it. They barely even mention his political leanings.
Conservative super PACs plan to seize on “Clinton Cash,” and a "pro-Democrat super PAC has already assembled a dossier on Mr. Schweizer, a speech writing consultant to former President George W. Bush and a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution who has contributed to the conservative website Breitbart.com** to make the case that he has a bias against Mrs. Clinton."*Does* the author has a bias? Let's take a look:
Peter Schweizer is the president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), a conservative group with close ties to a billionaire family funding Sen. Ted Cruz's presidential run. GAI has also received substantial support from groups backed by Charles and David Koch:But even a quick look at Wiki will tell you all you need to know: The Author, Peter Schweizer, who is the President of GAI, "The Government Accountability Institute (GAI) is a conservative investigative research organization" -Wiki
Iowans seemed to appreciate the attention, but also to recognize its artificiality. “I’m guessing this was a campaign manager advising her to do this,” said Corey Jones, a 17-year-old student in the small audience allowed in to watch Mrs. Clinton’s round-table discussion. “It doesn’t seem like it was her idea.”
Keith Stamp, a member of the college’s board of directors, said he was grateful that Mrs. Clinton had chosen their community for her first stop. “We know some of this is staged, but it’s about as good as it’s going to get when you’re running for president,” he said.
“She’s going back and fixing her mistake,” said Hallie Corum, 17, a high school student. “I don’t think it’s very genuine. It’s not open-forum. It’s all scripted.”
Others just wanted a chance to get to know the real Mrs. Clinton. Brianna Langdon, 20, who was chosen to participate in the round table, said her only real impression of Mrs. Clinton came from “Saturday Night Live.”“They portray her as all about herself,” Ms. Langdon said, “so I’m hoping today to see that she’s not.
"A presidential candidate cannot run on being the first woman to be president, because that is not a platform. It does not tell the nation what she will do to respond to the nation’s needs. It also contradicts the underlying premise that a woman can do the job quite as well as a man and therefore gender should not matter. If gender should not matter, then, logically, a campaign cannot be based on gender. Hillary Clinton must make the case for why she should be president based on where she wants to lead the nation, and why, just as any man running for president must do. And that case must be made starting from the moment she declares her candidacy."