Anti-Clinton hit piece in National Journal jumps the shark hard

[Panda Express]

An admirable effort but when will the Media learn? On any other politician, the "death by a thousands cuts" strategy would work. You could slowly bleed a person dry. Not Hillary. She doesn't bleed. These type of attacks are useless.

[136or142]

I'm sure a real scandal would hurt her, but not phony scandals like this.

Clinton Author Admits He Doesn’t Have Evidence

April 27, 2015By Taegan Goddard80 Comments
“In back-to-back interviews over the past 24 hours, conservative author Peter Schweizer admits he doesn’t have direct evidence that Hillary Clinton intervened to assist individuals and entities because they donated large sums of money to the Clinton Foundation,” NBC News reports.

Said Schweizer: “No, we don’t have direct evidence. But it warrants further investigation because, again… this is part of the broader pattern. You either have to come to the conclusion that these are all coincidences or something else is afoot.”

Schweizer is the author of the new book, Clinton Cash.

[Lurker]

The media will go truly insane if the Clintons get back into the White House.

This elections seems quite simillar to 2000 in this respect, as it was the so-called "liberal media" who led the onslaught against Gore, with the Washington Post being particularly nasty in its character assasination and search for nontroversies. Seems like it will be far worse this time around, though.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The media will go truly insane if the Clintons get back into the White House.

This elections seems quite simillar to 2000 in this respect, as it was the so-called "liberal media" who led the onslaught against Gore, with the Washington Post being particularly nasty in its character assasination and search for nontroversies. Seems like it will be far worse this time around, though.

Thankfully there is a much stronger liberal media infrastructure so that nobody can disseminate bogus quotes like "I invented the internet" unchecked.

[IceSpear]

Well, it certainly seems to be a campaign-killing scandal to me. Congratulations president Rubio!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/27/1380600/--Clinton-Cash-author-can-t-even-defend-his-wild-claims-on-Fox-News

First, former Bush speechwriter and Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer claimed—with an assist from the New York Times—that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had approved a deal involving a Russian uranium mining company. Unfortunately for Schweizer and the Times the facts showed that the State Department is just one of nine votes on the committee that had to approve that deal, that Clinton wasn't personally involved in the review, and that other independent agencies also had to approve it. But fear not! Schweizer had a fallback position, which he trotted out on Fox News Sunday, because of course Fox News:

    WALLACE: Nine separate agencies and they point out there's no hard evidence, and you don't cite any in the book that Hillary Clinton took direct action, was involved in any way in approving as one of nine agencies the sale of the company?  

    SCHWEIZER: Well, here's what's important to keep in mind: it was one of nine agencies, but any one of those agencies had veto power. So, she could have stopped the deal.

All the money that allegedly flowed to the Clintons to smooth the way for this deal to go through was so that Clinton would not attempt, as the head of one of nine agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, to veto it? When the State Department's review of the deal didn't rise to the level where the secretary would get personally involved? Oh, and by the way, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Canadian government also signed off on the deal, and if the cabinet secretaries on the CFIUS can't agree on whether to approve a deal, it's not a one-secretary veto situation: the president then decides.

So Schweizer's allegation basically boils down to that Hillary Clinton did not intervene in a process that hadn't risen to the level of needing the secretary's attention, and that she did not exercise veto power she didn't really have. Boy, those donors sure bought some extra-special treatment from her.

LOL what a joke. The NYT should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for hitching onto this guy's wagon, but sadly I doubt they are. I'm sure they think the ends justify the means.

[King]

I talked to my father today about this scandal. He's worked as a consultant (during Clinton/Obama admins)/regulator (during Bush I and Bush II admins) on mining and drilling OPs in New Mexico over the years. Obviously, he's a Republican. He hates Hillary and thinks Christie can win (loldad).

However, he said this mining scandal does not make any sense from his experience. The State Department is only brought in an advisory capacity in these situations to provide a pseudo background check on all foreigners in a bid. Generally, it is federal government policy regardless of administration to give the state government decision making power barring some incredible circumstance. But again, it's usually the EPA that steps in to fight the state and not the State Department, and it almost always goes to court in that case.

The worst Hillary could have done here is order an embellished glowing report on the company for Utah to consider. However, reports are not the only factors generally considered. In fact, these kind of lucrative bids usually take so long to be decided that several administrations come and go.

[Mister Mets]

How dare those scumbags criticize the anointed one!

[IceSpear]

How dare those scumbags criticize the anointed one!

More like how dare you give unsubstantiated criticism that even the source of said criticism can't prove, then pass it off as fact.

[Landslide Lyndon]

How dare those scumbags criticize the anointed one!

Don't be so bitter. Maybe next time you'll find a real scandal to play.

[WVdemocrat]

How dare those scumbags criticize the anointed one!

You know what annoys me? When Republicans make bogus claims about the Clintons, and then they can't back it up. And then, when Democrats call them out on it with, like, facts and stuff, and then said Republicans sarcastically quip "how incongruous of us to dare challenge the Holy Hillary." Yeah, that annoys me.

I hereby dare any Republican poster on this site to respond to the factual evidence provided by Landslide Lyndon with their own factual evidence.
_{Note: randomly drawn connections between unrelated things and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories do NOT count as "factual evidence"}

[Lincoln Republican]

Just another episode in the endless and sordid story of the scandal ridden Clintons.

Not only scandal, corruption, graft, and an entrenched attitude of entitlement, but exercising extremely naïve and amateurish judgment on the world stage.

This does not a President make.

[DS0816]

Just another episode in the endless and sordid story of the scandal ridden Clintons.

Not only scandal, corruption, graft, and an entrenched attitude of entitlement, but exercising extremely naïve and amateurish judgment on the world stage.

This does not a President make.

The hit pieces are based on two efforts:

1) The Republicans fear Hillary Clinton.

2) Corporate News Media wants a close general election.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Just another episode in the endless and sordid story of the scandal ridden Clintons.

Not only scandal, corruption, graft, and an entrenched attitude of entitlement, but exercising extremely naïve and amateurish judgment on the world stage.

This does not a President make.

The hit pieces are based on two efforts:

1) The Republicans fear Hillary Clinton.

2) Corporate News Media wants a close general election.

Don't pay attention to Winfield.

[Lincoln Republican]

Just another episode in the endless and sordid story of the scandal ridden Clintons.

Not only scandal, corruption, graft, and an entrenched attitude of entitlement, but exercising extremely naïve and amateurish judgment on the world stage.

This does not a President make.

The hit pieces are based on two efforts:

1) The Republicans fear Hillary Clinton.

2) Corporate News Media wants a close general election.

Don't pay attention to Winfield.

That's what he says when he knows he can't  go toe to toe with me verbally. 

[Ebsy]

Just another episode in the endless and sordid story of the scandal ridden Clintons.

Not only scandal, corruption, graft, and an entrenched attitude of entitlement, but exercising extremely naïve and amateurish judgment on the world stage.

This does not a President make.

The hit pieces are based on two efforts:

1) The Republicans fear Hillary Clinton.

2) Corporate News Media wants a close general election.

Don't pay attention to Winfield.

That's what he says when he knows he can't  go toe to toe with me verbally. 

You conveniently haven't provided any proof for any of your banal assertions.

[Lincoln Republican]

Just another episode in the endless and sordid story of the scandal ridden Clintons.

Not only scandal, corruption, graft, and an entrenched attitude of entitlement, but exercising extremely naïve and amateurish judgment on the world stage.

This does not a President make.

The hit pieces are based on two efforts:

1) The Republicans fear Hillary Clinton.

2) Corporate News Media wants a close general election.

Don't pay attention to Winfield.

That's what he says when he knows he can't  go toe to toe with me verbally. 

You conveniently haven't provided any proof for any of your banal assertions.

Have you just graduated from Snarky University?  Come on, don't be modest now.

[WVdemocrat]

How dare those scumbags criticize the anointed one!

You know what annoys me? When Republicans make bogus claims about the Clintons, and then they can't back it up. And then, when Democrats call them out on it with, like, facts and stuff, and then said Republicans sarcastically quip "how incongruous of us to dare challenge the Holy Hillary." Yeah, that annoys me.

I hereby dare any Republican poster on this site to respond to the factual evidence provided by Landslide Lyndon with their own factual evidence.
_{Note: randomly drawn connections between unrelated things and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories do NOT count as "factual evidence"}

^Any takers?

Here, I'll even repost his clear logic (credit to DailyKos) here:

Well, it certainly seems to be a campaign-killing scandal to me. Congratulations president Rubio!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/27/1380600/--Clinton-Cash-author-can-t-even-defend-his-wild-claims-on-Fox-News

First, former Bush speechwriter and Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer claimed—with an assist from the New York Times—that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had approved a deal involving a Russian uranium mining company. Unfortunately for Schweizer and the Times the facts showed that the State Department is just one of nine votes on the committee that had to approve that deal, that Clinton wasn't personally involved in the review, and that other independent agencies also had to approve it. But fear not! Schweizer had a fallback position, which he trotted out on Fox News Sunday, because of course Fox News:

    WALLACE: Nine separate agencies and they point out there's no hard evidence, and you don't cite any in the book that Hillary Clinton took direct action, was involved in any way in approving as one of nine agencies the sale of the company? 

    SCHWEIZER: Well, here's what's important to keep in mind: it was one of nine agencies, but any one of those agencies had veto power. So, she could have stopped the deal.

All the money that allegedly flowed to the Clintons to smooth the way for this deal to go through was so that Clinton would not attempt, as the head of one of nine agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, to veto it? When the State Department's review of the deal didn't rise to the level where the secretary would get personally involved? Oh, and by the way, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Canadian government also signed off on the deal, and if the cabinet secretaries on the CFIUS can't agree on whether to approve a deal, it's not a one-secretary veto situation: the president then decides.

So Schweizer's allegation basically boils down to that Hillary Clinton did not intervene in a process that hadn't risen to the level of needing the secretary's attention, and that she did not exercise veto power she didn't really have. Boy, those donors sure bought some extra-special treatment from her.

[bobloblaw]

More Clinton fun from the right wing NYTs

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/canadian-partnership-shielded-identities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html?_r=2

[King]

More Clinton fun from the right wing NYTs

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/canadian-partnership-shielded-identities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html?_r=2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Canada did not give the Clinton Foundation USA tax exempt status until 2010 and so there was a Clinton Foundation Canada founded in 2007 for Canadian donors. There is no information available about these donors because the Canadian privacy laws won't allow them to disclose it.

What a conspiracy!

[Landslide Lyndon]

More Clinton fun from the right wing NYTs

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/canadian-partnership-shielded-identities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html?_r=2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Canada did not give the Clinton Foundation USA tax exempt status until 2010 and so there was a Clinton Foundation Canada founded in 2007 for Canadian donors. There is no information available about these donors because the Canadian privacy laws won't allow them to disclose it.

What a conspiracy!

I don't even bother to read theses embarrassingly desperate hit-pieces anymore. Between this and giving Jindal the chance to spew his homophobic venom, the Times have seriously tarnished their reputation.

[King]

Really, if you are a liberal, this is beyond Hillary or the 2016 election. Progressives need to be engaged on this because they need to protect the Clinton Foundation, which is an important global social institution with projects still active. ACORN was already lost to rumors. You don't want to set a precedent that foundations can be stigmatized so easily. Let the media lead on this and the general public will have as much distrust of charities as they've developed with labor unions. You'll hear about how the 2024 Democratic nominee's "ties to Big Charity are worse than the Clintons!"

[bobloblaw]

More Clinton fun from the right wing NYTs

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/canadian-partnership-shielded-identities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html?_r=2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Canada did not give the Clinton Foundation USA tax exempt status until 2010 and so there was a Clinton Foundation Canada founded in 2007 for Canadian donors. There is no information available about these donors because the Canadian privacy laws won't allow them to disclose it.

What a conspiracy!

So that is very convenient for the Clintons to shield their donations.

The Clinton Foundation and the Sec of State are probably the biggest scandal to afflict a candidate in modern history. So Hillary's campaign is less than a month old and it has been hit by two major scandals and the reliable liberal media outlets that rallied to protect them in the 1990s have turned on them.

[IceSpear]

More Clinton fun from the right wing NYTs

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/canadian-partnership-shielded-identities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html?_r=2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Canada did not give the Clinton Foundation USA tax exempt status until 2010 and so there was a Clinton Foundation Canada founded in 2007 for Canadian donors. There is no information available about these donors because the Canadian privacy laws won't allow them to disclose it.

What a conspiracy!

So that is very convenient for the Clintons to shield their donations.

The Clinton Foundation and the Sec of State are probably the biggest scandal to afflict a candidate in modern history. So Hillary's campaign is less than a month old and it has been hit by two major scandals and the reliable liberal media outlets that rallied to protect them in the 1990s have turned on them.

LOL, the "liberal" NYT was one of the biggest pushers of the Whitewater nontroversy.

[bobloblaw]

More Clinton fun from the right wing NYTs

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/canadian-partnership-shielded-identities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html?_r=2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Canada did not give the Clinton Foundation USA tax exempt status until 2010 and so there was a Clinton Foundation Canada founded in 2007 for Canadian donors. There is no information available about these donors because the Canadian privacy laws won't allow them to disclose it.

What a conspiracy!

So that is very convenient for the Clintons to shield their donations.

The Clinton Foundation and the Sec of State are probably the biggest scandal to afflict a candidate in modern history. So Hillary's campaign is less than a month old and it has been hit by two major scandals and the reliable liberal media outlets that rallied to protect them in the 1990s have turned on them.

LOL, the "liberal" NYT was one of the biggest pushers of the Whitewater nontroversy.

So the NYT isnt liberal?

[IceSpear]

More Clinton fun from the right wing NYTs

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/canadian-partnership-shielded-identities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html?_r=2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Canada did not give the Clinton Foundation USA tax exempt status until 2010 and so there was a Clinton Foundation Canada founded in 2007 for Canadian donors. There is no information available about these donors because the Canadian privacy laws won't allow them to disclose it.

What a conspiracy!

So that is very convenient for the Clintons to shield their donations.

The Clinton Foundation and the Sec of State are probably the biggest scandal to afflict a candidate in modern history. So Hillary's campaign is less than a month old and it has been hit by two major scandals and the reliable liberal media outlets that rallied to protect them in the 1990s have turned on them.

LOL, the "liberal" NYT was one of the biggest pushers of the Whitewater nontroversy.

So the NYT isnt liberal?

In general they are, but when it comes to their history, it is fairly clear: they have no problem using unproven or debunked right wing talking points/faux scandals to try to smear the Clintons.