Discussion for article #235577
His [Schweizer’s] Institute Is Funded By The Kochs And Company.
It’s time to say goodnight
16 Likes
Of course Republicans are “giddy.” They always believe the next manufactured “scandal”
will be the one to destroy all opposition and hand them eternal power. The fact that each one then fails to do so never alters their faith that the BIG ONE is coming along next. It’s right there, just out of reach, like the Michelle Obama “whitey” tape. And they’re “giddy” about each one as it comes along the endless pipeline.
Oddly, I suspect that anyone who inclines to vote Democratic won’t decide to endorse the crazed platform of the GOP because they’re upset about unproven (and unprovable) accusations about charitable donations and speaking fees.
If people want to talk influence peddling, how about the Kochs vowing to buy the election and own the next government? And of course, they own this “conservative author” too… even as the NYT obligingly propagandizes for them.
14 Likes
O.K., so he’s a grifter, a charalatan and a tool. He might be fond of dogs.
12 Likes
He was also a consultant to the speechwriter of George W. Bush.
5 Likes
For those who want it all to be true, his credibility is irrelevant. For others, it’s more of an issue.
It’s a “no smoke without fire” charge. Those who already believe the Clintons are evil profiteering liars will see these claims as “proof.” Those who don’t believe that will see it as politically motivated smears. Will a single vote be changed by such arguments? Doubtful.
5 Likes
#6…
Media Matters already has most of this covered and then some…
Honestly, the article here almost makes it sound like he’s an equal opportunity political hitman. In reality, he’s a total rightwing hack and sleazy political operative that’s been trying to frame liberals for malfeasance with questionable tactics disguised as journalism, and downright despicable scandal-mongering for ages.
24 Likes
A lot of BS claims but where is the proof it appears that the NYT found none
7 Likes
Anytime I see a headline “conservative author says_____”
I don’t bother to read the article and think, meh, who believes a word they spew?
If I wanted to be lied to, I could turn on the fixed noise channel.
3 Likes
Thank you Media matters!
6 Likes
Nope. They just buried the fact that they had no proof deep inside their breathless article.
But it’s enough for the Hillary haters (and not just on the right – Josh Vorhees at Slate hypes each Hillary “scandal” as fanatically as the most dedicated right-wing hack; he already declared the “email scandal” a historic abuse of public trust, and is leading the charge today that the foundation “scandal” is the end).
6 Likes
His Institute Is Funded By The Kochs And Company
Enough said.
8 Likes
With apologies to R.W. Emerson
’How much of human life is lost in speculating?'
3 Likes
Exactly.
2 Likes
So, there is a market for Clinton dirt. How much is a loadful?
Didn’t really need the other 4 points at all, now did he?
5 Likes
If the article had led with it’s 5th point it would have been enough to stop reading right there.
5 Likes
“…fisked Schweizer’s account and revealed that Whitehouse been absent from the committee that…”
What is that supposed to even mean?
Oh right. Internet. Editing or proofreading, not really a thing.
1 Like
Sure. Anyone can CLAIM their next target is Jeb Bush (reportedly). Probably as solid as expecting to see a Romney tax return.
Ask Brendan … he appears to have bought some.