Discussion for article #238745
Considering the NYT is the paper that threw that steaming pile of a nothingburger known as Whitewater out there for the right to feast on for years, I guess they are trying to stay consistent. Pathetic.
25 Likes
"on her controversial use of a private email "
Controversial only to partisan hacks and media dipshits.
25 Likes
Reminds me of the many, many columns by Maureen Dowd around 2008 which described Hillary Clinton as being somewhat worse than the wicked witch of the west, while Dowdâs preferred way of addressing then-candidate Obama was âObambiâ. She meant it, and the NYT allowed it to happen.
Apparently, this time the Clinton people have learned their lesson and are willing to fight back early and often.
20 Likes
NYT needs to make money and stay relevant to all readers, especially conservative. Conservatives are used to made up stories that please them. Left and Right alike talk about these stories. Its a win win for NYT and its readers.
Capitalism. Fox perfected it. Others want to be part of it.
3 Likes
NYT legitimized the fake Whitewater scandal too.
10 Likes
To be totally fair, she should not have used personal email for work purposes, especially the work of a position as sensitive as Secretary of State. But her offense is no worse than Jeb Bush using personal email for his work as Governor of Florida and it should have been treated the same way.
6 Likes
Legitimized? They basically kicked the whole thing off (google âJeff Gerthâ).
@TheyAllStink16: When she became Secretary of State, that was the norm. And to repeat what Iâve already posted a few times today: in determining whether a given email was job-related or personal (on the secure server of a former president of the United States), she was exercising precisely the same discretion exercised, by law, by every Federal employee, whether in the past, when they would decide which email to preserve from a single account, or currently, when they decide which device to use to send a given email. Canât be repeated enough.
18 Likes
But see, itâs OK for republicans (sigh)⌠but a democrat? Well, then, itâs Benghazi time!!
4 Likes
What the hell did the Clintons do to the New York Times?
4 Likes
Good for Howard Dean. I wonder if any other prominent Democrats will pull their thumbs out of their fucking asses and say what needs to be said about that rag.
10 Likes
I blame the NYT got not vetting the story before running it. This type of journalism is all too common today.
3 Likes
I recall reading a story in NYT, written by none other than Gwen Ifill in the 90âs, where in reference to President Clinton she parenthesized to the effect âwho is under investigation for irregularities in a real estate deal (Whitewater)âŚâ. The story itself had nothing to do with whitewater itself as I recall.
2 Likes
But thatâs not even remotely what this about.
What is HAPPENING is that thereâs been a FOIA request framed extremely widely aimed at (the applicantsâ hope) capturing instances of things like State having em records that HRC appears to have deleted, or State missing em records that it arguably should have but that have been deleted or withheld or âdisappearedâ at HRCâs end. Fair enough so far.
But the request appears also to have caught ems that certain officials within the intel community, whether NSA or CIA or the FBI or State or any one of literally DOZENS of other agencies and departments that the NSA regards as its âcustomersâ, donât want released to the public, for reasons having nothing to do with what HRC kept or deleted or whatever.
And this raises any entirely different aspect of whatâs meant by âcriminalâ, being this: are governmental or contractual agency and departmental members of the US intel community making bullshit claims about needing to keep certain ems from the public because their release might compromises ongoing or even just prospetive criminal investigations.
Iâm not saying thatâs what has happened here. I AM saying that reporters in Apuzzoâs position in particular, reporters who have a lot of contacts and sources leftover from previous administrations but still employed or contractors to members of the intel community, using in things like Iâve just described in essence to screw around in national politics. For example, it may be seen to be in the partisan interests of the GOP generally that a Bush I or Bush II or Cheney hire whoâs still in the CIA or FBI or State knows something like this is going on, something that may have zilch to do with the sort of concerns being floated about HRCâs motives and actions in how she chose to handle her em traffic, and insists to Apuzzo that the insider info being given out be âspunâ as somehow âcriminalâ, or even âcriminalâ in a certain respect.
Again, so far so bad. Whatâs really problematical with the Times is how the page editors screwed around with the presentation. It COULD be that Apuzzo et al waited to âshopâ the version being pressed on them by their source(s) to the most sympathetic editor on the job, or that they found a way around that editor, which is a big hazard in large ânationalâ dailies like WaPo and TNYT. Or it could be that Skippy the publisher moron is fishing for Fox-like cheap click bait.
1 Like
It takes a little work, but you can read the New York Times without paying for it. Hell, someone will read it to you if you have an Audible subscription. There is no reason to give them money for this crap. I just cancelled.
2 Likes
Every Sec. of State before her since email became a thing has done so. Try again.
6 Likes
How is anyone going to be able to bring a criminal case and get a conviction if this broad wonât provide the evidence we need to lock her up? There are surely dozens of instances of criminal behavior out there and year after year we hold hearings, conduct investigations, and build spreadsheets and whiteboards that connect the dots. And what does she give us? Butkus. This woman should be perp walked before the country for acts that are surely heinous if somewhat ambiguous at this time.
1 Like
The NYT is becoming a joke when it comes to journalism. Jumping on a story without checking it out first and then almost verbatim publishing a story on HRCâs corruption based on the book of a known nut job and said book was by the author himself, full of allegations and unsubstantiated but that they should be looked into. WTF??
10 Likes
I actually find it heartening that this is the worst the Republicans could dredge up against her. I seriously doubt anyone beyond the rabid GOP base (who would latch onto any reason to hate her) really care about this.
I mean yeah, she shouldnât have done it, but what the fuck ever man. Move on NYT.
1 Like
Holy shit ! â Iâll guarantee Iâll be losing sleep over this one â
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
2 Likes