Discussion for article #235611
we told the author that we wanted to do a story building on a chapter in his book that grew out of work we did in 2008
What work that you did? Good god, I’m not in the news business but that’s an incredibly weak and pathetic answer.
The point of it all is to derail Clinton with bogus crap. It wouldn’t be a first time for the “paper of record”.
That’s why I stopped reading it years ago…anyone can do that.
NY Times-desperately seeking relevancy
So it’s faint light on the dark dirt deal…Mushrooms, anyone?
It took them what, two, three days to come up with this claptrap?
The Clintons can take it. They can take one nutjob’s whacko insinuations and pretzel logic. They took Ken Starr to the cleaners when he and his army of about 60 DOJ lawyers investigated everything from Lewinsky to the Clinton’s first used car transaction.(It may not have looked like it at the time but Starr admitted in the trial that he had nothing on them, besides a consensual relationship between two adults) The final final is this: these people are Goo Goo’s with no ill will towards American interests. And they have plenty of money from Bill’s speaker’s fees, which come to him because he is one of the most popular figures on earth today and because he is interesting, funny, bright, and ready to please the crowd. What’s not to like?
I just read a piece on NYT now about a Russian uranium deal. At least the Times had the decency to print this disclaimer:
"Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book Clinton Cash.”
I think by unearthed, they mean Schweizer pulled them from his ass.
I read the article. It did not tie Hillary to any of the donations in question, nor to the decision to allow the Russian company to do business in this country, which was made by a committee of several Cabinet department representatives. Several times the article stated that the issue never rose to the level of Secretary of State and that she was never a party to the discussions nor has anyone even intimated that she tried to influence the decision.
So I’m not sure what the point was…lots of innuendo, but not much actual dot-connecting.
I get the feeling Hillary’s private email system will come back to hurt her in a big way. It is hard to imagine that her server wasn’t compromised. In the very least, once the setup was discovered two years ago when Sidney Blumenthal’s AOL account was hacked, security personnel in the Obama administration had to have tried accessing the server to find out if confidential information was exposed for anyone to see. Plus, when it was discovered that Hillary went behind Obama’s back to have Blumenthal run a private intelligence organization, that must have destroyed the Obama - Clinton relationship.
In the near future there will be a call for Clinton to release email regarding Foundation matters and she will claim all her emails were deleted. Then some very damaging emails will be leaked.
The consistent quality and good writing in the NYT’s comes from their reader’s comments. In contrast the NYT’s often sells out like they are doing with Clinton helping the right bash her with nasty and often untrue articles. US media is corporate mass produced garbage for their own agenda. Never buying the spin, the NYT’s reader top-pick comments are a rare source of unity in this corrupted nation. Also an escape from the deranged ranting of the right all over comments sections.
The NY Times has turned into a rag paper. Soon nobody will be reading it.
No, it won’t.
Ummm. The two previous Secretaries of State used private email. So did Jeb Bush for his business as governor of Florida.
Mainly, though, the argument that she could have been hacked doesn’t hold too much to be concerned about since the supposed “SECURE” State Department server she “should” have used managed to be hacked by nothing less than Wikileaks.
It was Wikileak’s disclosures that set off the Arab Spring, remember?
This deal, by its very existence, lends credibility to the book and its author that neither deserve.
From the statement issued by Correct the Record: “Buried 4,000 words deep in the New York Times story, the former assistant secretary at State who handled the issue said that Secretary Clinton never intervened with him in it. This is just another instance of a right wing extremist author and the media trying in vain to find correlation where there is none, in order to smear the Clintons.”
The NYT is no longer involved in journalism but they are now right wing advocates, taking their stories from a known republican operative. #NeverBuyNYTAgain!
Sullivan says money didn’t change hands. It didn’t need to. The book is getting free publicity on the front page of the fucking New York Times. A book publishing company couldn’t afford advertising like that.
Not to mention giving the imprimatur of the Times to this right-wing author, a former employee of Bush and Palin and the Hoover Foundation.
The NYT is now an advocate for the republican party.
Well, I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. There’s still plenty of good journalism in the Times. It is just incumbent upon readers to be discerning and separate the wheat from the chaff. With, say, the New York Post, there is only chaff, so it is easier.