Discussion: State Dept. Calendars Chart Clinton's Meetings With Supporters As Sec Of State

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #243259

2

Welcome to the modern world. None of this is surprising and if you think it scandalous, you’re naive.

Multinational corporations have influence and business globally (hence the name) and influential people are the people you talk to when you want to get things done.

And finally, there’s’ nothing wrong with looking to the future while working in the present.

This is exactly the kind of BS ‘implied scandal’ reporting that has caused people to lose faith in journalism. This story is dripping with suggestions of scandal without reporting a single corrupt incident.

6 Likes
3

Not so silently wondering if TPM would like to see a Republican President…

1 Like
4

It’s much bigger than TPM, it’s the AP. A story with zero context but dripping with implied scandal without a single corrupt incident actually reported.

5 Likes
5

I don’t disagree, but they seem to be eagerly shared by TPM.

1 Like
6

A shorter and more useful article would have cited all the times she met with Republican donors and sympathizers. Or are we supposed to believe that never ever happened?

3 Likes
7

I’m a Sanders supporter who thinks Clinton is too closely tied to the corporate world, and even I think the accusations in this article are kind of lame. I mean, couldn’t this article just as easily be titled: In-Office Politician Lays Groundwork For Higher Office.

This is what politicians do. They get elected (or appointed), they try to effect change, and they lay the groundwork to either be re-elected or seek higher office. Unless Clinton was actively using her office in the State Dept. Building to fundraise, there’s no real story here - it’s just innuendo.

5 Likes
8

The AP found no evidence of legal or ethical conflicts in Clinton’s meetings, in its examination of 1,294 pages from the calendars. Her sit-downs with business leaders were not unique among recent secretaries of state, who sometimes called on corporate executives to aid in international affairs, according to archived documents.

If you read anything beyond this paragraph you are wasting your time. The rest is anti-Clinton punditry masquerading as an AP “news story.”

6 Likes
9

And a nice tie-in with the Clinton Foundation, the smearing of which as a corrupt enterprise is the main “Clinton scandal” on the Republicans’ 2016 agenda (the email thing was a bonus). The fact that the Foundation gets stellar ratings from the places that rank charitable organizations, and that the AP itself says they “found no evidence of legal or ethical conflicts in Clinton’s meetings” after clearly making considerable effort to do so, won’t sway the GOP noise machine from its planned programming, and won’t stop many “reporters” from gleefully lending the GOP their megaphone.

I can only hope that they shot their wad with the public on the email nontroversy, and that some in the media will have a bit of a “once burned, twice shy” reticence about parroting more bs about the Clintons’ “crimes.” And that the Times, having led the parade only to have been publicly humiliated by its shamefully inaccurate “reporting” and its own public editor, is at least embarrassed enough about it all to neuter Michael Schmidt. (Journalistically, of course.)

2 Likes
10

All those east coast national reporters have a ‘thing’ against the Clintons that I still can’t comprehend. They find everything the Clintons do to be scandalous. We will see l;ot more of this as the campaign wages on. And we will see allot more of this since everything- and I mean everything- is already known about the Clintons which means that reporteers will have to really reach to find something nasty to ‘balance out’ the reporting on the Republicans.

1 Like
11

It’s interesting. It’s that ‘village’ mentality inside the beltway and an example of the influence Republicans have over the press. Not to say Democrats don’t also hold sway over reporters, but Republicans have convinced the public that the press is out to get them.

Perfect example being the NYT’s ‘scoop’ of Hillary being referred to Justice by inspector general from State for criminal investigation. NYT just lapped up everything fed to them by GOP staffers without any serious verification and then it all goes bust. Do the staffers pay any price for this? Burned as a source? It doesn’t seem so from the outside. This happened A LOT during the Bush years.