ALLEGEDLY LIBERAL PUNDITS REACT: Chris Hayes vouched for the work of the Times!

FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2015

Part 5—His guest had already been fooled:
Early on the morning of Thursday, April 23, the New York Times’ new “bombshell report” appeared on line.

That’s the way Chris Hayes described the report on his cable program that night. You could almost say that the affable youngster was observing “the New York Times rules.”

According to those unwritten rules, members of the upper-end press corps aren’t allowed to tell the truth about the patterns and practices of major mainstream news orgs like the Times. In a larger sense, they know they mustn’t discuss the actual way the upper-end press corps works.

As we’ll see below, Hayes seemed to play by those rules that night. He would vouch for the accuracy of the “bombshell report,” even as he spoke to a guest who had already become one of its very first victims.

In truth, the Times had been less than obsessively honest in its new bombshell report. Large amounts of information were weirdly missing from its report. Disguised disclosures were scattered about, misleading people who actually tried to read the sprawling report.

Michelle Goldberg was one of the people who got misled.

That night, Goldberg appeared as a guest on Hayes’ cable program. In the course of a ten-minute discussion, he affably vouched for the journalism in the bombshell report.

To watch the whole segment, click here.

Hayes’ posture that night was highly ironic. Earlier that day, Goldberg had become one of the first journalistic victims of the Times’ slippery work, which was less than obsessively honest.

Earlier that day, Goldberg had written a 1300-word piece for The Nation about the Times’ new report. In just her third paragraph, she became an early victim of the paper’s slippery journalism.

So did Goldberg’s progressive readers. This is what they read that day in just her third paragraph:
GOLDBERG (4/23/15): Take today’s New York Times investigation, “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company.” The story implies—but does not clearly allege—that money funneled to the Clinton Foundation greased the wheels for a deal that left Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency, in charge of 20 percent of American uranium reserves. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was part of a committee of cabinet officials that had the power to accept or reject the deal.
“Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company?”

In fact, no “cash” was involved in the scary tale the Times was telling that day. The paper had borrowed the evocative word from the “right-wing smear merchant” (Goldberg’s term) whose unpublished book they were channeling in their new report.

“Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company?” As Goldberg noted, the insinuation at the heart of the new report was obvious:

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton approved a scary uranium deal in return for a flow of cash! Right there in paragraph 3, Goldberg explained how Clinton had supposedly done it:

“As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was part of a committee of cabinet officials that had the power to accept or reject the deal.” So Goldberg said, in her own words, in paragraph 3 of her piece.

That seems like a fairly clear statement. Is the statement accurate?

As far as we know, it is not. Goldberg apparently thought that the New York Times had established that fact in its new report. But that’s because of the newspaper’s slippery journalism.

Was Clinton “part of a committee of cabinet officials that had the power to accept or reject the deal?” The bombshell report doesn’t say that! Indeed, if you read all the way to paragraph 67, the bombshell report included a denial which should have appeared much earlier.

Below, you see material from paragraphs 63-67 of the endless bombshell report, which appeared in hard copy on Friday, April 24. We highlight the denial which Goldberg may not have read, along with a delayed disclosure a few paragraphs earlier.

That denial should have appeared much earlier. Perhaps due to its tardy placement, Goldberg seemed to have missed it:
BECKER AND MCINTIRE (4/24/15): [In August 2010], the deal giving ARMZ a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for review. Because of the secrecy surrounding the process, it is hard to know whether the participants weighed the desire to improve bilateral relations against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States. The deal was ultimately approved in October, following what two people involved in securing the approval said had been a relatively smooth process.

Not all of the committee's decisions are personally debated by the agency heads themselves; in less controversial cases, deputy or assistant secretaries may sign off.


[...]

The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary's level. He would not comment on whether Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on the matter, but he gave The Times a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to the foreign investment committee at the time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez said, ''Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”
Was Clinton “part of a committee of cabinet officials that had the power to accept or reject the deal?”

The world’s most forgiving person might find a way to describe that account as “technically accurate.” (We’d make a different assessment.) But can we talk? In terms of its actual reporting, the New York Times never established that Clinton played any role in the uranium deal at all!

In the passage shown above, assistant secretary Fernandez seems to say that Clinton was not involved in the scary uranium deal, which was actually approved in “a relatively smooth process.” But in a typically slippery act, the New York Times’ Jo Becker delayed this disclosure until paragraph 67, by which time almost no one was still reading her Cold War-flavored tale.

We get the impression that Goldberg may not have seen these delayed disclosures about the “relatively smooth process” which approved the uranium deal. Presumably as a result, she made that inaccurate or misleading statement right in paragraph 3 of her piece in The Nation.

Last week, we told you that this statement by Fernandez should have appeared at the start of the bombshell report. Goldberg’s misleading or erroneous statement helps establish why.

In fact, Jo Becker’s endless bombshell report was full of slippery “journalistic” practice. Most notable was all the information which wasn’t there—the missing information, the lack of reporting, which readers will rarely notice.

Missing information:

How many cabinet departments sit on the committee in question, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States?

Becker filled her lengthy report with scary distractions. But she never managed to establish that basic fact.

Who chairs the committee in question?

Elsewhere, we’ve read that Treasury chairs the committee, not State. Despite the endlessness of her report, Becker didn’t say.

Did anyone on the nine-member committee oppose the scary uranium deal? Did anybody actually think the uranium deal was scary?

In her Cold War-inflected report, Becker suggested the possibility that Clinton approved the scary deal in exchange for all that “cash.” But she never established that anyone on the whole committee actually opposed the scary deal—which was in line with Obama policy, as we learned in yet another delayed, semi-hidden disclosure.

On a journalistic basis, Jo Becker’s bombshell report was a slippery bombshell report. In the work they performed this day, we’d have to say that Becker and McIntire were less than obsessively honest, as is so often the case at the New York Times.

In her own piece that day for The Nation, Goldberg noted some of the problems with the Times report. This included Becker’s peculiar use of a factual claim which seemed to have been refuted the first time Becker used it, back in 2008, on the front page of this same New York Times.

Goldberg noted some of the problems. But doggone it! By paragraph 3, she herself had fallen victim to one part of Becker’s work. So it has gone, for decades now, when the Times performs such slippery work as it goes after a target.

On a journalistic basis, the New York Times had done some very poor work this day. But so what? That night, progressive viewers of the Hayes program received a good solid dose of “the New York Times rules.”

During a ten-minute segment, Eric Boehlert of Media Matters tried to keep the affable host focused on the problems with the insinuations which had been pimped by the Times.

It was a losing battle. Hayes kept turning the conversation toward the various things which “drive him nuts” and “drive him crazy” about the Clintons. He and Goldberg kept focusing on an alleged “failure of disclosure” by the Clinton Foundation which they said was “the big problem here for Bill Clinton.”

The allegations concerning disclosure took up exactly six paragraphs in the 75-paragraph bombshell report. Simply put, Hayes and Goldberg were ignoring the principal thrust of the sprawling report which wasn't obsessively honest. In effect, Hayes and Goldberg had cast themselves in the role of the squirrel who has found the one nut.

(A few days later, the Clinton camp explained the alleged disclosure problem. In response, Becker and McIntire filed yet another slippery report, which we’ll discuss in the next few days.)

As he spoke with Hayes and Goldberg, Boehlert kept trying to focus on the main thrust of the bombshell report. He kept encouraging Hayes to notice the problems with the New York Times’ slippery work.

Eric Boehlert fought the good fight, but his observations were disallowed. Eventually, his affable host seemed to feel that he could take no more of this nonsense:
BOEHLERT (4/23/15): What is in the news today? In terms of this permanent infrastructure of fishing expeditions, Hillary Clinton is going to be asked to testify about Benghazi in June, about the attack, thirty months after she attacked. So the Republicans have this blueprint for the Clintons, and yes, for the Obamas too. You set up this permanent infrastructure, you get in the right-wing media, and then you lure the New York Times to chase it, too.

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: Well, here’s my question, though. You say “lure the New York Times.” And I’ve seen you on Twitter sort of attacking them on this sort of alleged partnership—or I guess it’s not alleged, a partnership with the author.

BOEHLERT: They’re going to appear on the Fox News special this weekend, going after the Clintons.

HAYES: Right. But the point here though is that like, this does seem a legitimate piece of journalism. And I don’t think they got anything wrong. I mean—
Go ahead—watch the tape. Hayes seems to be bristling at the idea that Boehlert had been criticizing the Times.

He seems to bristle at the claim that the Times had been “lured” to this new set of slippery insinuations. He seems to bristle at the way Boehlert had criticized the Times for its partnership with author Peter Schweizer, who Goldberg had described in The Nation as a “right-wing smear merchant.”

He even starts to describe the partnership with Schweizer as an alleged partnership. He then says that the “bombshell report” “does seem like a legitimate piece of journalism.”

“I don’t think they got anything wrong,” he inexplicably says.

In response, Boehlert goes back to the beginning, trying to explain the problems to Hayes all over again. Instantly, Hayes returns to one of the things that drive him nuts about Clinton.

Here you see the way the guild will fight to keep you clueless. Boehlert makes an obvious observation. Quickly, Hayes changes the subject:
BOEHLERT (continuing directly): Well, this uranium story left out—

We talked at the beginning. They left out all kinds of context in terms of who approved that deal. If you read that story, at the end you think Hillary Clinton changed U.S. policy midstream because someone paid her husband for a speech. That is not even remotely close to what happened.

HAYES: Also, can someone explain to me—and again, like Bill Clinton can do whatever the heck he wants. But like, the other thing I thought when I read that article was like, why wasn’t there somebody being like, “Hey, Bill, maybe you should just turn down this speaking engagement? Like we don’t need the half million dollars?”
Boehlert wants to discuss the Times, Hayes wants to criticize Clinton.

Quite correctly, Boehlert said the Times report conveys a gross misperception. Hayes responded with yet another complaint about the Clintons. He delivered a perfect non-sequitur there. It's the way this guild tends to work.

Hayes’ performance that night was one of the worst we’ve ever seen. That said, our favorite overpaid liberal stars have behaved that way for years.

The rules of the guild have always been clear. For professional and social reasons, you can’t afford to tell the truth about the work of dominant orgs like the Times. Beyond that, you can’t tell the truth about the work of the mainstream press as a whole.

How has the mainstream press corps worked? Goldberg made some remarkable statements to Hayes that night.

“There is this kind of long-standing journalistic vendetta against the Clintons,” she told him at one point. She said this vendetta “kind of allows people to exaggerate and follow these sort of right-wing conspiracy theories down all sorts of rabbit holes.”

She also said this: “Journalists consistently kind of throw out normal evidentiary standards in going after the Clinton.” Indeed, the Times’ Jo Becker had done just that in the new “bombshell report.”

On the air at The One True Channel, Chris Hayes wasn’t buying. He just kept listing the various things that bug him about the Clintons.

People are dead all over the world because people like Hayes have played this game for at least the last twenty years. To the bitter end, they refuse to discuss the actual way the upper-end press corps works.

On the brighter side, their social standing is intact. They are making ginormous bucks. Life is good in the land of those who know they can’t tell you the truth.

Still coming: Becker and McIntire seem to report on that disclosure issue

76 comments:

  1. "That’s the way Chris Hayes described the report on his cable program that night. You could almost say that the affable youngster was observing “the New York Times rules.”

    Bob Somerby, the crotchety oldster novelizing about 36 year old man

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, everybody younger than Bob is a damned kid who needs to get off his lawn.

      Delete
    2. Get off my lawn for an oldster? Hey that's real funny! Yours?

      Delete
    3. Sorry it took me a day to get back to your response to my comment the day before. Made my day.

      Delete
  2. Yes, apparently (it’s hard to tell) Bob feels that the only way the Dept of State could have intervened (i.e., “helped”) was through the Committee on Foreign Investment. Is that true? Well if you read the 4,400 word piece you might come across this:

    “At the time [June 2010], Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show. Rosatom officials say they were seeking to acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic reserves to meet its own industry needs.

    It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.

    ‘We want more than a statement to the press,’ Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the embassy’s energy officer on June 10, the officer reported in a cable. ‘That is simply chitchat.’ What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid.

    The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable.

    What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh officials to discuss the issue on June 10 and 11.

    Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One….”


    I suggest everyone read the article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They will also find this in the NY Times article:

      "And Mrs. Clinton brought a reputation for hawkishness to the process; as a senator, she was a vocal critic of the committee’s approval of a deal that would have transferred the management of major American seaports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates, and as a presidential candidate she had advocated legislation to strengthen the process."

      IF the Times had really wanted to follow the Clinton Rules, they could have explained her role better, as the Financial Times did when the Dubai deal was brewing:


      "Bill Clinton, former US president, advised top officials from Dubai two weeks ago on how to address growing US concerns over the acquisition of five US container terminals by DP World.

      It came even as his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal.

      ...Mrs Clinton remains a leading voice against the deal, and this week proposed legislation to block it, arguing that the US could not afford to “surrender our port operations to foreign governments”.

      http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60414c4c-a95e-11da-a64b-0000779e2340.html#ixzz3ZZ73ojqN

      Now, on its face Senator Clinton's actions showed independence from her husband. Unfortunately "the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation" to use the terms of the NY Times when reporting the uranium issue just a few short years later.

      Delete
  3. 1,500 words in the Nation. 4,400 words in the NYtimes! Bob's post today hs 2,400 words, and it's Part 5.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is sprawling over 9 K now. But with Bob, if you subtract the endless repetition, it is really much more concise.

      Delete
  4. Bob: "In fact, no 'cash' was involved in the scary tale the Times was telling that day. "

    Did Bob even read the article?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, with a lot more astutely than you did obviously.

      It must be so frustrating for CDS sufferers. Just when they think they finally got her, poooooffff, they open their clutched fist to discover they aint got shit once again.

      Delete
    2. So, you agree that no cash was inolved in the scary tale the Times was telling that day?

      Delete
    3. No. mm believes the MOU involving Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was no big deal, but the MOU between the Clinton Foundation and Kazakhstan to let the country by cheaper drugs was worth the Big Dog jetting on two different billionaire's planes to and from a minor central Asian country to sign on the bottom line. Whatever else was happening there at the time is mere coincidence.

      All MOU's are not created of the same apparent equivalence.

      Delete
    4. No, that is one horrendous piece of journalism, but there is no there there. Sorry.

      Delete
    5. mm. You never bothered to read it, did you?

      Delete
    6. anonymous, you aint got shit, do you?

      Delete
    7. I don't know if I have shit. With that worthless MOU I shoved up my ass at your earlier request it is hard to know when there is shit and when there is none.

      Delete
    8. that's what I thought.

      Delete
    9. The MOU works pretty good. You ought to try it. It will save you a lot of wear and tear on your head.

      Delete
    10. anonymous, a friendly tip.

      choke up a little, cut down on your swing.

      Delete
    11. mm, a friendly tip.

      Quit trying to prove Somerby was right when he wrote:

      "Our guess? Such cluelessness from Clinton supporters may represent her “biggest problem.” "

      Delete
    12. Clinton Rules mean you are never allowed to challenge any false smears against the Clintons. False smears by deranged lunatics are her fault and it's very annoying to the lunatics to have their false smears challenged.

      Delete
    13. Clinton Rules may also be invoked to discount any legitimate criticism or questions directed at the Clintons as "smears."

      Which is why, frankly, Somerby and others so quickly discount the dilemma raised by Goldberg when she said "if you believe, as I do, that the Clintons have been demonized and persecuted to a preposterous degree and that they have cut ethical corners..."

      Clinton Rules allow you to say they never cut any ethical corners because all such charges come from followers of the Clinton Rules. It is a handy device for denial.

      Delete
    14. I'm not familiar with these other Clinton Rules you speak of. It seems to me you're saying it's just not fair for her supporters to defend the scurrilous charges being leveled against, because, you know, everyone just "knows" these people are dirty. Classic Clinton Scandal Industry tactic. When pressed to clearly define and prove anything, and found wanting, they attack her defenders.

      Clinton Rules mean you can say any damn thing you want about them. I've seen Newt Gingrich state flatly on a Sunday Morning show that President Clinton and Secretary Clinton should be in jail right now. Peggy Noonan just compared them to Bonnie and Clyde. Willard (Mitt) Romney stated flatly that it looked like "bribery". Joe Scarborough actually accused Secretary Clinton of treasonously selling out her country by taking Algeria off the "terrorist list" in exchange for donations to CGI.

      The subject here is the article in the New York Times, front page, which TDH is skillfully exposing by By JO BECKER and MIKE McINTIRE.

      Here's how it begins.

      *****
      The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

      The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

      But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
      ******

      So, in the opening paragraphs they make the totally unproven fact free allegation that Hillary Clinton was involved in this uranium mine sale.

      As TDH says, this article by Becker should be used in journalism schools as a textbook example of the worst kind of journalism.

      Quoting TDH: "In terms of its actual reporting, the New York Times never established that Clinton played any role in the uranium deal at all!"

      You can't state it any more clearly and it boggles my mind that anyone could possibly defend that piece of shit article.

      Delete
  5. Scary? Did the NY Times article ever use the word "scary" to describe the acquisition of American uranium deposits by a Russian government controlled company? I couldn't find it. I did find one U.S. Senator quoted who called the deal "alarming."

    Heck, that is mild compared to the words used by a U.S. Senator to describe another such deal:

    ''The White House is trying to hand over U.S. ports,'' Clinton charged.

    ''We cannot afford to surrender our port operations to foreign governments,'' she roared.

    ''We cannot cede sovereignty over critical infrastructure like our ports,'' she insisted.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Any minute we'll here from the HRC fan club. "There's no proof of quid-pro-quo!!" "It's just a stupid MOU, she can't be bothered to make sure it was being adhered to!!"

    They (and Bob) can't seem to grasp that even an apparent conflict is a problem.

    As the then head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sen. John Kerry acknowledged during a Senate floor speech on January 21, 2009 on this very issue.

    “Transparency is critically important here, obviously, because it allows the American people, the media, and those of us here in Congress with an oversight responsibility to be able to judge for ourselves that no conflicts–real or apparent–exist….’’

    Kerry then went on to assure that all donations to the Clinton Foundation would be made public.

    The Clintons then went on to make a fool out of him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is trolls whack-a-mole. You address all these points elsewhere and they pop up unchanged here.

      If you don't like Clinton don't vote for here, but this is not a reason.

      Delete
  7. I'd like to see Bob and Joe Scarborough have a debate. Three hours in, the remaining viewer could shout, "Get to the fucking point."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Warning to casual readers of this blog: Bob's apologists are unmedicated. They are invested in repeating one insipid paragraph meant to insult those who call Bob on his tedious, rarely substantive diatribes. Such clowns are not an indicator of the level of intelligence of other readers, ones who do not drool and throw their own feces.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please. Throwing poo references are reserved for chimps, whether made in the body of posts and in the comment box.

      Let's at least maintain some respect for our primate cousins.

      Delete
    2. anon 1:15, i see you did not heed my request that you give it a rest. I shouldn't ber surprised. Let me ask another futile, but entirely valid question: why is it that you continue to read the blog if you think it consists of "tedious, rarely substantive diatribes?" What other sites do you recommend?

      Delete
    3. @ 1:15 didn't write the disclaimer you responded to. I did.

      Delete
  9. "In terms of its actual reporting, the New York Times never established that Clinton played any role in the uranium deal at all! "

    Right. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Worth repeating:
      As the then head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sen. John Kerry acknowledged during a Senate floor speech on January 21, 2009 on this very issue.

      “Transparency is critically important here, obviously, because it allows the American people, the media, and those of us here in Congress with an oversight responsibility to be able to judge for ourselves that no conflicts–real or apparent–exist….’’

      Kerry then went on to assure that all donations to the Clinton Foundation would be made public.

      Delete
    2. Keep clutching that fist as tight as you can. Don't let any pixie dust fall out.

      Delete
    3. I agree. I think it is just lucky Mr. Giustra had some pending paperwork in Kazakhstan related to his uranium holdings that allowed him to time his visit so he could leave with Bill Clinton and view first hand the wonderful things he could do if he later donated millions and millions to the Clinton Foundation.

      Delete
    4. 1:42, not even the appearance of a conflict there.

      Delete
    5. No, none at all. And the fact the Bill and Frank reunited to visit at Bill and Hil's upstate home in Chappaqua with the head of Kazakhstan's energy operation about the time Frank was cashing in his chips in the Kazakhstan mines is just a coincidence too. The fact Bill and Frank denied the meeting took place to the NY Times reporters, then fessed up after they were told there were photos had nothing to do with the reporter's scepticism. That was caused by the Clinton Rules.

      Delete
    6. "reporter's skepticism"

      It must really be embarrassing for this "reporter" to see her fairy tale dissected so skillfully on these pages for all the world to read.

      Maybe this "reporter" can team up with Judith Miller on her book tour and explain how she did nothing wrong.

      Delete
    7. Except Becker is the one who had the photo and it was Clinton and Giustra who did the initial denying.

      Delete
    8. Again, you are taking the word of this reporter, a proven mendacious prevaricator, which I think is a dangerous thing to do. Why would the ex-President of the United States want to lie about who he had as a guest at his house? Was this John Gotti he was meeting with? Guess what, you and the CDS'ers don't get to hound the man any longer. You did it for his entire 2 term presidency, but now it's over.


      "..denied the meeting took place to the NY Times reporters.." That's what this hack says.

      *************
      But Giustra and his aides explain that the manner in which the Times‘ fact-checking questions were asked was misleading and did not prompt them to recall the Chappaqua meeting.
      *******

      I would like to see "the manner in which the Times‘ fact-checking questions were asked" before making any judgment. That is just being fair, something that is alien to this hack "reporter".

      Delete
    9. I would like Bob and mm to simply acknowledge this part of the NY Time story exists:

      "(In Feb. 2007) Mr. Dzhakishev, the Kazatomprom chief, said he traveled to Chappaqua, N.Y., to meet with Mr. Clinton at his home. Mr. Dzhakishev said Mr. Giustra arranged the three-hour meeting. Mr. Dzhakishev said he wanted to discuss Kazakhstan’s intention — not publicly known at the time — to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse, a United States supplier of nuclear technology.

      Nearly a year earlier, Mr. Clinton had advised Dubai on how to handle the political furor after one of that nation’s companies attempted to take over several American ports. Mrs. Clinton was among those on Capitol Hill who raised the national security concerns that helped kill the deal.

      Mr. Dzhakishev said he was worried the proposed Westinghouse investment could face similar objections. Mr. Clinton told him that he would not lobby for him, but Mr. Dzhakishev came away pleased by the chance to promote his nation’s proposal to a former president.

      Mr. Clinton “said this was very important for America,” said Mr. Dzhakishev, who added that Mr. Giustra was present at Mr. Clinton’s home.

      Both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Giustra at first denied that any such meeting occurred. Mr. Giustra also denied ever arranging for Kazakh officials to meet with Mr. Clinton. Wednesday, after The Times told them that others said a meeting, in Mr. Clinton’s home, had in fact taken place, both men acknowledged it.

      “You are correct that I asked the president to meet with the head of Kazatomprom,” Mr. Giustra said. “Mr. Dzhakishev asked me in February 2007 to set up a meeting with former President Clinton to discuss the future of the nuclear energy industry.” Mr. Giustra said the meeting “escaped my memory until you raised it.”

      Wednesday, Mr. Clinton’s spokesman, Ben Yarrow, issued what he called a “correction,” saying: “Today, Mr. Giustra told our office that in February 2007, he brought Mr. Dzhakishev from Kazatomprom to meet with President Clinton to discuss the future of nuclear energy.”

      Mr. Yarrow said his earlier denial was based on the former president’s records, which he said “show a Feb. 27 meeting with Mr. Giustra; no other attendees are listed.”



      Records, flight manifests, written answers to questions from the press. Photos? Did you say you have photos?

      The hardy corps of the Bobinista/Clintonists wing of the Sisterhood of Perpetual Denial wants to see your documents. Don't dare ask for theirs.

      Delete
    10. 4:16 The NYTimes can't be trusted, didn't you see how they apparently got it wrong about the incoming flight?

      Listen, Bill Clinton would never lie about anything. Why do you hate them so, you must be a CDS person or something.

      Delete
    11. Heck I was a Clinton delegate to my county convention back in 1992.

      Delete
    12. "(In Feb. 2007) Mr. Dzhakishev, the Kazatomprom chief, said he traveled to Chappaqua, N.Y., to meet with Mr. Clinton at his home. Mr. Dzhakishev said Mr. Giustra arranged the three-hour meeting. Mr. Dzhakishev said he wanted to discuss Kazakhstan’s intention — not publicly known at the time — to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse, a United States supplier of nuclear technology."


      Damn, you mean Mr. Dzhakishev just went right out and blurted it out there for all the world to know? He didn't stick to the cover story? The Clintons didn't have him silenced? That's some hell of a conspiracy our intrepid reporter uncovered. I smell a Pulitzer.

      Delete
  10. How to Fool Ms. Goldberg

    By Bob Somerby
    (as retold by N. Festus Troll)

    Ms. Goldberg wrote:" As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was part of a committee of cabinet officials that had the power to accept or reject the deal."

    Bob wrote:

    "Michelle Goldberg was one of the people who got misled."

    "Goldberg had become one of the first journalistic victims of the Times’ slippery work,..."

    "In just her third paragraph, she became an early victim of the paper’s slippery journalism."

    "“As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was part of a committee of cabinet officials that had the power to accept or reject the deal.” So Goldberg said, in her own words, in paragraph 3 of her piece.

    That seems like a fairly clear statement. Is the statement accurate?

    As far as we know, it is not."

    As a matter of Federal Law, Somerby readers, Bob doesn't know much.

    "SEC. 3. STATUTORY ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES.

    Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C.
    App. 2170) is amended by striking subsection (k) and inserting
    the following:
    ‘‘(k) COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED
    STATES.—
    ‘‘(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Committee on Foreign Investment
    in the United States, established pursuant to Executive
    Order No. 11858, shall be a multi agency committee to carry
    out this section and such other assignments as the President
    may designate.
    ‘‘(2) MEMBERSHIP.—The Committee shall be comprised of
    the following members or the designee of any such member:
    ‘‘(A) The Secretary of the Treasury.
    ‘‘(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
    ‘‘(C) The Secretary of Commerce.
    ‘‘(D) The Secretary of Defense.
    ‘‘(E) The Secretary of State.
    ‘‘(F) The Attorney General of the United States.
    ‘‘(G) The Secretary of Energy.
    ‘‘(H) The Secretary of Labor (nonvoting, ex officio).
    ‘‘(I) The Director of National Intelligence (nonvoting,
    ex officio).
    ‘‘(J) The heads of any other executive department,
    agency, or office, as the President determines appropriate,
    generally or on a case-by-case basis.
    ‘‘(3) CHAIRPERSON.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall
    serve as the chairperson of the Committee.

    121 STAT. 248 PUBLIC LAW 110–49—JULY 26, 2007

    That Bob! He knows when journalists are being slippery by trying to cite existing law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ‘‘(2) MEMBERSHIP.—The Committee shall be comprised of
      the following members or the designee of any such member:

      "Or the designee."
      Aside from the fact that there is zero evidence Secretary Clinton had any role whatsoever in the approval and there is affirmative evidence that she didn't.
      Damn, you almost had something that time!

      Delete
    2. You got me mm. But in all honesty I fell victim to slippery demagoguery by then Senator Hillary Clinton of New York when she attacked President Bush for the Dubai port deal.
      I should have known you can't hold these cabinet members responsible for their designated underlings doings any more than you can expect an ex President to make sure his foundation employees keep to a deal cut to make his wife Secretary of State.

      This is all Obama's fault!

      Delete
    3. "I should have known you can't hold these cabinet members responsible for their designated underlings . . ."

      Not only that, how could Hillary possibly ensure that Bill's underlings at the Clinton Foundation would keep the deal she signed?

      Sorta presents Chris Christie's "Schnook or crook" problem, doesn't it?

      She either has no control the people who work for her and Bill, or her promise means nothing.

      Delete
    4. "...the deal she signed?"

      The MoU was not signed by Hillary Clinton, jackass.

      Delete
    5. Individuals For SanityMay 8, 2015 at 4:15 PM

      The implication:

      Clinton approved this controversial deal, which would be a problem if either there was a quid-pro-quo donation to the Clinton Foundation to grease the wheels or if it was simply "a bad deal."


      The reality:

      Clinton didn't approve and had no role because a designee handled all such approvals. Neither is there any evidence that Clinton subbed in this designee to merely to avoid an appearance of impropriety. The designee was already in place and this was quite simply not an area where Clinton got involved. Further, there's no evidence that ANY of the various departments vetting the deal found it troubling.


      Response of right-wing trolls and reflexive media defenders:

      So, you admit Clinton can't control her people!!

      Delete
    6. "Clinton approved this controversial deal, which would be a problem if either there was a quid-pro-quo donation to the Clinton Foundation to grease the wheels or if it was simply 'a bad deal.'"

      Or, as John Kerry pointed out in 2009
      “Transparency is critically important here, obviously, because it allows the American people, the media, and those of us here in Congress with an oversight responsibility to be able to judge for ourselves that no conflicts–real or apparent–exist….’’

      Conflicts, real or apparent. They should have followed the MOU.

      Also, as 12:13 noted above, it was more than simply the Committee on Foreign Investment. The local US embassy weighed in....

      Delete
    7. The reality:

      The Committee on Foreign Investment approved the sale of a British Company to a Dubai based firm. Then Senator Clinton blamed President Bush for "surrendering our port operations to foreign governments."

      Response of Clintonista/Bobinista Brotherhood of Double Standards:

      So you use Clinton Rules to hold Clinton to Clinton standards!!

      Delete
    8. Oh, I see, so when she promised under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee that it would be followed, she was under no obligation to do so since she didn't actually sign it.

      Senator CLINTON. Well, again, you know, this is an agreement that has been worked out between all of the parties and the fact is that the concerns that were raised in the discussions between the Foundation and the President-elect’s team were thoroughly discussed and they believe, and I agree, that the transparency and disclosure that is needed which, as you said yourself, it goes beyond any kind of legal or ethical consideration and not only that,
      there will be ongoing reviews by anything that is brought to the attention of the career professionals.

      Delete
    9. Hey, jackass. Go find another nit to pick. She agreed to this arrangement to shut the fucking lunatic jackals up. The foundation was a party to the agreement and for the most part complied wit the disclosures. The ones that were not for one reason or another for simple innocent explanations by the foundation have now been disclosed. People are not perfect you fucking asshole. Now what?

      Delete
    10. You know, Individuals for Sanity, before you label everybody a "right-wing troll" for believing the Clinton Foundation should have lived up to the MOU. I voted for Bill in 1992 and 1996. I voted for Hillary in 2008 and fully intend to vote for her again. especially as you watch the clowns pop out of the GOP Volkswagen bug.

      But damn it, why do they have to make it so hard on their supporters and so easy on their enemies?

      I'm not going the "Bill the Liar" route because I am reminded of the words of Elwood Blues: "It wasn't a lie. It was bullshit."

      It seems the Clintons would rather bullshit people when full transparency and disclosure would serve them better.

      Delete
    11. I disagree with Bob that liberals are lazy, dumb, and dislikeable folks. But mm does his part to give Bob a pinhead to hang that cap on.

      Delete
    12. Careful @ 5:04. Individuals for Sanity did not venture so far as to label all people "right wing trolls", but left open the possibility that you could merely be a "reflexive media defender."

      While you might not think either label applies to you, he was certainly being more flexible than, say, Somerby in his characterization of liberals.

      Delete
    13. Clinton can't control everything. The buck stops elsewhere.

      Delete
    14. I never voted for a Clinton in my life...over the course of six or seven elections. Not in primaries, not for President, not for Senator. And I voted for other candidates in ALL of those elections. I called Senator Clinton's Senatorial office in 2002 and told them I would never vote for her in the future (a vow I may have to break in 2016 depending on her opponent) if she voted for the Authorization of Force in Iraq. So I guess this gives me oppositional credibility. I think the book and the reporting on it are bullshit. Its an 'UNFIT FOR DUTY: 2016. News isn't just what you put into journalism. Its also what you leave out...

      Delete
  11. This is good follow up by Somerby on work he began yesterday, writing about Goldberg:

    "She even made a few factual errors herself, apparently having been misled by the Times’ slippery conduct!"

    Apparently Bob failed to point out one error Goldberg apparently made, or maybe he overlooked it because it wasn't caused by the slippery New York Times:

    "Take that 2005 trip to Kazakhstan by Clinton and Giustra. The Times first reported on it in 2008, but shortly after, Forbes writer Robert Lenzer found that the two men had not in fact traveled together."

    Lezner neither found nor reported that Clinton and Giustra did not travel together as reported in the Times. Lezner reported that Giustra showed documents indicating he and Clinton's advance man arrived in Kazakhstan together days before Clinton. He reports they went together to the dinner with the Kazakhstan President and left the country together a few hours later on Giustra's plane.

    Clearly they were travelling together part of the time. They are just good friends. I can't understand why people keep leaving out their joint departure. Goldberg or Bob. Well in Goldberg's case I understand. She says the fact Clinton wasn't on the plane with Giustra coming in makes him look better. I guess she thinks putting him on the plane going out makes him look worse. But that doesn't tell me why Bob disappears the joint departure. Except that he called it a "fairy tale" plane. Guess he doesn't want us to think Bill Clinton flies on imaginary aircraft. Then we might think he has imaginary aides.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nice discussion of the Memorandum of Understanding
    here. Some excerpts:
    STATE DEP’T STICKS HEAD IN THE SAND: . . . on high-level corruption and refuses to review the propriety of Hillary Clinton’s violation of her State Department Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) about foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation. This is ironic, since the White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters, in the following Feb. 26 exchange, to direct their questions about the violations to the State Department... There was an MOU insisted upon by the State Department (and White House) to ensure that, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, there was full transparency of any foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, to protect against the possibility that foreign donors to the Foundation might be giving their money in exchange for favorable treatment by Secretary of State Clinton. And that MOU was violated repeatedly. Now, the Obama Administration is refusing to even investigate whether Clinton’s violation of the MOU may have actually caused the sort of bribery problems the MOU was designed to prevent?

    Okay, so why have an MOU in the first place, if violations of it were not going to ever be investigated, or the agreement otherwise enforced? Was it all just a dog and pony show, to allow Clinton to become Secretary of State and deflect possible criticism of her taking the post, given the potential for conflicts of interest? The questions answer themselves, of course, but the fact that the Obama Administration is so blatantly and flippantly disregarding this nation’s interest in preventing corruption (at the highest level) is breathtaking– and telling.


    Yes, we take it for granted that the Obama Administration won't investigate Hillary in a way that might embarrass her. We're so accustomed to this sort behavior that we don't fault Obama for displaying greater loyalty to the country than to his party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, the last sentence is backwards. Exchange the words "country" and "party"

      Delete
    2. There are two basic problems with Instapundit's analysis starting with a large factual problem:

      "Hillary Clinton’s violation of her State Department Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) about foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation." There was no MOU
      between "her" State Department and anyone. There was an MOU between the Clinton Foundation and the White House Transition organization. Obama had not even been sworn in yet. No violations of the MOU would involve Hillary Clinton.
      She was not a party.

      The second contains elements of the first but goes a step further: "Now, the Obama Administration is refusing to even investigate whether Clinton’s violation of the MOU may have actually caused the sort of bribery problems the MOU was designed to prevent?"

      The primary concern of the MOU was less actual bribery than prevention of even "appearances" of conflicts of interest. Frankly if every donor had been revealed I doubt anyone could make a credible allegation of bribery nor, given the level of division in the country, prevented anyone from alleging the appearance of a conflict even if there never was one.

      The problem is not the MOU, any donations taken at the foundation, or any actions taken at the State Department.
      The problem is that Hillary Clinton is running for President,
      and any actions taken by the foundation in not disclosing donors to the full extent of the MOU or even beyond was foolish given the history both Clintons are well aware of.

      Delete
    3. All the more reason why it was probably inadvertent.

      Delete
    4. .....probably inadvertent" and it is probably not going to matter much in the short or long run to Hillary Clinton's electoral success or failure."

      Delete
    5. It was also more than that, especially if you read Lugar's opening statement at her confirmation hearing that expressed the concerns of the incoming Obama administration and senators from both parties.

      This unusual step was taken because they wanted to send a clear message against even the appearance that U.S. foreign policy was not for sale, and that donations to the Clinton Foundation would be known and monitored.

      We can split hairs all day and say that the MOU was just between the Obama administration and the foundation, and didn't really involve Hillary at all.

      But that's rather silly, isn't it? It was about Hillary and her position as Secretary of State. Otherwise, there would be no need for the MOU.

      Delete
    6. Excuse me, I pulled a Somerby and wrote that clumsily in my haste.

      It shoud read: " . . they wanted to senda clear message against even the appearance that U.S. foreign policy was for sale . . ."

      Delete
    7. The MOU was about trying to sabotage the efforts of the Clintons in order to hobble another run by Hillary. It was meant to decrease donations to the Foundation under the pretense of conflict of interest. It primarily hurt the beneficiaries of the charity for political purposes, which makes it mean-spirited. Lets stop pretending that without a MOU Hillary and Bill would have stolen the store.

      Delete
  13. Sounds like there are plenty of errors to go around. Why do the Clintons have to be perfect, or else they are evil?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They don't have to be perfect or else they are evil. Don't think that everybody who thinks that the Clinton Foundation should have lived up to the MOU also thinks exactly like the extreme right wing.

      Recall that foreign policy was in the pits when Obama took over. Dubya once expressed his foreign policy succintly: "You're either with us or against us."

      This destroyed U.S. influence all over the globe, and even pissed off our once closest allies. It would take a person of incredible stature as Secretary of State to restore our position as the leader of the free world, and that person was Hillary Clinton.

      But dammit, Bill at least needed to disclose the money he was taking in, including millions from foreign governments. And that's all the Clinton Foundation was asked to do.

      And they didn't do it.

      Delete
    2. Dammit, it wasn't "Bill's" job to disclose the donations. As part of this infernal MoU, President Clinton stepped down as an officer and director of the "newly established entity" known as CGI. Further he was prevented by the terms of the MoU from serving in any way in a "fiduciary capacity" on behalf of the foundation.

      "And they didn't do it."

      Who is "they"?

      As usual with these manufactured hysterical Clinton scandals, there is no sense of proportion by their critics.
      For the most part, the terms of the MoU were followed. For one reason of another some contributions were not disclosed, but they are now all public. As I asked before, now what? There isn't a scintilla of evidence that Secretary Clinton compromised her work as Secretary of State in exchange for donations to a global charity.



      Delete
    3. Now "they" will look for something "else" to fit their CDS. And those afflicted with CAS will follow their chosen path as well.

      And Bob Somerby, just like "them" will look for something else in the press to fit his MDS.

      Delete
    4. Like a conservative you cannot tell the difference between legitimate criticism and indiscriminate attack. Somerby is interesting to read because he teaches critical thinking. You don't seem to understand why he is critical of certain people. You need to read and think to grasp that. I know it is hard, but you should try.

      Delete
    5. Libs and "critical thinking" eh? A lib's idea of critical thinking is believing black teens killed in self defense were not killed in self-defense, because they're black and the person defending himself was white. Critical thinking!

      Delete