ALLEGEDLY LIBERAL PUNDITS REACT: Conditions were ripe for a startling debate!

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2015

Part 2—Chris Hayes and the Clinton rules:
Do you believe in a journalistic phenomenon known as “the Clinton rules?”

If you do, conditions were ripe for a full-blown debate on the Thursday, April 23 Chris Hayes program.

That morning, the New York Times had posted a 4400-word report which seemed to suggest that Hillary Clinton had sold out the national interest in a scary uranium deal.

On Friday, April 24, the sprawling report would appear in the hard-copy Times. It would start at the top of the paper’s front page and fully consume two interior pages.

Let’s return to that Thursday morning, when the sprawling report suddenly appeared on line. In an instant reaction, the Morning Joe team staged a skillful parody of modern pseudo-journalism.

Openly acknowledging that they hadn’t read the Times report, Joe and Mika and the rest of the gang speculated about what the report must surely mean about the very bad conduct of Hillary Clinton. In a very unusual bit of behavior, Howard Dean pushed back against their recitations, setting the stage for a full-blown debate about the New York Times and the so-called “Clinton rules:”
DEAN (4/23/15): First of all, I haven’t seen the story and neither have you, right?...I will say, there is an epidemic of really sloppy reporting that goes from the top to the bottom...I’d like to see what all the facts are here, because so far we haven’t really seen—

SCARBOROUGH: Why don’t you read the story before accusing the New York Times of being sloppy?

DEAN: Because in general, the New York Times has been sloppy, particularly their political writers. I use the New York Times as an example in journalism classes, because by the fifth paragraph in any political story—we can probably find one right here, whatever the political story on the front page is. By the fifth paragraph, they’re substituting their judgment for news.
Is Dean allowed to say such things about the glorious Times?

The next day, Paul Krugman published a blog post
in which he described “the Clinton rules.” Given the history of this journalistic practice, Krugman said we should “be highly suspicious of any reports of supposed scandals unless there’s hard proof rather than mere innuendo.”

Conditions were ripe for a startling debate when Chris Hayes devoted a ten-minute segment to the New York Times’ sprawling report that Thursday night.

That morning, Dean had trashed the work of the Times. The following day, Krugman would review the history of the “Clinton rules.” Now, Hayes would spend ten minutes discussing the Times report.

Do you believe in the Clinton rules? Do you believe that the New York Times has been part of this alleged journalistic syndrome, in which mainstream newspapers wage war on the Clintons (and also on Candidate Gore)?

If so, Hayes had assembled a panel which seemed ideal for a discussion of this problem. The players were these:

Hayes hosts his own show on MSNBC, a corporate news channel which is organized around slavish devotion to the Democratic Party.

Joining him were two other liberal voices: Michelle Goldberg, a liberalish, progressivish writer who had discussed the Times report for The Nation that day. Also, Eric Boehlert, a leading voice at the Clinton-friendly web site, Media Matters.

To watch the full segment, click here.

The stage seemed set for a lively discussion of the alleged “Clinton rules.” And good lord! In the course of the ten-minute segment, Goldberg seemed to have a lot to say about the Times report.

What exactly did the report allege about Hillary Clinton? Fairly early, Goldberg offered this remark:
GOLDBERG (4/23/15): Well, the article doesn’t really allege anything. It hints and implies and it juxtaposes things. But the only clear allegation is about the failure of disclosure...
The article doesn’t really allege anything? It hints and implies and it juxtaposes things?

If that is true, we seem to be discussing a large journalistic failure. As a general matter, extremely lengthy news reports aren’t supposed to “hint” and “imply” and “juxtapose things” when discussing major political figures.

Extremely lengthy news reports should make clear statements and allegations. According to Goldberg, the only “clear allegation” in the report concerned an alleged “failure of disclosure” of some kind.

That said, we offer this news flash:

The alleged “failure of disclosure” by the Clinton Foundation is discussed in exactly five paragraphs in the sprawling, 75-paragraph Times report! If we live in a rational world, Goldberg was saying that the lengthy Times report contained almost nothing but hints and insinuations.

In a rational world, Goldberg’s statement about the report would already seem to be damning. Moments later, things got worse as she seemed to describe a strangely bungled fact:
GOLDBERG: There’s a hint of a quid pro quo—

[…]

But [the Clinton camp] are right when they say there’s no evidence. And in fact, the evidence of the New York Times story I think is a little bit weaker than it appears.

You know, some of this stuff about Kazakhstan came out in a 2008 story in the New York Times, and then there was a piece in Forbes debunking some of that,
particularly the allegation that Clinton had flown in with this, the Canadian mining magnate whose name I’m not going to pronounce correctly, and so—

But in fact, they hadn’t flown in together, at least according to Forbes, which got his flight manifest.

Clinton was flying with Ron Burkle. The mining magnate was already in Kazakhstan...So already, some of the facts, I think, are, like I said, a little bit weaker than the Times presents them.
Discussing one of the “hints” in the Times report, Goldberg said the Times had repeated a bogus fact—a fact the paper originally bungled back in 2008!

The bungled fact had been corrected by Forbes. Now, the Times had reported the bungled fact all over again!

In a rational world, this would be puzzling journalistic conduct. For unknown reasons, Goldberg couldn’t quite bring herself to say that the bungled fact was wrong. She merely said the facts were “a little bit weaker than the Times presents them.”

Goldberg had said that the lengthy report dealt mainly in “hints” and insinuations. She also said that a central fact in the lengthy report was weirdly and strangely wrong.

Later in the discussion, Goldberg went for the hat trick, explicitly discussing the so-called “Clinton rules.” During this discussion, she seemed to make remarkable statements about the conduct of the mainstream press corps.

What are the so-called “Clinton rules?” Sounding very much like Krugman, Goldberg said the term refers to “the way journalists consistently kind of throw out normal evidentiary standards in going after the Clintons.”

Already, that was quite an assertion. Moments later, she made the following statement, in which she seemed to describe gross journalistic misconduct:
GOLDBERG: There is this kind of long-standing journalistic vendetta against the Clintons that kind of allows people to exaggerate and follow these sort of right-wing conspiracy theories down all sorts of rabbit holes and blind alleys, to mix metaphors.
Really? “There is this kind of long-standing journalistic vendetta against the Clintons?” As part of this long-standing vendetta, journalists “follow these sort of right-wing conspiracy theories down all sorts of rabbit holes and blind alleys?”

You’d almost think Goldberg was describing shocking journalistic misconduct. In a rational world, you’d think a fiery fellow like Hayes would want to explore such remarkable statements and claims.

If you thought that, you’d have been wrong this particular night. You also would have been clueless about the way the “liberal” end of our press corps has worked over the past several decades.

According to Goldberg, a sprawling New York Times report had been built on “hints” and insinuations. It included at least one weirdly inaccurate fact. It seemed to continue a “long-standing journalistic vendetta” in which newspapers like the Times “follow right-wing conspiracy theories down all sorts of rabbit holes” in pursuit of the Clintons.

Goldberg seemed to be describing astounding journalistic misconduct. But so what? As the discussion unfolded, this is what occurred:

Hayes vouched for the accuracy of the Times report, which he had twice described as “a bombshell report.” “This does seem a legitimate piece of journalism and I don’t think they got anything wrong,” he weirdly said at one point.

Repeatedly, Hayes pushed the discussion toward alleged wrongdoing by the Clintons, not by the New York Times. On two occasions, he pointed to things that “drive him crazy” or “drive him nuts” about the Clintons. He pointed to nothing that bothers him about the Times, or about the “journalistic vendetta” his guest had described.

Repeatedly, Hayes pushed he discussion toward the alleged “failure of disclosure” by the Clintons. Excitedly, he seemed to agree with Goldberg that this was the key part of the Times report.

In adopting this stance, Hayes chose to focus on a meager five paragraphs in the middle of a 75-paragraph report. He chose to avoid the remarkable journalistic failures which suffused the central focus of the Times’ report, which hinted and insinuated that Hillary Clinton had sold out the national interest in exchange for a barrel of cash.

Rather plainly, Goldberg described astounding journalistic misconduct, dating back many years. But Hayes, who is sometimes called The Puppy, was doing what his crowd has done down through these many long years, and Goldberg was happy to follow.

In truth, it was Eric Boehlert against the world as this ten-minute discussion unfolded. In a rational world, Goldberg had described astounding journalistic misconduct—but she and Hayes seemed to know that career players simply can’t go there.

It’s been this way for decades now. Such conduct is a scam.

Our view? Professor Dean should take this program's transcript to those journalism classes. He could show the college kids how “career liberal journalists” have agreed, for many years, to enable the Clinton rules and thwart the national interest.

Tomorrow: Thing that drive Hayes nuts

59 comments:

  1. Krugman said we should “be highly suspicious of any reports of supposed scandals unless there’s hard proof rather than mere innuendo.” That may be good advice in general, but there's an exception when an outlet is reporting against interest.

    E.g., Krugman's advice certainly applies to Sean Hannity. Yet, if Hannity had a big feature blasting unethical behavior by some conservative Republican, one would tend to believe it. One would presume that Hannity wouldn't be blasting his own tribe unless they did something really bad. Similarly, the liberal New York Times may be presumed to not blast Hillary unless she did something really bad.

    Bob responds to this point by asserting that the Times has long been anti-Clinton. However, objective analysis shows that the Times is pro-Clinton. The Times endorsed Bill Clinton twice for President. They endorsed Hillary Clinton for Senator. The Times had no objection to Hillary as Secretary of State. And, I'm sure that the Times will endorse Hillary for President, should she be nominated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't you remember the Times' Whitewater coverage from the 1990s and their editorials on the subject, or, Maureen Dowd's bizarre writings about Bill and Hillary Clinton for the past 25 years? The coverage about this Uranium "scandal" fits the mold for the Times' coverage of the Clintons for decades.

      The Times endorsed Gore in the 2000 election, yet did everything they could to ensure he couldn't get elected, as Bob has shown ad nauseam on his blog for over 15 years.

      Delete
    2. David: You appear to be saying that you expect journalists to make up facts when talking about their political opponents, but they are likely telling the truth when they slander their political allies. This suggests you have no expectations of good behavior on the part of journalists or their media outlets at all. The current state of journalism in America today must make you very happy.

      Delete
    3. Journalism just isn't what it used to be in the golden age when people like Bob Somerby studied it and practiced it.

      Delete
    4. @12:55 -- you probably think that a film critic must have been an actor or director or cinematographer before being allowed an opinion about a film. Somerby has written articles that have appeared in print and has done political standup, which is more in the way of credentials for expressing political opinions and/or criticism of journalistic practice than you seem to give him credit for.

      How many blogs have you published? None? Then what right do you have to express an opinion about Somerby here?

      Delete
    5. I understand fully. Bob doesn't have to be a politician or a journalist to criticize politicians and journalists. But you do have to be a blogger to criticize him.

      Delete
    6. No, you don't understand. You don't have to be a blogger to criticize Somerby and Somerby doesn't have to be a journalist to criticize Hayes, the NY Times or any other media figure. You minimized his actual experience, but that experience is irrelevant.

      It doesn't surprise me that you cannot read for comprehension. Distorting people's statements is the heart of trolling and propaganda both. The kind of argument you made against Somerby is ad hominem. If you think he is saying something inaccurate or illogical, address his point with your own evidence.

      Delete
    7. @ 1:16...@ 12:55 here. As an experienced blog commenter I feel fully qualified to say your comment is somewhat flawed in that it may have missed @1:07's hint and insinuation of hypocrisy on my part.

      Allow me to further use my excellent qualifications to note that @ 1:07's comment reeks of what many in my field call evidence of serious brain injury or malfunction.

      I did not express an opinion of Somerby. And I certainly never said a word about what I think about film critics.

      People who express a view that someone thinks something or expresses opinions when they have not done so are sometimes the kind of people who also like Bob Somerby. He does that a lot of the time as well. Plus he works in an imaginary place with imaginary helpers and sees things few others can, like the whole culture melting.

      That said, to repeat myself, this is not an opinion or criticism of Somerby. Just an observation of repeated written work. It is a criticism of you and 1:07, but I am perfectly qualified to do that.

      Delete
    8. I love and respect classic KISS with Ace and Peter, but prefer the Stanley/Simmons/Carr/Kulick era, musically. But anyone who heard the title track and thought they were listening to Ace Frehley had no ear for music. It's obvious this caliber of songwriting and playing is beyond Ace's skill set, at least as polished as it is on this record. And believe me, paying Vinnie Vincent a compliment kills me, but he was a skilled guitarist for sure.

      Delete
    9. Gene Simmons, like Bob, once taught elementary school. And believe me, paying anyone from KISS a compliment kills me, but Simmons, unlike Bob, had the qualifications to do it.

      Delete
    10. AnonymousMay 5, 2015 at 12:48 PM: David: You...have no expectations of good behavior on the part of journalists or their media outlets at all. The current state of journalism in America today must make you very happy.

      If you mean that I'm happy to be right about the low quality of today's media, you have a point. But, I'd rather be wrong and have a media that's knowledgeable, fair and accurate.

      Delete
    11. @2:34 Unless you've seen transcripts of Somerby's undergrad work at Harvard, how do you know he didn't have the qualifications to teach? The school district that hired him obviously thought he was qualified -- who are you to disagree?

      Delete
    12. "....the liberal New York Times may be presumed to not blast Hillary unless she did something really bad."

      That is one hell of a bootstrap argument. Don't believe your lying eyes, believe David in sunny California who assures us that the NY Times is liberal and would never do anything to hurt the Clintons unless it was "something really bad".

      That don't work, jackass. That is pure circular reasoning.

      TDH has exhaustively documented the NY Times unfair attacks on the Clintons for years. Argue his facts if you want, but we can't simply say, he's wrong because the NY Times is liberal.

      Delete
  2. How can a plane trip that occurred in 2005 have anything to do with Clinton's actions as Secretary of State years later? The point of this kind of article seems to be to say "Look, Bill Clinton hung around with billionaires. How can Hillary talk about the middle class when her husband flew on private jets with rich people?" If any scandal sticks beyond that, it is gravy.

    We should be asking when the New York Times became an arm of the Republican party, devoted to advancing conservative candidates by sabotaging Democratic presidential candidates (announced or not). We should be asking when Chris Hayes became an operative of the Republican party, devoted to advancing conservative candidates by furthering the hit job on Democratic candidates being carried out by the NY Times.

    When there is no opportunity via public media for citizens to hear unbiased information about the positions and activities of candidates in the run up to an election, we do not live in a democracy because voters are being manipulated to serve hidden interests.

    Liberals make a big fuss about the potential to rig voting machines. There is no need to rig the machines when you rig the opinions of the voters using them. What chance does someone like Bernie Sanders have of talking about issues when John Stewart makes fun of his hair? What chance does HIllary Clinton have when her policy statements are ignored in favor of cooked up garbage like the NY Times promotion of a conservative hit job to sell books? You don't have to have gone to J-school to see that this is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Why hasn't Bob covered the policy pronouncements made by Hillary Clinton to demonstrate she hears the complaints being made clearly on the streets of West Baltimore?

      Delete
    2. Because that isn't the function of this blog. In fact, he has stated she isn't his favorite candidate.

      It IS the function of the NY times and MSNBC. Why haven't they?

      Delete
    3. 1:23, i suggest you read the article. Despite Bob's "script" it's about a lot more than the plane trip in 2005.

      Seriously, you only have to read 6 paragraphs in to see this:

      "As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well"

      Was there a quid-pro-quo? It really doesn't matter. Even the appearance is unethical as a gov't employee, and yes that includes appointees. It is also clearly counter to the requirements of the 2008 MOU.

      Here, read it yourself:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/memorandum_of_understanding_clinton.pdf

      But yeah, let's fret over who took which billionare's plane. It's sort of like quibbling about whether the traffic jam in Ft Lee was caused by a closed lane on the actual bridge rather than a closed ramp onto the bridge.

      Finally, i should note that this story already appears to have been sent into the proverbial memory hole. The anti-clinton liberal media conspiracy are pretty much ignoring it. Which is a shame, as i'd like to know why the Clinton Foundation did NOT report the funding as required by the MOU.

      Unlike a BJ, this is important, regardless of what Bob thinks.

      Delete
    4. If you can't stomach the idea of reading 4,400 words, this Newyorker piece from April 24th, sums up the issues pretty well with 5 key questions.
      http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company

      Her ending sentence is perhaps the key point:
      "Are the Clintons correct in saying that there is an attack machine geared up to go after them? Of course. But why have they made it so easy?"

      Delete
    5. It certainly does matter whether there was a quid pro quo or not. Without one, there is no corruption. There is a bureaucratic oversight, of the kind that happens in all kinds of contexts and that no one cares much about.

      It also matters whether the details of the NY Times report are accurate or not. If it is full of errors (many of which are catalogued by Media Matters), it is undependable as a source of information and cannot be trusted. It then raises the questions: (1) why would the NY Times publish an article replete with errors, (2) why is a book full of those errors being published, (3) why is the NY Times participating in a take-down of a presidential candidate by aiding and abetting an obvious smear without substance? These are very important questions.

      How is publishing this report in the NY Times sending the story into the memory hole? If the book were released and no one reviewed it or mentioned it at all, you would have a complaint. In this case, the numerous errors in the report are causing people to back away from it -- as should be the case, but that is no thanks to people like Chris Hayes or the NY Times, who put the reputation of their paper behind the article.

      Here is the reason why the foundation didn't report the funding: (1) the foundation is run by human beings, (2) the reporting requirements were unclear, affecting some donations and not others and were interpreted by staff as not requiring disclosure, although arguably they should have disclosed, (3) donations from countries like Great Britain and similar allies, which made up the bulk of the funds, may have been perceived as innocuous and of no concern to anyone, (4) perhaps the foundation was understaffed as many organizations are these days, perhaps busy with other things, perhaps neglectful of their duties, (5) perhaps management of the Foundation by people who were not the Clintons themselves took their eye off the ball and didn't understand that the slightest misdemeanor might come back to haunt future political aspirations by the Clinton family. Who knows, but there are plenty of benign explanations.

      Delete
    6. "It certainly does matter whether there was a quid pro quo or not. Without one, there is no corruption."

      Nope, you are wrong.

      She wasn't an elected official at the time, nor a candidate. She was a federal employee. There are strict restrictions on accepting gifts if you're a federal employee, they can be even stricter for appointees.
      http://www.oge.gov/Topics/Gifts-and-Payments/Gifts-from-Outside-Sources/

      To avoid confusion related to the Clinton Foundation an MOU was crafted and agreed to by HRC.

      There were no exceptionns for the UK, who last i checked was a foreign nation with its own policies, that do not always jibe with ours.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous @ 1:23 and 2:59

      "What chance does HIllary Clinton have when her policy statements are ignored...."

      "that isn't the function of this blog....It IS the function of the NY times and MSNBC. Why haven't they?"


      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/baltimore-forces-presidential-hopefuls-to-confront-a-jarring-crisis.html

      http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-calls-ending-era-mass-incarceration

      http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/29/verbatim-clinton-calls-for-criminal-justice-reform/

      http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc2/watch/live-hillary-talks-criminal-justice-reform-436283459505

      http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/clinton-eyes-the-end-the-era-mass-incarceration

      I could list more but what chance do I have that you will not dismiss them just as you missed them in the first place?

      The function of this blog is to accuse journalists of being subhuman and pimps when not comparing them to great hypocritical preachers of literature.

      But you are right that Bob does not really go wild for Hillary. Not all pseudo-liberals can be great women like Rosa Parks and Rose of Sharon.

      Delete
    8. The donations were not made to Hillary Clinton in any capacity.

      Delete
  3. Go Bob. Those little steel balls are clicking like crazy on this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It isn't paranoia if someone is really out to get the Clintons.

      What would be the "non-paranoid" explanation for the way Chris Hayes behaved?

      Delete
    2. Oh dear god. Someone is out to get every politician. If the Clintons know that, maybe they should have followed the fucking MOU as they were required to do.

      Delete
    3. Do you really not understand how a charitable organization operates? Do you think the Clinton's personally do every administrative task involved in running the Foundation? Do you think they are so personally hands-on (despite Hillary having a full-time job elsewhere that took her out-of-town frequently) that they would be aware of everything done at the Foundation? It is not within your comprehension that they may have believed the foundation WAS following the MOU?

      The question isn't whether someone is "out to get" the Clintons. It is why supposedly liberal reporters on a channel largely devoted to liberal issues would be joining conservatives in undermining the likely nominee of the Democratic party.

      Delete
    4. Yes, yes, i know, the buck stops elsewhere.

      Anyway, i guess if she couldn't make sure the MOU was followed, she either shouldn't have agreed to be SoS or she should have shut down the Clinton foundation.


      Delete
    5. Speaking of Chris Hayes, how many times has Somerby used the word "pimp" in connection with the guy he merely used to just call "puppy" just a few eeks ago?

      Delete
    6. How does the buck stop with Hillary when she was not involved with the operation of the Foundation while Secretary of State?

      Suggesting that the Clinton Foundation should be shut down is ridiculous. It is a worldwide charity affecting many people in many countries doing good works. It is a FAMILY foundation involving Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton, neither of whom were Secretary of State or held any government position. Further, there is no precedent for any relative of a government employee being required to cease business activities, much less charitable ones, simply because conservatives have fears about who might donate to that charity. What a joke! That's like suggesting that the hospital that Michelle Obama used to work for should be shut down while Michelle's husband is president because someone might donate to open a new wing and the president might enact some policy under ACA that indirectly affects that wing of the hospital. Get real.

      Delete
    7. @3:35 -- I agree. Somerby should have used much stronger terms to describe what Hayes did. Because of rap, pimp is no longer a derogatory term and refers to making something look spiffy, not to engaging in promotion of something dirty that demeans both the pimp and the prostitute, not to mention those who buy the product.

      I'd suggest the word "traitor" or "self-interested sell-out" or "craven plutocrat puppet utterly lacking in principles." Has the same alliteration as puppy.

      Delete
    8. 3:41, then she should have ensured the fucking MOU was followed. If she can't ensure her own family's foundation follows a straight forward fucking MOU she must be pretty fucking stupid.

      Read the MOU. Is it that confusing? If there was any confusion about a donation, just fucking report it to be on the safe side. Tell your highly paid underlying "Fucking follow the spirit and letter of this MOU or i will hang your balls from my x-mas tree."

      See, done. Vote for me in 2016.

      Delete
    9. She did tell them that @ 3:52. And she could prove it if she hadn't deleted the e-mails on her private server.

      Delete
    10. Wow, 3:52, how much swearing came out of you with Cheney's conflicts of interest?

      Delete
    11. Allowing Clinton to be like Cheney is like allowing Maddow to be just like Hannity. It does not advance the progressive cause nor stop the endless dripping of melting intellectual culture down the drain.

      Delete
    12. "What chance does someone like Bernie Sanders have of talking about issues when John Stewart makes fun of his hair?"

      It is certainly incumbent upon Jon Stewart to stick to the issues.

      But all kidding aside, you are right. Making fun of John Edward's hair and the spot where Al Gore had none cost them both the White House.

      Delete
    13. @4:10,
      I'm still waiting to read the emails and all correspondence between Marco Rubio and Sheldon Adelson. When do you think they'll be made available for all of us to read?

      Delete
    14. 4:20, oh my words were a bit harsher re: Cheney for all number of things. Lying us to war, would be #1.

      That said, I'm not sure what conflict you mean, the ones when he was an elected official or when he was an appointed gov't employee. There are two sets of rules, the ones for employees are far stricter. I don't think they should be, but they are.

      Carry the fuck on.

      Delete
    15. It's called Blackwater.

      Delete
  4. Notes Goldberg:

    "Clinton was flying with Ron Burkle."

    Goldberg omits that Clinton staff flew in with Giustra and Clinton left with Giustra. So has Bob, who somehow doesn't fault Goldberg for disappearing this fact since he did so himself. Repeatedly.

    Ron Burkle rode to Bill and Hillary Clinton's rescue. When they were broke and in debt. He made them rich. So rich Bill could pass on $20 million as his cut of profits he made for Burkle when they split their partnership. Of course that meant he had to fly to places like Moscow every now and then to give half a million dollar speeches, but integrity is everything to the Big Dog.

    I am so grateful to learn from Goldberg and Somerby it was Ron Burkle's plane not Giustra's that flew our former President into Kazakhstan. Because compared to Giustra, Burkle is a prince.

    Say, does Burkle's plane have a name? Perhaps it is named after a Fairy Tale character? Does he own it all by himself or are others involved?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anon 4:21, it seems you are implying that all this is a reason not to vote for Clinton for president. Who else, other than her, do you recommend that we vote for?

      Delete
  5. Another example of the Clinton Rules followed by the elite media.
    NBC continued polling. They only ask the question "do you consider Hillary Clinton honest and straightforward". That question is never polled by NBC for any of the other candidates including all the republicans.

    "Clinton's unfavorable rating has ticked up six points since March, and the percentage giving her high marks for being honest and straightforward has declined 13 points from a year ago."http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/despite-sustaining-hits-hillary-clinton-remains-formidable-2016-nbc-wsj-n353386

    ReplyDelete
  6. Whatever unfair criticism Hillary and Bill receive from our media, it's a lot less than the Republicans put up with. Bush was treated like an idiot, despite the fact that his educational achievements were considerably superior to Gore's. Cruz is treated like a madman, by misquoting him or taking his quotes out of context. Few media sources point out that the was one of the most outstanding graduates of Harvard Law School.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mitt Romney's Harvard achievement also dwarfed Obama's. As did his success in both politics and the real world.

      Delete
    2. his success in politics...

      Well, except for that whole getting-elected-president thing...

      His achievements, yeah. Woo, Romney!

      Delete
    3. I don't care what Law School Cruz went to, it is his deranged words that should scare the shit out of you.

      ************
      My office has reached out to the Pentagon to inquire about this exercise,” Cruz told Bloomberg. “We are assured it is a military training exercise. I have no reason to doubt those assurances, but I understand the reason for concern and uncertainty, because when the federal government has not demonstrated itself to be trustworthy in this administration, the natural consequence is that many citizens don’t trust what it is saying.”
      **********

      So, the fucking brilliant Harvard Law School graduate just thought he'd keep an eye on the fucking United States military training exercise, just in case that might be plotting to take over Texas or something. Yeah, this guy is a real genius. In my opinion he gets a hell of a lot more respect in the media than he's ever earned.

      Delete
    4. Thanks, mm, for illustrating my point about people misquoting and misinterpreting Cruz.

      Cruz said: "We are assured it is a military training exercise. I have no reason to doubt those assurances..."

      mm claimed, "[Cruz] thought he'd keep an eye on the fucking United States military training exercise, just in case that might be plotting to take over Texas or something..."

      mm's version seems close to the opposite of what Cruz said.

      Now, Cruz also said many people don't trust the Obama Administration. I think there are good reasons to distrust the Obama Administration. E.g., promises about ACA
      1. If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance
      2. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor
      3. The average family will save 25%.

      Then there's the Obama Administration lying to a federal judge on immigration.
      The Obama administration is expressing regret to U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen — the man presiding over 26 states’ court challenge to executive amnesty — for not being entirely forthcoming about the implementation dates associated with the programs, according to reports.

      Examples like this are why many people don't trust the Obama Administration.

      Delete
    5. What do you think Cruz was worrying about with those training exercises?

      Delete
    6. What was in Cruz's mind? Let's see. The Republican Governor wrote: ...he wants monitoring of Operation Jade Helm 15 “to address concerns of Texas citizens and to ensure that Texas communities remain safe, secure and informed occurring in their vicinity.” It marks the first time that a state governor has responded to outrage from those who fear the training exercise isn’t what the military promises.

      “During the training operation, it is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed,” Abbott wrote. “By monitoring the Operation on a continual basis, the State Guard will facilitate communication between my office and commanders of the Operation to ensure that adequate measures are in place to protect Texans.”


      Perhaps Cruz shares the Governor's motivation.

      Delete
    7. That seems pretty consistent with mm's characterization. Why would a training exercise be any threat to people or property? The governor is being silly and so is Cruz.

      Delete
    8. I certainly could imagine ways in which a massive training exercise in involving thousands of armed men could inadvertently damage property or create dirty air or leave waste. I don't know what weapons they'll be firing, but one could imagine accidental shooting of local residents or an explosion that did some unintended harm. Excessive noise would seem conceivable.

      It's probably the case that Texans ought not to be worried. But, apparently a large number of them are worried. IMHO it's reasonable to have some Texas folk there monitoring, if that's needed to calm the populace. Having a few monitors wouldn't be a big deal if partisans weren't using this as an way to attack the Governor and the Senator.

      Delete
    9. "It's probably the case that Texans ought not to be worried."

      I don't know, Chuck Norris is on the case.

      “Whether deterrence, display of power or something more covert or devious, let’s not come with any patronizing nonsense of impotence and simplicity when its origin is in Washington,” he wrote. “… We must never check our brains or blindly trust, especially the government. Rather, we must fight until our dying breaths for liberty, especially when it appears those in power are trying to knock down Old Glory.”

      jackass

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. DinC
      Can you imagine a scenario in which US troops enter an enemy occupied town and must go door-to-door to recapture the town?
      Can you imagine that they do this never having received hands-on training?
      It's called OJT.
      The downside is some will make fatal mistakes.
      The upside is the current CinC will be frustrated once again.
      Fair trade, don’t you think?
      After all, they ARE volunteers, and Barack Obama IS the real enemy.

      Delete
  7. Bush was both the guy you'd want to have a beer with AND the guy with the considerably superior intellectual achievements?

    You heard it here, first!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't always drink beer but when I do I prefer doing it with someone of equal or greater intelligence.

      Perhaps you enjoy the company of dummies. It only works for me when I am commenting on blogs and drinking alone.

      Delete
    2. "I don't always drink beer but when I do I prefer doing it with someone of equal or greater intelligence."

      On the evidence, that standard should be No Problem for you!

      Delete

  8. Am here to testify what this great spell caster done for me. i never believe in spell casting, until when i was was tempted to try it. i and my husband have been having a lot of problem living together, he will always not make me happy because he have fallen in love with another lady outside our relationship, i tried my best to make sure that my husband leave this woman but the more i talk to him the more he makes me fell sad, so my marriage is now leading to divorce because he no longer gives me attention. so with all this pain and agony, i decided to contact this spell caster to see if things can work out between me and my husband again. this spell caster who was a woman told me that my husband is really under a great spell that he have been charm by some magic, so she told me that she was going to make all things normal back. she did the spell on my husband and after 5 days my husband changed completely he even apologize with the way he treated me that he was not him self, i really thank this woman her name is Dr Aluta she have bring back my husband back to me i want you all to contact her who are having any problem related to marriage issue and relationship problem she will solve it for you. her email is traditionalspellhospital@gmail.com she is a woman and she is great. wish you good time.
    He cast spells for different purposes like
    (1) If you want your ex back.
    (2) if you always have bad dream
    (3) You want to be promoted in your office.
    (4) You want women/men to run after you.
    (5) If you want a child.
    (6) You want to be rich.
    (7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.
    (8) If you need financial assistance.
    (9) HIV/AIDS CURE
    (10) is the only answer to that your problem of winning the lottery

    Contact him today on: traditionalspellhospital@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete