PRETENDERS: No journalism need apply!

FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 2015

Part 5—Today on Morning Joe:
Regarding the press corps’ many pretenders, let’s give credit where due.

At this point, on Morning Joe, they don’t even bother pretending! This morning, the embarrassing program’s first ten minutes provided a case in point.

Perhaps for strategic reasons, the videotape the program has posted starts in midstream, in mid-sentence. Mika is discussing an “it” for which no antecedent exists.

Still and all, you can get a sense of the oddness from the first chunk of the truncated tape. As usual, Mika has (1) made up her mind and (2) doesn’t understand.

This is how the tape begins. To watch the whole tape, click here:
MIKA (8/21/15): [tape joins conversation in progress] …Hillary Clinton’s staff says it was permissible under department policy. Is that true? Why do they keep saying that?

JOE: No, that is not true.

MIKA: Why do they keep saying something that is not true?

JOE: A 2009 regulation required that you had to keep your emails contained and preserved, especially for FOIA, purposes of FOIA, at the agency.

MIKA OK, so—

GENE: I believe she says that it was permissible essentially at the moment she set up the server. However, those 2009 regulations did come out. It’s clearly what the White House—

MIKA: What do you mean by that? I have no idea what you mean by that.
“I have no idea what you mean by that?”

You could call that the height of the press corps’ pretending. Or you could regard it as the ultimate lack of pretense.

Mika Brzezinski had no idea what Gene meant by that! And yet, she and the rest of the Morning Joe gang have sat around, day after day, scattering L-bombs across the land concerning this latest scandal.

Clarification has rarely been present as these chimps have conducted their flinging of poo. Accusation and judgment were never far off.

Indeed, by the 6:50 mark on this morning’s tape—the 6:50 mark on the truncated tape—a carpet-bombing occurs. L-bombs litter the countryside. These are the principal comments:
JOE: “...these lies that Clinton’s people keep spinning every single day”

DONNY: “The point is that the Clinton lies are for twenty years and it doesn’t affect them”

MIKA (to Jeremy): “Isn’t the story now, that they continue to lie? To you?”
Those bombs all fell within thirty seconds. Mika didn’t know what Gene was talking about, but she does know a lie when she hears one!

This morning’s truncated tape runs 8 minutes and 29 seconds. We watched the whole segment in real time, including the opening which has been clipped. As we did, we were struck by the following thought:

These people don’t even pretend to pretend at this point! They don’t even pretend that they are engaged in journalism.

After months of aggressive group judgment, they aren’t embarrassed to go on the air and say they don’t know what Gene’s talking about. As in Planet of the Apes, earlier cultural practices seem to have disappeared.

The big stars of this morning show no longer seem to understand the basic process of gathering facts. Soon, Mika was explaining the facts of the case, in the way that chimps of this type understand that discarded process:
MIKA: OK, so wait! I just—we have here two lines, the beginning and the end of the story. And you guys tell me what’s wrong with this picture?

A federal judge said she did not follow government email policy in using her personal server for State Department business.

And at this hearing for the FII—FOI [sic] suit, the judge said we wouldn’t even be here if the employee had followed government policy.

Then we have her campaign staff saying that her use of a personal email account was consistent with her predecessors and permissible under department policy.

Is it, or is it not, permissible? I just want the answer.

I don’t want like lots of sentences around it. I just want the answer!

Mika is paid very large sums to serve as a national journalist. At one point, she even wrote a book discussing the way she'd been underpaid.

Let’s consider the ways she pursues her corporate assignment:

She tells us she has “two lines, the beginning and the end of the story.” But she doesn’t cite the source from which she seems to be quoting. She doesn’t explain, in some general way, what particular “story” she’s talking about.

(She may have been quoting, somewhat loosely, from this New York Times report. That's just a guess, of course.)

As she proceeds, here’s what she does. She sets up an opposition between two statements: a somewhat imprecise claim which she attributes to a federal judge, and a second imprecise claim from the Clinton campaign.

It doesn’t occur to her that the parties may not have been talking about the same thing when these statements were made. Nor does she raise an obvious question:

In what way did Clinton violate policy, according to the federal judge?

These questions don’t occur to Mika. She then defines the attitude she brings to all such matters, and yes, she actually said this:

“Is it, or is it not, permissible? I don’t want lots of sentences around it. I just want the answer!”

She doesn’t want a lot of sentences! She just wants the answer!

Less than two minutes later, we get Mika's answer as the L-bombs drop.

For the record, we are not assuming perfect correctness on Secretary Clinton’s part. That said, we discuss the work of journalists here, not the work of candidates.

Right from its wonderfully truncated start, that videotape from Morning Joe displays the culture and customs of modern post-journalism. There’s barely a hint of journalistic behavior in the whole rambling mess.

In fairness, Jeremy refuses to leap to conclusions, even when taunted and pushed. Gene supplies a few possible facts, but no one wants to examine his claims in the way a normal journalist would, and Gene is rarely inclined to rise to the task of challenging the clan.

Donny betrays his ADD at several points on the tape. As others seem to discuss the alleged facts of the case, he keeps flipping over to his view of the politics. In fairness, this is a form of attention disorder which runs all through the guild.

We are now left with Mika and Joe. Whose behavior is worse?

Is it Mika’s simpering passive aggression, the dingbat role she has always played as part of this peculiar program’s throwback sexual politics?

Or is it the overt aggression of Overcaff Joe, who reveals today that he can’t imagine a federal judge being wrong, overwrought, misparaphrased or in some way misunderstood? Can’t imagine such a thing as long as the paraphrased words of the judge can be used to let him drop his bombs?

We do not assume perfectly correct conduct on the part of Secretary Clinton. We also don’t assume incorrect conduct, or even conduct worth talking about.

That said, we talk about journalists here. And in that tape from Morning Joe, you see a succession of perfect examples of modern post-journalism.

The conduct results in a type of group judgment which has long been aimed at the Clintons (and at Candidate Gore). For a blast from the past—from 1994!—read Gene Lyons’ latest column at The National Memo.

Lyons seems to assume that Candidate Clinton has done nothing “wrong” in this instance. We don’t share that assumption, but we also don’t assume anything else.

Here’s what we do assert:

The Morning Joe gang has almost passed the point of pretending. This morning’s tape, which starts in mid-sentence, is a gong-show in all respects.

Who is worse, Mika or Joe? Or is it their chortling guests?

66 comments:

  1. "Who is worse, Mika or Joe? Or is it their chortling guests?"

    The whole show is an unmitigated disaster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So was Hillary Clinton's decision to use a private email address and server for public business,

      Delete
    2. I think the better word is nuisance.

      Nothing important actually got into the wrong hands, there is no damage, and she did her job. If anything did, that would be the story, not this trivial garbage.

      The right can blow any routine practice into a scandal. All it takes is media collusion.

      Delete
    3. The right can blow any routine practice into a scandal. All it takes is media collusion...and a liberal to hand them an issue on a silver email server on which she commingled personal and public business.

      FTFY

      Delete
    4. "...she commingled personal and public business.."

      The same thing is done on a daily basis for SD employees using a state.gov account. And you know who gets to decide which ones can be deleted and which ones to save for the record? Take a guess.

      Delete
    5. Like I said, she engaged in a routine practice. No one didn't comingle their types of email. They just deleted the personal ones as not required to be kept. It was a system specifically for unimportant communications. She handled her email just like others. How does this hand anything to anyone on a silver platter. She would have to be clairvoyant to anticipate this opportunistic criticism arising from the Benghazi Committee boondoggle. But by the Clinton rules, any scandal is her fault, even when meritless, as this one is.

      Delete
  2. Yes. We are talking about media performers here. And politicians.

    In particular we are talking about a politician who knew from bitter personal experience dating back to at least 1992 that even records kept from her days in private business could become the subject of public scrutiny because you seek and hold public office. She knew from her days as a Congressional aide dating back two decares earlier
    public records are subject to disclosure. So she knew from that experience how stories about how you handle those records get played and, more importantly, misplayed in the press.

    So what does she do when she becomes the highest ranking Cabinet member a decade and a half later?

    She "opted for convenience", and opened a private account on a private system under her own private control to handle both her public and private communications.

    The media hasn't changed. But unfortunately neither has the politician.

    To use a phrase from a famous old blogger:

    A final piteous note: “Do you think Hillary has figured this out by now?”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it wasn't this it would be something else. I guarantee you that no one in the media would be able give a simple description of what the actual "scandal" is. That is by design. The scandal is amorphous and the focus is ever shifting, just like Whitewater.

      "when she becomes the highest ranking Cabinet member "

      Oh really, I would have thought the way they talk about her that she was on work release from San Quentin prison.

      By the way, as Secretary of State, she had the power and authority to classify or declassify government documents.

      Delete
    2. @12:35

      Despite all attempts to discourage her, that damned Hillary just keeps trying to further her political career. When will she figure out that we don't want her in office and just stop?

      @12:35 thinks Hillary caused this situation by choosing to do what her predecessors did instead of anticipating that her actions would be criticized. I suspect she long ago stopped worrying about how conservative attack dogs would treat her choices and decided to do what would best get the job done. Failure to do a good job as sec of state is a more certain torpedo than legalistic complaints about where emails were stored. She would be a real fool to let right wing criticism determine her decisions.

      Delete
    3. The reverse "but Clinton rules" mentioned by a commenter on yesterday's thread are invoked here by 1:55 PM. In this case it is "but Condi and Colin."

      She was not "choosing to do what her predecessors did." You know whose practices she could be better compared to? The Bush aides who had both a White House and RNC account and began using the RNC account to mix official business and unofficial business.

      Delete
    4. Another bogus claim.

      Delete
    5. @ 1:55

      Name the three significant accomplishments of HRC while Secretary of State?

      “I would say the U.S.’s influence and prestige and respect in the world is probably lower than it was six or seven years ago,” President Jimmy Carter July, 2015

      For you and HRC to claim her private email server is a trumped up GOP scandal is to deny it is the Obama Administration's DOJ/FBI/IG who are investigating the contents on the thumb drive, server, and printed out 30,000 emails she gave 10 State 18 months after she was gone.

      Delete
    6. Shouldn't a basic government course be a prerequisite for becoming a troll?

      Delete
    7. "Shouldn't a basic government course be a prerequisite for becoming a paid troll?"

      FTFY



      Delete
    8. @3:01

      You should have complained about the curriculum before you attended David Brock's Correct The Record asylum.

      Delete
    9. cicero's blowup dollAugust 21, 2015 at 5:04 PM

      @ 3:01 couldn't complain at that time because she had one of those notorious "afghan hound" hairdos that wingnut trolls complain about in lieu of sputtering and stammering.

      Delete
  3. This post reflects how one blogger, who calls himself liberal, views the media debacle. Here is how another, on the conservative side of the same viewing universe, sees exactly the same set of events:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2015/08/21/nyt-reporter-you-want-me-indict-and-damn-hillary-clinton-im-not

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently both "conservative" and "liberal" bloggers agree that journalism is not being performed in this instance by representatives of legacy media.

      Delete
  4. When I sometimes tune in to this show I invariably think of Porter's Ship of Fools.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bob makes two points, at least by inference;
    1. Morning Joe did a poor job of clarifying what Hillary did wrong.
    2. Hillary is therefore exonerated of the charge or wrongdoing.

    Bob makes a strong case of #1 However, not so much #2. Regardless of the lack of precision, a federal judge said she did wrong. That opinion doesn't disappear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "at least by inference"

      What a tool!

      Delete
    2. *********
      During Thursday’s hearing in the State Department case, Sullivan never said precisely how he believed Hillary Clinton violated government policy. But he repeatedly referred to the department’s obligation to preserve records under the Federal Records Act of 1950.

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/judge-says-hillary-clintons-private-emails-violated-policy-121568.html#ixzz3jTg4rLrO
      *****

      And there you have it, proving TDH's point.

      A crotchety judge shoots his mouth off at a hearing and makes an accusation without any specific reference to what he means, it get's SCREAMED out to the public without any explanation, and the next thing you know wing nut loons start popping the champagne.

      This is one of the fundamental points TDH keeps writing about, the media are total incompetents.


      ************
      In what way did Clinton violate policy, according to the federal judge?

      These questions don’t occur to Mika. She then defines the attitude she brings to all such matters, and yes, she actually said this:

      “Is it, or is it not, permissible? I don’t want lots of sentences around it. I just want the answer!”

      She doesn’t want a lot of sentences! She just wants the answer!
      ******** Somerby

      Delete
    3. Somerby doesn't make any case for (2) because he explicitly states he is keeping an open mind about whether Clinton did anything wrong.

      Maybe you can tell us what the judge said she did wrong. The judge is quoted as saying we wouldn't be here if the employee had followed the policy. That doesn't mean she did anything wrong. He could correctly say we wouldn't be here if she weren't Secretary of state. Does that make it wrong to be Sec of State? The policy wasn't in effect when she set up the server. How do you follow a policy that doesn't exist?

      Use your head, David.

      Delete
    4. Anon 3:10 -- Somerby writes, "we are not assuming perfect correctness..." Logically, that's pretty close to keeping an open mind. But, to me there's an imploication that any violations committed by Hillary are likely to be minor. That is, violations only as compared to perfect correctness.

      To see what I mean, consider the difference in tone if Bob had written, "we are not assuming correctness..." YMMV.

      Delete
    5. "Regardless of the lack of precision, a federal judge said she did wrong."

      Old poison in a new bottle. Troll ignores irrefutable fact that not following a policy is not the same as violating a statute.

      Delete
    6. Anon 3:26 -- IMHO not following policy was wrong, even if it wasn't illegal. It set a terrible example for subordinates. Recall that Obama boasted that he would run the “most transparent” administration in U.S. history. Transparency was a virtue. Hillary's behavior increased opacity and encouraged other government employees to do the same.

      Furthermore, Hillary's use a a personal server increased the chance that our enemies would have access to important secrets.

      Delete
    7. It wasn't policy at the time.

      Subordinates didn't all run out and buy their own servers.

      Hillary Clinton is not Obama (last time I checked).

      When you classify material it is made less transparent, more opaque to certain populations. Hillary's goal in setting up the server had nothing to do with transparency. Her turning over the large number of emails, more than she was obligated to do, after FOIA request, is an example of transparency. No one ever suggested that anyone should be able to read her day-to-day emails while she was secretary of state, and that her server might frustrate that (although there is no technical reason why it would).

      There is no evidence her server was more or less secure that the State department servers. There is no evidence whatsoever that any enemy had access to her server (unless you consider Hillary an enemy).

      You still haven't answered what the judge said she did wrong. If the Benghazi Committee had never been formed, she wouldn't have been in court either. Does that mean the Benghazi Committee did something wrong? I think yes. But I doubt that was what the judge was talking about.

      You cannot follow a policy that doesn't exist. The policy came later, just as the classification of certain documents is being applied after the fact, retroactively. No one thinks Clinton should be held responsible for a retroactive policy except bloodthirsty conservatives.

      Delete
    8. David consistently and stubbornly misses the point.

      He reads what TDH writes, but it never sinks in. It never penetrates.

      David, how can you make a judgement as you did here, that Clinton did something wrong, when even you agree that the

      "1. Morning Joe did a poor job of clarifying what Hillary did wrong."???

      Do you even know why that FOIA hearing was held yesterday? What the underlying issue was?

      Delete
    9. "David consistently and stubbornly misses the point."

      Duh! That's how trolls roll.

      Delete
  6. mm -- the judge was "crotchety"? I guess we know this because he criticized Hillary. There's a logical paradox here. Anyone who criticizes Hillary is "crotchety", and so her/his opinion should be ignored.

    This is a formula for not ever changing one's views, regardless of contradictory information received. IMHO it's an example of confirmation bias, also called myside bias -- the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses.

    P.S. I don't claim to be free of confirmation bias. It affects all us human beings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Confirmation bias does not apply to this situation. What exactly did the judge say that Hillary Clinton did wrong? Stop being so crotchety and answer the question.

      Delete
    2. The crotchety blogger didn't say Hillary did something wrong. So I remain convinced she may or may not have.

      Delete
    3. "This is a formula for not ever changing one's views,.."

      David, you make me laugh.

      You want to know what a formula for not ever changing one's views is. Precisely what Bob Somerby writes about every day. Incompetent, lazy and unprofessional media reporting.

      That leads to you running to your right wing news sources to get their version of the story, and me running to my sources to try to figure it out.

      If the media doesn't do it's job, and you and I can't ever agree on what the most basic FACTS are concerning any issue, then we end up yelling at each other and no one ever changes their mind.

      I can't ever recall you changing your mind over anything. Bob Somerby has been criticizing the NY Times for years and years, and you read him every day, yet you will nonchalantly say something like "If even the liberal NY Times wrote a negative story about Hillary Clinton, then it must be true."

      I just don't get you.

      Delete
    4. "It affects all of us human beings."

      Perhaps overly generous self-confirmation. Anything is possible. We just don't know for sure.

      Delete
    5. Nestor I am confident that with a few more years of experience I will understand your comment. For now, your translation of David in Cal rivals the remarkable Professor Fagles.

      Delete
  7. This kind of outrageous behavior happens on a daily basis on Scarborough's show. Mika is a complete joke.

    ******
    Is it, or is it not, permissible? I just want the answer.

    I don’t want like lots of sentences around it. I just want the answer!
    *****

    Who the hell is she demanding the answer from? The camera crew? The person who serves her her morning latte'? It's almost criminal what they get away with.

    Every day, from the minute the program starts they start ripping Clinton to shreds, and there is never a single voice to defend her.

    Earlier this week Scarborough went on an unhinged rant attacking her for having the server in some condo bathroom in Denver.

    SCARBOROUGH: They can't answer basic questions because there are no good answers to those questions. There are no good answers to the question of why she got a server in a Denver condo loft bathroom and why America's national security [MSNBC, Morning Joe, 8/20/15]

    Once again, Media Matters had to straighten out the record:

    ************
    Denver Post: None Of Clinton's Data Was Ever Stored In A Denver Bathroom. In an August 19 article, The Denver Post reported that Platte River Networks had never stored the server holding Clinton's emails in Denver. The article explained that the server had been moved to "a New Jersey data center" in accordance with "industry best practices" and had never been "in any bathrooms":


    "There never was, at any time, data belonging to the Clintons stored in Denver. Ever," said Dovetail Solutions CEO [and Platte River Spokesman] Andy Boian, who added that Clinton's server was always in a New Jersey data center. "We do not store data in any bathrooms."

    [...]

    "We were literally hired in June 2013," Boian said, "and because we use industry best practices, we had (Clinton's) server moved to a data center in New Jersey. It remained in that spot until last week," when the FBI picked it up Aug. 12.

    Platte River also is not in possession of any Clinton e-mail backups, he said.

    "The role of Platte River Networks was to upgrade, secure and manage the e-mail server for both the Clintons and their staff beginning June 2013. Platte River Networks is not under investigation. We were never under investigation. And we will fully comply with the FBI," he said. [The Denver Post, 8/19/15]
    ******************

    Of course today, Scarborough never mentioned the bathroom again, yet he did not even make a correction to his audience or an apology to Secretary Clinton.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The hearing was not about Clinton. It concerned discovery in an FOIA request for information about Huma Abedin's "outside employment." Apparently not satisfied with information provided by the State Department, the suit was to obtain access to Clinton's email records. It mentions needing such access in order to understand "Clinton's method of record-keeping." The Judge was upset because the State Department had not communicated sufficiently with the FBI. The demand for information was postponed 30 days. That's my best understanding of what happened.

    There was no decision against Clinton. There was no judgment that she had done anything wrong. There was a complaint that the State Department (which Clinton no longer heads) had not given the server to the FBI previously so that they could comply with the FOIA suit discovery process.

    It seems unlikely Clinton would maintain info about Abedin's outside employment on her personal server, but who knows? If she did, that doesn't seem like a crime either. The State Department argued that because Clinton's server was not in their possession, they weren't responsible for giving it to the FBI. That does sound like a fight between State and FBI -- I understand such battles are endemic to government and weren't invented with Clinton.

    Hard to see how all this adds up to some malfeasance by Clinton, even if a Judge suggested the dispute wouldn't have arisen if she hadn't had a personal server (duh!).

    ReplyDelete
  9. "It concerned discovery in an FOIA request for information about Huma Abedin's "outside employment.""

    Correct, that's my understanding.

    Judicial Watch (the insane Larry Klayman*) apparently has a hair up their ass about Huma Abedin, and they're making a fucking federal case out of it.

    The State Department has already responded and given Judicial Watch everything they. It's another witch hunt and fishing expedition.


    *Larry Elliot Klayman (born July 20, 1951) is a politically conservative American public interest lawyer[1] and former Justice Department attorney who has been called a "Clinton nemesis"[2][3] for his dozens of lawsuits against the Bill Clinton administration in the 90s.

    ...Klayman is known for his litigious battles with the Bill Clinton White House in the 90s. His government watchdog group Judicial Watch (which he established in 1994) brought a reported 18 civil lawsuits against the administration, alleging ethical misconduct and criminal activity.[16][34] In one case, a federal judge ruled that Clinton violated the Privacy Act when he released personal letters[35] between him and a female White House volunteer. The woman had appeared on national television accusing him of making improper sexual advances, and Clinton claimed he released the letters to discredit her.[36] The judge determined this was an act of criminal intent, but that ruling was called "inappropriate" by the appellate court.[37][38][39][40]

    In the Clinton-era fundraising scandal known as Chinagate, Judicial Watch was awarded nearly a million dollars in attorney fees against the U.S. Department of Commerce.[28]

    Klayman represented Gennifer Flowers, who claimed to be one of Bill Clinton's mistresses, in a defamation suit against Hillary Clinton.[41]

    Bill Clinton needled Klayman during a presidential press conference in 1999.[42]

    Klayman represented Jared Paul Stern in his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against the Clintons, Ronald Burkle, and the Daily News.[43]

    Klayman filed a FOIA request, seeking access to Hillary Clinton's e-mails during her tenure as Secretary of State.[44]

    In March 2015, Klayman filed a racketeering lawsuit against Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton Foundation, alleging Hillary Clinton sold access to U.S. government officials in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation.[45] In August 2015, a federal court dismissed Klayman's suit.[46]

    José Basulto[edit]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So mm, tell us. Who was Huma Abedin's outside employer?

      Delete
    2. Mr. Ed,

      I don't really give a fuck. As I recall it was a consulting firm.

      Just to give you a flavor of the sort of wacko nut jobs Judicial Watch is,


      “This historic legal effort shows Judicial Watch is the only game in town when it comes to stopping and exposing government corruption,” stated Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president. “Congress, a compromised Justice Department, and a pliant liberal media won’t do the work of taking on Clinton and Obama corruption– and Judicial Watch is happy to continue its leadership role in exposing what the government is up to. There is a rule-of-law and transparency crisis in Washington. But our new FOIA lawsuits show that Mrs. Clinton and her co-conspirators in the Obama administration will be held accountable for the violations of transparency law, criminal destruction and mishandling of government records, their Benghazi lies, and the Clintons’ abuse of office for personal and political dollars.” MAY 06, 2015

      drama queen much Larry?

      Let's take a look at Larry's views on other current events:

      *****
      Here’s a sample of the logic that has made Klayman one of the most respected, by which we mean ridiculed, legal minds in America:


      How can we ignore a simple truth: Barack Obama and Eric Holder created much of this atmosphere of anger, bitterness and bile with their disdain of whites and not too transparent belief and actions that we must now pay what are in effect reparations to the black community, even though this generation does not practice or advocate slavery. Obama, Holder and their enablers, like Al Sharpton, have become what they accused President George W. Bush of being: a recruiting tool for terrorists thanks to his invasion of Iraq. Obama and company’s biased actions against whites, Christians and Jews have ironically served to draw neo-Nazis and sick Klansman out of their caves and have emboldened them to try to justify criminal acts – people like Dylann Roof. Indeed, Roof was quoted as saying that he struck because blacks had “taken over the country.”

      Read more at http://wonkette.com/589266/americas-worst-lawyer-larry-klayman-explains-how-barack-obama-got-those-blacks-shot-in-charleston#lgwlPg6yKG5BSZs9.99
      ********

      Yeah, this guy is a genuine American treasure he is.

      Delete
    3. More of Larry Klayman's greatest hits. This man belongs in a mental institution.
      *****
      The Week explained in 2013 that Klayman, "implied the Clintons orchestrated the murders of several of their associates in the 1990s, a prime reason he has argued Hillary is unfit to be president."

      As reported by The Washington Post, in 2014, Klayman premised a lawsuit on the concept that "The Ebola virus is secretly a biological weapon allowed into the country by the Obama administration to further terrorist interests against Americans of the 'Caucasian race and Jewish-Christian religion.'" Klayman described President Obama in a lawsuit as "not even a naturalized U.S. citizen and thus is in the United States illegally," and described Obama's birth certificate as a "fraud." In order "to maintain the confidence of the American people and for the benefit of the country's democratic system," Klayman subsequently petitioned the government to "initiate removal and deportation proceedings" against the president. Klayman has referred to President Obama as "mullah in chief" and accused "Obama and his Muslim friends" of "literally 'making love' with each other." He called Obama "our first 'Muslim' president" who "has joined with Palestinians to now knock off Israel."

      In a 2013 protest at the White House, Klayman told the audience that President Obama should "put the Quran down," "get up off his knees" and "come out with his hands up."

      A month later, Klayman held the "Second American Revolution" rally in Lafayette Park across from the White House, which sought to force the resignation of President Obama and other top Congressional leaders.

      Klayman was at one point barred from practicing law in New York City, because he suggested that an Asian-American judge was unable to rule impartially in a case due to his race.
      *****

      Delete
    4. mm, I asked because I was interested and thought you might know. It seemed odd that a top assistant to a cabinet officer
      would be holding down an outside job.

      Delete
    5. Your concern is noted.

      Delete
    6. I guess mm, who follows this so closely he can write nearly post length refutations and complete histories of Larry Klayman is too liberal (ie. lazy in the estimation of Bob Somerby) to look for an answer he doesn't really give a fuck about.

      Delete
    7. If Abedin had the right to do outside consulting, why does it matter who she worked for? This seems like an invasion of privacy.

      Delete
    8. Invading the "privacy" of the outside private employment of a public employee?

      http://www.oge.gov/Topics/Outside-Employment-and-Activities/Outside-Employment-Limitations/

      Someone else asked who she worked for. I want to know what she was doing at the State Department during her period of dual employment as well. Was she working full time for State?

      Perhaps "not mm" has never worked for a government agency as many of us have.

      Delete
    9. @10:36,

      I apologize. I have only just started my new position here as Official Researcher and Answer Man to Trollish Questioners. I'm sure I'll do better in the future.

      Also, please note that I am also handling the complaint department for this blog. In the future if you are ever dissatisfied with the content of the articles written by the blogger, please send me a note and I will arrange a full refund no questions asked.

      I answered the question, asshole. @8:30 pm

      "As I recall it was a consulting firm."

      Delete
    10. not smart either,

      If you're so concerned, why don't you go talk to Larry Klayman. I'm sure he can fill you in with anything you need to know.

      Just be careful, you might want to bring a net and a straight jacket.

      Delete
    11. Please accept my apologies for the rest of the human I am designed to ventilate. He enjoys blowing smoke out of me.

      mm knows full well that Ms. Abedin had two outside employers after she got the approval of the Secretary of State to continue on the federal payroll as a "Special Government Employee." One was for Teneo, a consulting firm headed by a long time Bill and Hillary manservant and foundation savant Doug Band. And the other was for the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation itself.

      If there really is a Planet Hillary, Abedin rotates completely around it, drawing salaries from other bodies in its gravitational pull. Her current orbit is now the Hillary campaign.

      Delete
    12. And here we see a classic demonstration of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

      @2:17,

      Yeah, what of it?

      **********
      The State Department said it uses special government employees routinely "to provide services and expertise that executive agencies require..."
      *****************LINK

      Delete
    13. Sphinc T. (mm's asshole)August 22, 2015 at 3:01 PM

      Again, my apologies. I thought I had shut myself down tightly after commenting, and then the human to whom I am attached'just broke wind two minutes later proving he must have known all along who Huma Adedin's outside employer was.

      Please don't read the link. It is embarrassing:

      "Abedin, the deputy chief of staff at the State Department under former Secretary Hillary Clinton, was granted status as a "special government employee" after the birth of her son.

      That title allowed her to work from home as a part-time consultant to State, earning $135,000 as a government employee -- while also earning $355,000 as a consultant for Teneo, where former President Bill Clinton is a board member."

      That means Huma was making more than Hillary. In fact she was making more than the President. In fact she was making more than 10 beginning fifth grade teachers in the Baltimore City schools combined!

      Delete
    14. That's funny, I don't feel embarrassed.
      But you certainly sound a little envious and demented.

      Again, what of it? I understand she is a very multi-talented and competent lady. Do you have a point?
      Or do you just hate anybody close to the Clintons?

      Where's the LINK?

      Delete
    15. It was in your post @ 2:29 mm. Now please pull your head back out. It hurts.

      Delete
    16. That's what I thought. You don't have a point.

      Maybe you just hate Muslims or women or Muslim women. Like Larry Klayman.

      Delete
  10. Ruth Marcus agrees with several other liberal pundits that Hillary Clinton did wrong. In Marcus's opinion, Hillary did at least 7 things wrong:

    -- "deciding to conduct official government business through a private e-mail account"

    -- making "the unconvincing claim that you did nothing different from your predecessors as secretary of state." (In Marcus's opinion, the relevant comparison group is other Cabinet secretaries in this administration, none of whom relied solely or even primarily on a private address.)

    -- Not following policy

    -- Not making her correspondence available promptly for archiving and FOIA requests

    -- "deciding to delete the e-mails you deemed personal"

    -- "declining, until the Justice Department asked, to make your personal server available for review"

    -- "wiping the server — you did work on Watergate for the House Judiciary Committee"

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/stop-digging-the-hole-secretary-clinton/2015/08/21/8f40c684-4824-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Assumes facts not in evidence:

      Ruth Marcus is a liberal? Objection Your Honor!

      Delete
    2. Layzee, Librul, & Dumm, LLCAugust 22, 2015 at 9:22 AM

      Assume usual perjoratives in typical substanceless response absent due to early morning hour.

      Delete
    3. mm -- look how supportive Marcus is of Hillary. All Marcus asks of Hillary is that apologize better.

      By comparison, an anonymous Obama Administration official -- presumably also a Democrat -- said, "If I did what Hillary did, I think I'd be in jail,"

      Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-bremmer-obama-administration-officials-2015-8#ixzz3jYMGG2bW

      Delete
    4. "Ruth Marcus agrees with several other liberal pundits . . . "

      BWAAAAHAHAHA!!!

      Reminds me of the only remaining links TDH gets these days. Only from ultra-right wing bloggers who begin "Even the liberal Bob Somerby says . . ."

      Delete
    5. By comparison an anonymous former associate of David in Cal indicated he was even bad as an actuary.

      Delete
    6. Trolls seem to be very confused by the fact that not all Democrats support Hillary Clinton. Guess they weren't following politics in 2008. Why would someone on Obama's team trash Hillary?

      Delete
  11. Getting my husband back with the help of professional love spell .Dr Brave ??

    I'm very excited sharing this amazing testimony about how i save my marriage and get my husband back today, My name is Becky Miller , I live in Los Angeles, California, I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Getting my husband back with the help of professional love spell .Dr Brave ??

    I'm very excited sharing this amazing testimony about how i save my marriage and get my husband back today, My name is Becky Miller , I live in Los Angeles, California, I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work.

    ReplyDelete

  13. “Happiness, Love is the key to LIFE”.

    Greeting be unto Dr. Ukaka the great man and ever, my name is Silvia Quelal from California. since 6 months I have witness what is called heart broken. my boyfriend that promised me marriage failed me and impregnate me and leave,he dump me,he stop calling" he stop picking my calls,and he no longer respond to me. I have be looking for solution,I fall into the hands of fake spell caster,they rough me off and took my money without help.I have cried,I have weep"and tears runs out of eyes. The silentness in my heart brought me to the deepest path of failure that I lost my job. Crying all day,because of my life was lonely. So thanks to Ukaka that came into my life and brought me the greatest joy that was lost. I saw his mail while browsing and I contact and tell him what I am passing through with no doubt because what saw about him,was enough to believe. And I was given words of solution on what to do. I can't really help thinking about it I have tried to see what I can do, I manage to provide him some materials and he help me with the rest,after casting the spell, 12hrs later he came with rose on his hand and I was even about going out,i saw him in front of my door when he sees me he knee and said he is dying I should forgive him and accept him back he was crying,I can't wait to let him finish I quickly crab him and kiss him, just then" he said he is restless without me, just as the prophet has said he will be. He brought out a ring and put it on my hand. Our wedding day was scheduled,1week after we got married. today makes it 2weeks and we are living happily I don't know how to praise him enough, he has done me a thing I can never forget. And I can't really share to myself alone, I want y'all to help me praise him because if it is wasn't for him I already plan of committing suicide. But right now I am now so happy more than I was before. And you out there crying for help you've already got one,Ukaka is the man that you need in all rampart. contact his address if you need his service, freedomlovespell@hotmail.com also contact him on his web site: freedomlovespelltemple.yolasite.com

    ReplyDelete
  14. My heart is filled with love and happiness because my husband is back to me after a divorce with the help of a genuine spell caster .My name is Becky Miller , I live in California,USA. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work, and for any questions call me on +1(575) 779-6197.

    ReplyDelete
  15. My Husband divorce me for no reason for 9 months and i tried all I could to have him back because I really love him so much but all my effort did not work out,My name is Becky Miller, I live in California,USA. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work, and for any questions call me on +1(575) 779-6197.

    ReplyDelete