What Chozick's teen-ager has "heard:" It seems like only yesterday that we were lamenting Amy Chozick's emergence as a New York Times reporter.
Oh wait—it was only yesterday! In yesterday's New York Times, Chozick was licking her lips about the sexy-time conduct of Anthony Weiner. She also explored the two-faced conduct of Weiner's wife, who happens to be a top Clinton aide and of course is a money-grubber.
In today's editions, Chozick is at it again, live and direct from the underwear drawer, quoting a ripe selection of sources about Hillary Clinton's "past involvement in her husband's efforts to fend off accusations of sexual misconduct."
We'll bite! What was Hillary Clinton's "past involvement in her husband's efforts to fend off accusations of sexual misconduct?"
Chozick is wonderfully imprecise about that, especially concerning the possibility that some of these accusations may have been untrue, false, invented, fake, not real.
Chozick pays almost no attention to that rather significant variable. Along the way, she extends her own growing legend as a ludicrous pseudo-reporter.
In the past, did Hillary Clinton behave in inappropriate ways toward her husband's sex accusers? To some extent, that would almost surely depend on whether the claims in question were true.
Chozick doesn't seem hugely concerned about that. Consider the way she presents this long-ago sexy-time tale:
CHOZICK (1/21/16): Much of [Hillary Clinton's] involvement played out behind the scenes and was driven in part by her sense that right-wing forces were using the women and salacious stories to damage her husband's political ambitions.Was Connie Hamzy's accusation true? Back when she was "one of the first women to come forward," that is?
Her reflex was to protect him and his future, and early on, she turned to a longtime Clinton loyalist, Ms. Wright, to defend him against the allegations, according to multiple accounts at the time, documented in books and oral histories.
''We have to destroy her story,'' Mrs. Clinton said in 1991 of Connie Hamzy, one of the first women to come forward during her husband's first presidential campaign, according to George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton administration aide who described the events in his memoir, ''All Too Human.'' (Three people signed sworn affidavits saying Ms. Hamzy's story was false.)
Chozick repeats this story without telling readers who Hamzy is. Brace yourselves, but according to the world's leading authority, Hamzy is "an American woman from Little Rock, Arkansas who is best known as a groupie who claims to have had sex with numerous rock musicians...
"Hamzy personally claims to have given oral sex to various members of the many bands that have traveled through Little Rock," the leading authority says. "Her alleged groupie escapades were detailed in a Cosmopolitan profile in 1974, and in 1992 she wrote a tell-all article for Penthouse."
"Hamzy published a memoir in 1995 under the title Rock Groupie: The Intimate Adventures of 'Sweet Connie' from Little Rock," the leading authority further reports.
None of this means that Hamzy wasn't telling the truth when he made her exciting accusation, which Chozick forgets to spell out. That said, was Hamzy a reliable source? When she "came forward" in late 1991, was she telling the truth?
In his book, it seemed fairly clear that Stephanopoulos didn't think so. When he described the contents of those three affidavits, the reason for this became fairly clear.
True to form, Chozick skips that part of the story. In an 1800-word report, there's a whole lot of shit she leaves out.
At any rate, Stephanopoulos provided the basic background—background Chozick chose to skip. "Immortalized in the Grand Funk Railroad classic, 'We're an American Band,' Connie Hamzy was a Little Rock groupie who was infamous on the rock circuit for her lusty backstage adventures," Stephanopoulos wrote in his book.
He provided additional background to Hamzy's sudden charge, in late 1991, concerning Candidate Clinton. The new accusations were being used to promote Hamzy's upcoming "tell-all" photo spread in Penthouse, for which she was being paid a five-figure fee.
Was Hamzy a reliable source? Was her accusation accurate? Like Chozick, we have no way of knowing. None of us ever will.
That said, Chozick didn't let readers know the background to this ancient accusation, in which money was changing hands. She merely said that three people denied Hamzy's story and let things go with that.
It's classic life in Chozickstan! So is this remarkable passage, in which readers are invited to ponder what a teen-ager has "heard:"
CHOZICK (continuing directly): Now that the stories are resurfacing, they could hamper Mrs. Clinton’s attempts to connect with younger women, who are learning the details of the Clintons’ history for the first time. Several news organizations have published guides to the Clinton scandals to explain the allegations to a new generation of readers.Alexis Moncada, who's 17, has “heard" that Bill Clinton did various things and that Hillary Clinton "worked to cover it up.”
Alexis Isabel Moncada, the 17-year-old founder of Feminist Culture, a popular blog, was not old enough to remember the 1990s, but lately she and her thousands of young female readers have heard a lot about the scandals.
“I heard he sexually harassed people and she worked to cover it up,” Ms. Moncada said of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. “A lot of girls in my age group are huge feminists, and we don’t react well to that.”
Chozick rushes these statements into print, warning us that stories like this can undermine Candidate Clinton's chances. By the way:
When "younger women" hear stories like Hamza's, are they really "learning the details of the Clintons’ history for the first time?" Or are they possibly being exposed to a Chozick-sized pile of shit?
There's little sign that Chozick knows; there's zero sign that she cares. At any rate, assuming Moncada has read Chozick's latest report, she has now "heard" that Hillary Clinton set out to "destroy the story" of someone named Connie Hamza.
She hasn't been warned that Hamza may not be the world's most reliable source, or that she had a financial motive to invent a bogus tale.
There's more to see in Chozick's latest assault on the traditional norms of journalism. We'll return to her latest report tomorrow.
For today, ponder a basic fact:
As things have turned out down through the years, some of President Clinton's accusers don't seem real believable. Over the past twenty years, news orgs like the New York Times have worked very hard to keep you from "hearing" that fact.
For obvious reasons, Gennifer Flowers is one such profoundly compromised source. So is Kathleen Willey, for reasons we haven't discussed this week, as we promised to do.
Alexis Moncada, age 17, has never "heard" those facts! She'll never hear them in the Times, where slimeballs like Chozick have worked through the years to keep them from being considered.
In his book, Stephanopoulos makes it sound like no one believed Hamzy's accusation, for reasons he explains. In her latest report from the underwear drawer, Chozick skips that part of the tale.
Can we talk? A basic secret about us humans lies at the heart of this favorite press narrative, which is now being rolled out all over again (hat tip, Candidate Trump). We'll explore that basic secret tomorrow, but here it is in a nutshell:
As must be fairly clear by now, quite a few people are crazy. All too often, crazy people say crazy things which are crazily false.
(Or do you believe that Donald Trump sent those investigators to Hawaii, the way he kept saying he did?)
Quite a few people are crazy! After all The Big Crazy of recent years, do we still not grasp this basic fact? Do we think that Palin and Trump are crazy, but all sexy-time sex accusers are not? Even those who are getting paid for their accusations?
Meanwhile, how about New York Times reporters? After all she's done in just the last year, are we really sure that a certain reporter's "all there?"
Tomorrow: Dunham paraphrased, Carville and Flowers! More from Chozick's report