Supplemental: Self-described "groupie" accuses Bill Clinton!


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.

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.)
Was Connie Hamzy's accusation true? Back when she was "one of the first women to come forward," that is?

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 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.”
Alexis Moncada, who's 17, has “heard" that Bill Clinton did various things and that Hillary Clinton "worked to cover it up.”

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


  1. More low-hanging fruit.

  2. This is important. But not as important as debunking the changing story of Ta-Nehisi Coates and the continuing coverage of 2015, widely known as "the year of liberal script."

    1. Chozik's depiction of Hamzy reminds me of Somerby's depiction of Coates's "changing" story.

    2. So, you're an idiot. Got it.

    3. I think it is more important Bob is covering current events again.

    4. A fist full of candy?! Waxing the narrative poetic

  3. Huffington Post today runs a picture of Hillary Clinton below a headline on Anti-Abortion Groups gathering in Washington. Plus an article calling Bernie Sanders TV ad "inspirational."

  4. I'm sorry but the Left made its bed with hysterical and repeated admonishments to always believe every claim of sexual harassment, assault, and rape, no matter how flimsy -- so it is glorious to watch its leading candidate now have to lie in that bed.

    Trump speaks, and the Overton Window responds!

    1. The correct reaction to any claim of sexual assault or rape is to give the victim the benefit of the doubt. Believe his or her claim UNTIL facts and evidence disprove it. This is what police, prosecutors, the left, the right, you, and I should all do.

      When victims come forward and are automatically disbelieved, incredible harm is done, not just to them, but to the future victims of their perpetrators, who are free to rape and assault at will because no one believes any claims.

  5. Are they really "learning the details of the Clintons’ history for the first time?"

    Bwah hahaha haaa haaaa!!!

  6. Replies
    1. some are good people according to the Donald.

  7. About one year ago, The New York Times assigned Amy Chozick to cover Hillary Clinton.

    Apparently, Ms Chozick thought "cover" meant "to cover Hillary with poo-poo."

    Yes, I wrote that because that is all the dignity Ms. Chozick's reporting deserves.

    In fact, in calling Ms Chozick a reporter I am according her too much dignity.

    Her relentless trashing of Hillary over the past year is making The NYTimes look like a trash newspaper that is useful only for lining the bottoms of bird cages.

  8. Although each accusation is a "he-said-she-said", the large number of accusations against Bill C. adds to the accusations' credibility, whether the "C" stands for Clinton or Cosby.

    1. Linking Clinton's name with Cosby makes you scum. Go somewhere else with this crap.

    2. This might be the most loathsome comment every made on this blog.

  9. Today's NY Times hit piece on Hillary is back to her speech-making again.

    1. Times hit piece or Times coverage of Sander's hitting?

      "For a fee of $275,000, she had agreed to appear before the clients of GoldenTree Asset Management, the capstone of a lucrative speechmaking sprint through Wall Street that earned her more than $2 million in less than seven months.

      But her paid speeches are now emerging as the central line of attack in an increasingly bitter primary clash with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

      The attacks have become one of Mr. Sanders’s biggest applause lines in Iowa, where the median household earns about $52,229 a year."

    2. Yes, the line is that Clinton is desperate because she is attacking Sanders, but not one word about the fact that Sanders has been attacking Clinton. In this case, his opposition research clearly comes from the Republicans.

      Being Socialist shouldn't mean being anti-business or anti-finance. It should be regulating the excesses but when Sanders criticizes these speeches, it is as if he thinks Wall Street itself is the problem. That doesn't make any sense.

      Meanwhile, the LA Times has picked up the meme that Clinton has no appeal for feminists. Sometimes it seems this planet has gone completely crazy.

    3. "In this case, his opposition research clearly comes from the Republicans."


      Unlike Ruth Marcus, we aren't “fans of Hillary Clinton. ... Such cluelessness from Clinton supporters may represent her “biggest problem.”

    4. Oh, ho ho ho!

      Jackass, do you think it will be funny maybe by the ten thousandth time you write the same fucking thing?

    5. Mentioning relevant facts about Hillary's record constitututes a hit piece? Hmmm...

    6. "...when Sanders criticizes these speeches, it is as if he thinks Wall Street itself is the problem. That doesn't make any sense."

      It makes perfect sense. Wall street is rife with thugs. Until Wall Street takes responsibility and sheds these monsters from their ranks, they deserve all the shit Sanders and the rest of the citizenry of the U.S. give them.

    7. mm you like it when Bob repeats himself. You hate it when I repeat Bob.