Supplemental: Another front-page report by the Times!


Plus, Chozick's delicious tale:
In the past few days, Candidate Clinton and Candidate Sanders have released one-minutes ads.

Excited pundits are describing these ads as the candidates' "closing statements" in the drive to win Iowa and New Hampshire. And yes, the pundits are very worked up. Mika's very first statement today was pure, undisguised propaganda concerning one of those ads.

The hopefuls have started their closing drives; some pundits are in the same mode. Then too, a cynic might review the front page of the New York Times in the past two days and imagine a similar motive:
Front-page headline, New York Times, January 21:
'90s Scandals Have Feminists Wary of Clinton

Front-page headline, New York Times, January 22:
Clinton's Paid Speeches to Wall Street Animate Her Opponents
People, we're just saying! And yes, this is the New York Times we're discussing, not the now-reduced Washington Times. But talk about a reversion to form! It was sometimes hard to distinguish the two during Campaign 2000 as well.

This has nothing to do with the relative merits of Candidates Sanders and Clinton, which readers can judge as they will. With respect to the glorious Times, a cynic might think he was seeing a decades-long war against Clinton/Gore/Clinton coming down, once again, to the wire.

Whatever! As white-out conditions restrict us from seeing our keyboard and screen, we want to extend yesterday's post about that January 21 front-page report, in which Amy Chozick showed the world, once again, why she may have been the most horrible new major journalist of 2015.

(More on that richly-deserved designation in the next week or two.)

With frameworks built by Candidate Trump, Chozick was asking a serious question in yesterday's front-page report. Back in the 1990s, did Hillary Clinton try to "discredit" some women who "came forward" with sexual charges and sexual stories involving her husband?

More malevolently, did she even attempt to "destroy their stories?"

That seems like a perfectly serious, if extremely old, question. (Somehow, the press corps skipped this newly-troubling question during Campaign 08.)

In theory, that's a serious question. That said, an obvious question didn't seem to enter Chozick's head in the course of her front-page report:

What if a woman "comes forward" with a claim—with a sexual charge or a sexual story—which just flat isn't true?

If a person "comes forward" with such a story, is it wrong to try to "discredit" that story? Is it wrong to "discredit" the person who told it? Would a sensible person even use that language in discussing a situation like that?

If a person interjects himself or herself into a White House campaign with a story which isn't true, is it actually wrong to try to "discredit" that person? There is no sign that this obvious question has ever entered Chozick's head, a head which increasingly makes us think of Stendahl's most famous novel.

Journalistically speaking, the highly Sorelian Chozick keeps wandering off toward hopeless. When she listed the women who "came forward" with a sexual story involving Bill Clinton, she started with Connie Hamzy. But she didn't tell readers who Hamzy is, or why news orgs decided against reporting her claim at the time.

She also mentioned Gennifer Flowers. But she didn't mention the groaning, clownish factual errors which made a joke of the tabloid story for which Flowers was richly paid, back when she interjected herself into a White House campaign.

She also doesn't mention the way Flowers then turned herself into a play-for-pay chronicler of the Clintons' long string of murders, with side trips devoted to explaining the fact that Hillary Clinton is the world's most gigantic lesbo, what with her "big fat butt" and the rest of the horrible package!

Judged on any rational basis, Flowers is a journalistic nightmare. That said, you'll never read this horrible story in the pages of the Times—and Chozick, despite her provincial background, seems to know that she must play the game as sketched out by her betters.

So much is awful with Chozick's report that we can't address it all today. Adding to yesterday's post, let's restrict ourselves to the thrilling way she started her report.

The piece appeared on the Times front page, beneath the headline recorded above. Chozick began with a delicious tale of a troubling upscale event.

As a journalistic service, we will insert one word:
CHOZICK (1/21/16): This month, Lena Dunham, wearing a red, white and blue sweater dress with the word “Hillary” emblazoned across the chest, told voters how Hillary Clinton had overcome sexism in her political career.

“The way she has been treated is just more evidence of the fact that our country has so much hatred toward successful women,” Ms. Dunham, the creator and star of the HBO series “Girls,” said at a Clinton campaign event in Manchester, N.H.

But at an Upper East Side dinner party a few months back, Ms. Dunham [reportedly] expressed more conflicted feelings. She told the guests at the Park Avenue apartment of Richard Plepler, the chief executive of HBO, that she was disturbed by how, in the 1990s, the Clintons and their allies discredited women who said they had had sexual encounters with or been sexually assaulted by former President Bill Clinton.
Darlings, that was delish! At an Upper East Side dinner party at the Park Avenue apartment of the CEO of HBO, Lena Dunham blurted to guests that she was "disturbed" by all that past discrediting!

Rather, we'd say that Dunham [reportedly] blurted that she was disturbed. Why did we add "reportedly," a word Chozick didn't use?

We stuck it in for two reasons. In her next paragraph, Chozick told readers that this claim had been "relayed by several people with knowledge of the discussion who would speak about it only anonymously."

Chozick didn't explain why anonymity was granted, as she's supposed to do. And uh-oh! A fair bit later, inside the paper, on page A15, Chozick finally noted that Lena Dunham had issued a flat denial:
CHOZICK: Ms. Dunham declined a request for comment. Her spokeswoman, Cindi Berger, said that Ms. Dunham was “fully supportive of Hillary Clinton and her track record for protecting women,” and that the description of her comments at the dinner party was a “total mischaracterization.”
What did Dunham say at that very chic party? We have no idea.

Who "relayed" the conversation to Chozick? Chozick won't say, but given the setting, those sources may be among the most fatuous people on the planet. This makes them perfect interview subjects for a hireling of Chozick's type.

Is Chozick's account of what Dunham said a "total mischaracterization?" We don't have the slightest idea, nor can we say we much care. But you had to read well into the report to learn that the delicious claim which started the piece, out on the front page, had been flatly denied.

If we were to publish such piddle at all, we'd be inclined to stick "reportedly" into our copy. But "reportedly" would have drained the juice from that delicious opening story. Perhaps for that reason, it didn't make the cut.

We sometimes think of Julien Sorel, the provincial climber, when we read Chozick's copy. We also think of I, Claudius, to which we referred last week—a novel in which the Roman masses have no idea of the extent to which they're being misled, conned and misinformed by the powerful powers that be.

Chozick's report is defined as much by the information she omits as by the information she includes. And make no mistake, this new gladiator is slick.

There's basic information about those Clinton accusers which you will never read in the New York Times. Chozick may have bussed herself in from the provinces, but she seems to know the rules about what can't be conveyed.

Again and again, Chozick's report is defined by the information she omits. And yes, this former provincial is slick. Just consider that slippery reference to Flowers!

Blizzard permitting, we'll review that pitiful passage in our next award-winning post.


  1. My niece's ex-husband ML -- a bright man, of whom I was fond -- was involved in the smearing of one of Clinton's bimbos. As I recall, he may have been representing Hillary. He explained a technique they used:

    A low level person publishes something malicious and possibly false about the bimbo, in any publication at all. Now, Hillary and other big guns can repeat the slander in major media outlets. Even if it's false, they have a defense against libel. They will say that they relied on the first published article. They had a valid reason to think that the accusation was true. Thus, their repetition of it was not negligent.

    1. "smearing of one of Clinton's Bimbos."
      Just think how awful Hillary is when She smears one that isn't even a Bimbo.

    2. David, please give us an example, with links. A specific bimbo, a specific low level person, Hillary and other specific big guns. All with links.

    3. Thomas Friedman has an endless supply of ever speaking on point in broken English neo-liberal cab drivers to quote, David in Cal has an endless supply of both the victims and the perps of the Vast Left-wing Conspiracy as his own by blood or by marriage relatives to cite.

      Me, I mostly just read.

    4. impCaesar -- sure. Slate Magazine wrote:

      “Inside the White House, the debate goes on about the best way to destroy That Woman, as the President called Monica Lewinsky,” Dowd wrote. “Should they paint her as a friendly fantasist or a malicious stalker? … At least some of the veteran Clinton shooters feel a little nauseated this time around, after smearing so many women who were probably telling the truth as trashy bimbos. … It is probably just a matter of moments before we hear that Ms. Lewinsky is a little nutty and a little slutty.”

      That's from a liberal source. This article from The Federalist

      says Hillary and her associates smeared numerous women, including Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick.

    5. David that in no way fulfills impCaesarAvg's request.

      got anything real David?

    6. Are you trying to list "The Hunting Of The President" as being "Hillary Clinton Associates?" Because that takes care of Jones, Willey, and Broaddrick. Though you could dismiss them through other legitimate channels of what's left of journalism. On election morning, David, after Hillary Clinton trounces your miserable, amoral ass, you must take a stroll to the bathroom, look in the mirror and acknowledge "Well, I am one miserable piece of shit."

    7. Maureen Dowd? If *that's* your most reliable source of Clinton misconduct then you got nothing.

    8. Anon 9:36, Greg, and Anon 10:57 have disposed of David's examples. I have nothing to add.

    9. I happen to think Bill Clinton and Paula Jones both lied about what happened in that hotel room. I think she willingly provided oral pleasure, and hence was no victim.

  2. TDH has often used the letters page as a yardstick to judge how a meme has been gong. I would assume Chozick is drawing some serious fire, anyone notice?

  3. DinC, the Forest Gump of TDH comments.

    David, why don't you just leave. Don't you have some poor children's water to poison or something?

    1. I commented before I read down to yours or I wouldn't have bothered.

  4. The Times is kinder to Hillary than the WSJ, who have this article today:

    Clinton’s Emails: A Criminal Charge Is Justified
    Hillary’s explanations look increasingly contrived as evidence of malfeasance mounts day by day.

    1. The same crowd that once strutted and thumped their chests over the Iraq invasion now cry malfeasance.

    2. Mukasey says: waterboarding is not torture; the President doesn't need a warrant to wiretap an American and a suspected terrorist; possession of cocaine should be punished for smaller amounts of crack than of powder. He's a Giuliani-Bush republican. To heck with his gosh-darned opinion of Hillary.

    3. Mukasey is also working for JEB's campaign. Nice objective source you got there.

  5. Quoting The Wall Street Journal? So much for conservatives not siding with thugs. Anybody else remember that conservative schtick?

  6. "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."

    1. Shouldn't you be thinking about whether she has the capability to govern, not whether she has the capability to earn money in the same manner as every other out-of-office politician of either party?

  7. Why is the State Department only releasing Hillary emails? (Rice, Powell)?

  8. Because a judge ordered them to do so, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. If some person or group filed an FOI request for Rice and Powell's e-mails, I suppose they could get access to them, but no such request has been made AFAIK.

    1. Unfortunately, Secretary Clinton is the only former Secretary who turned over all her emails in response to their request. Colin Powell and Rice gave them a big old F U.

      Maybe if the left had a racist lunatic like Larry Klayman funded by a lunatic right wing billionaire recluse, we could harass the State Department for all eternity like the David's party. Since they cannot win with an actual policy agenda they are left with this.

    2. Also, last December, former Secretary Rice's representative advised that Secretary Rice did not use a personal email account for official usiness. In March 2015, former Secretary Powell's representative advised that while former Secretary Powell used a personal email account during his tenure as Secretary of State, he did not retain those emails or make printed copies. In March 2015, former Secretary Albright advised the Department of State that she never used a U.S. Government email or personal email account during her tenure as Secretary of State, and did not have a personal email account until after she left government service.

    3. mm -- Hillary Clinton apologists have tried to defend her by making her actions seem comparable to past Secretaries of State. But, Hillary and her staff may have exposed drone operations and actual American spies to foreign hackers.

      Anyhow, whether or not some other past government official acted imprudently, Hillary's behavior reflects badly on someone who wants to be President.

      The FBI is investigating whether members of Hillary Clinton’s inner circle “cut and pasted” material from the government’s classified network so that it could be sent to her private email address, former State Department security officials say.

      Clinton and her top aides had access to a Pentagon-run classified network that goes up to the Secret level, as well as a separate system used for Top Secret communications.

      The two systems — the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS) — are not connected to the unclassified system, known as the Non-Classified Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNet). You cannot email from one system to the other, though you can use NIPRNet to send ­emails outside the government.

      Somehow, highly classified information from SIPRNet, as well as even the super-secure JWICS, jumped from those closed systems to the open system and turned up in at least 1,340 of Clinton’s home emails — including several the CIA earlier this month flagged as containing ultra-secret Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Programs, a subset of SCI.

      SAP includes “dark projects,” such as drone operations, while SCI protects intelligence sources and methods.

      Top aide Huma Abedin sent emails containing classified materials to Hillary, according to intelligence agency reviewers.

      Fox News reported Friday that at least one of Clinton’s emails included sensitive information on spies.

      “It takes a very conscious effort to m

    4. Let us review how we got here.

      Someone above asked a simple question:

      "Why is the State Department only releasing Hillary emails? (Rice, Powell)?"

      To which you cheerfully responded with your finger firmly planted in your cheek:

      "If some person or group filed an FOI request for Rice and Powell's e-mails, I suppose they could get access to them, but no such request has been made AFAIK."

      You knew, as we evident from you subsequent post that Powell did not turn over his emails because "he didn't retain them".

      These were PUBLIC RECORDS of his Government business, yet he didn't "retain them" as he was obligated to do, yet no one so much as questioned why? The reason being of course, his name is not Clinton.

      So go fuck yourself, David in California, enjoy your FOX NOOZ.

  9. We intelligent progressive await clarification of Ms. Dunham's comments before making a voting decision.