Anti-Clinton hit piece in National Journal jumps the shark hard

[IceSpear]

This is actually fairly tame for Hillary hit piece standards. The NYT constantly cracks out far, far worse. In fact, they're the catalyst for all the Hillary "controversies" that have come out lately. The rest of them just follow the leader and dogpile on afterwards, like this article does. It's basically just restating the same stuff that's already been repeated ad nauseum by the "political experts."

[IceSpear]

This is actually fairly tame for Hillary hit piece standards. The NYT constantly cracks out far, far worse. In fact, they're the catalyst for all the Hillary "controversies" that have come out lately. The rest of them just follow the leader and dogpile on afterwards, like this article does. It's basically just restating the same stuff that's already been repeated ad nauseum by the "political experts."

I just found hilarious the part where the writer argues with a straight face that mentioning the fact that the person who alleges all these horrible things about the Clintons is actually a Republican hack with a long history of lies, gives credence to his allegations.
I mean, what kind of logic is that?

Yeah, that was quite impressive. The NYT tends to use a throwaway line to at least cover their ass, such as "Schweizer, a right leaning conservative" or "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown", usually burying it deep in the article so all the headline readers and skimmers don't see it (which is exactly their goal.)

[IceSpear]

Well, it certainly seems to be a campaign-killing scandal to me. Congratulations president Rubio!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/27/1380600/--Clinton-Cash-author-can-t-even-defend-his-wild-claims-on-Fox-News

First, former Bush speechwriter and Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer claimed—with an assist from the New York Times—that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had approved a deal involving a Russian uranium mining company. Unfortunately for Schweizer and the Times the facts showed that the State Department is just one of nine votes on the committee that had to approve that deal, that Clinton wasn't personally involved in the review, and that other independent agencies also had to approve it. But fear not! Schweizer had a fallback position, which he trotted out on Fox News Sunday, because of course Fox News:

    WALLACE: Nine separate agencies and they point out there's no hard evidence, and you don't cite any in the book that Hillary Clinton took direct action, was involved in any way in approving as one of nine agencies the sale of the company?  

    SCHWEIZER: Well, here's what's important to keep in mind: it was one of nine agencies, but any one of those agencies had veto power. So, she could have stopped the deal.

All the money that allegedly flowed to the Clintons to smooth the way for this deal to go through was so that Clinton would not attempt, as the head of one of nine agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, to veto it? When the State Department's review of the deal didn't rise to the level where the secretary would get personally involved? Oh, and by the way, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Canadian government also signed off on the deal, and if the cabinet secretaries on the CFIUS can't agree on whether to approve a deal, it's not a one-secretary veto situation: the president then decides.

So Schweizer's allegation basically boils down to that Hillary Clinton did not intervene in a process that hadn't risen to the level of needing the secretary's attention, and that she did not exercise veto power she didn't really have. Boy, those donors sure bought some extra-special treatment from her.

LOL what a joke. The NYT should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for hitching onto this guy's wagon, but sadly I doubt they are. I'm sure they think the ends justify the means.

[IceSpear]

How dare those scumbags criticize the anointed one!

More like how dare you give unsubstantiated criticism that even the source of said criticism can't prove, then pass it off as fact.

[IceSpear]

More Clinton fun from the right wing NYTs

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/canadian-partnership-shielded-identities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html?_r=2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Canada did not give the Clinton Foundation USA tax exempt status until 2010 and so there was a Clinton Foundation Canada founded in 2007 for Canadian donors. There is no information available about these donors because the Canadian privacy laws won't allow them to disclose it.

What a conspiracy!

So that is very convenient for the Clintons to shield their donations.

The Clinton Foundation and the Sec of State are probably the biggest scandal to afflict a candidate in modern history. So Hillary's campaign is less than a month old and it has been hit by two major scandals and the reliable liberal media outlets that rallied to protect them in the 1990s have turned on them.

LOL, the "liberal" NYT was one of the biggest pushers of the Whitewater nontroversy.

[IceSpear]

More Clinton fun from the right wing NYTs

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/canadian-partnership-shielded-identities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html?_r=2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Canada did not give the Clinton Foundation USA tax exempt status until 2010 and so there was a Clinton Foundation Canada founded in 2007 for Canadian donors. There is no information available about these donors because the Canadian privacy laws won't allow them to disclose it.

What a conspiracy!

So that is very convenient for the Clintons to shield their donations.

The Clinton Foundation and the Sec of State are probably the biggest scandal to afflict a candidate in modern history. So Hillary's campaign is less than a month old and it has been hit by two major scandals and the reliable liberal media outlets that rallied to protect them in the 1990s have turned on them.

LOL, the "liberal" NYT was one of the biggest pushers of the Whitewater nontroversy.

So the NYT isnt liberal?

In general they are, but when it comes to their history, it is fairly clear: they have no problem using unproven or debunked right wing talking points/faux scandals to try to smear the Clintons.