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

[Landslide Lyndon]

I won't quote anything from this article. You must read it to believe that such a thing was posted not by Newsmax or the Weekly Standard but by the supposedly respectable NJ.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/democrats-went-all-in-on-hillary-clinton-it-s-looking-like-a-terrible-bet-20150423?

[Landslide Lyndon]

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?

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.)

Oh, and after that howler the journalist practically implores the Democrats to field another candidate against Hillary.
These people are getting so desperate that I'm starting to feel embarrassed for them.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Huh? Journalists criticizing Hillary Clinton? It must be a junk source!

If that's what you understood then you have some serious reading comprehension problems dude.

[Landslide Lyndon]

For example, the Post article mentions Charity Watch and then implies that they were the ones who supplied the figure for the Clinton Foundation spending.  In fact Charity Watch says no such thing (or anything else on the Clinton Foundation.)

Maybe they got them from the same place they get their numbers which show that Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The media will go truly insane if the Clintons get back into the White House.

This elections seems quite simillar to 2000 in this respect, as it was the so-called "liberal media" who led the onslaught against Gore, with the Washington Post being particularly nasty in its character assasination and search for nontroversies. Seems like it will be far worse this time around, though.

Thankfully there is a much stronger liberal media infrastructure so that nobody can disseminate bogus quotes like "I invented the internet" unchecked.

[Landslide Lyndon]

How dare those scumbags criticize the anointed one!

Don't be so bitter. Maybe next time you'll find a real scandal to play.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Just another episode in the endless and sordid story of the scandal ridden Clintons.

Not only scandal, corruption, graft, and an entrenched attitude of entitlement, but exercising extremely naïve and amateurish judgment on the world stage.

This does not a President make.

The hit pieces are based on two efforts:

1) The Republicans fear Hillary Clinton.

2) Corporate News Media wants a close general election.

Don't pay attention to Winfield.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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!

I don't even bother to read theses embarrassingly desperate hit-pieces anymore. Between this and giving Jindal the chance to spew his homophobic venom, the Times have seriously tarnished their reputation.