Type to search

Murdoch’s HarperCollins Deletes (Some) Errors From Kindle Version Of ‘Clinton Cash’

Editor's Blog Featured Post Politics

Murdoch’s HarperCollins Deletes (Some) Errors From Kindle Version Of ‘Clinton Cash’


The publisher of Clinton Cash has reportedly removed “seven or eight” glaring errors from the Kindle version of the controversial new book — which purports to investigate alleged conflicts of interest involving the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, the former president’s paid speechmaking career, and the former Secretary of State’s tenure in the Obama administration.

According to both Politico and Media Matters for America, Rupert Murdoch’s HarperCollins has amended sections of the book —  authored by ex-Bush speechwriter Peter Schweizer and subsidized by the Koch brothers, among other right-wing interests — that implicated the Clintons in allegedly shady conduct concerning foundation activities in Haiti and the State Department’s consideration of the Keystone XL pipeline. In the latter case, he had quoted extensively from a report that already had been exposed as an Internet hoax.

Readers and journalists evidently first learned of the eBook corrections from Amazon, which sent an email to purchasers of the book on Tuesday to let them know about the changes. “An updated version of your past Kindle purchase … is now available,” the email message said. “The updated version contains the following changes: Significant revisions have been made.”

In a prepared statement, a HarperCollins spokesperson attempted to minimize the corrections: “This is a routine notification that Amazon sends to previous version purchasers whenever there is an updated file. The changes that Amazon is referring to as significant are actually quite minor. We made 7-8 factual corrections after the first printing and fixed a technical issue regarding the endnotes. This global fix may have made the changes appear more extensive than they were.”

Media Matters posted both original and corrected versions of the sections that were changed; readers may judge for themselves whether those rather extensive corrections, including the removal of entire paragraphs, should be deemed “minor.” At least a dozen additional errors await correction by Schweizer and his publisher.

AFP Photo/Kevork Djansezian

Joe Conason

A highly experienced journalist, author and editor, Joe Conason is the editor-in-chief of The National Memo, founded in July 2011. He was formerly the executive editor of the New York Observer, where he wrote a popular political column for many years. His columns are distributed by Creators Syndicate and his reporting and writing have appeared in many publications around the world, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Yorker, The New Republic, The Nation, and Harpers.

Since November 2006, he has served as editor of The Investigative Fund, a nonprofit journalism center, where he has assigned and edited dozens of award-winning articles and broadcasts. He is also the author of two New York Times bestselling books, The Hunting of the President (St. Martins Press, 2000) and Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth (St. Martins Press, 2003).

Currently he is working on a new book about former President Bill Clinton's life and work since leaving the White House in 2001. He is a frequent guest on radio and television, including MSNBC's Morning Joe, and lives in New York City with his wife and two children.

  • 1


  1. Dominick Vila May 14, 2015

    Where were the editors? Who reviewed this e-book to ensure its contents or allegations were accurate?
    Bill Clinton should sue the author, the publisher, and the financiers of this e-book, for libel and/or slander. Accusing someone of taking bribes, appropriating donations, and deliberately falsifying the Clinton Foundation record to score political points and damage Hillary’s reputation, should not be ignored. The only thing Republicans understand and respect is behavior as ruthless as theirs. Time to give them a taste of their own medicine.

    1. Theodora30 May 14, 2015

      I want to know where the editors of the NY Times were when they allowed their own reporters to use bogus allegations from Schweitzer. And where they were when the error and innuendo ridden email “scandal” articles were pulbished. Or the articles about WMD, Whitewater. It is not just Republicans who are the problem,

      1. JPHALL May 14, 2015

        Remember that editors are no longer independent of their owners. Today the owners, usually conservations take a more direct hand in the papers and stations.

        1. Theodora30 May 15, 2015

          The NY Times is not owned by conservatives which is why it is a bigger problem when they play along with them, usually for shallow reasons. They hate the Clintons because they are viewed as usurpers from nowhere land, not because of substantive issues so they are willing to use “facts” shopped to them by right wing sources to weaken them.mthey did this with the bogus Whitewater scandal and are doing it even more openly now by partnering with Schweitzer, a conservative partisan who is a Koch funded former Bush speech writer.

      2. Dominick Vila May 15, 2015

        Political parties do take advantage of situations to score political points, and they use tools, such as books that denigrate the character of an opponent to destroy them without having to debate that person on the issues.
        What worries me the most about Republican tactics is their determination to create havoc worldwide. The incendiary comments being made by Geller remind me of the film that was mysteriously made and released just before the attack against our consulate in Benghazi, and the emergence of the “pastor” that promised to burn the Qu’ran. I don’t believe these are spontaneous or innocent acts. I believe they are part of a Republican strategy to attack Democrats, claiming our foreign policies have failed, in part to deflect attention from their record, which includes 9/11, 11 terrorist attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities, a war justified with lies, 4,500 American soldiers killed in a war we should not have started, tens of thousands maimed, 600,000 Iraqis slaughtered, and 2 million Sunnis leaving Iraq after the Bush administration removed the Sunnis from government positions and replaced them with Shias aligned to Iran. The latter are back in the form of ISIS, and the GOP is happy to blame everyone but themselves for the emergence of an Islamic State.
        Releasing books with bogus data is probably the most benign part of their political strategy.

        1. Theodora30 May 15, 2015

          Books written by conservatives are not the problem. It is the mainstream media joining in that enables the right to get away with all the things you mention.
          The NY Times and it’s toadies in the MSM selling us on WMD was a much bigger factor in getting the public to support invading Iraq. Before that public opinion opposed going to war with Iraq. Because the NY Times was reporting that Saddam had WMD, the rest of the mainstream media followed their lead (except for Knight Ridder’s reporters and CBS’s Bib Simon). MSNBC’s top rated show at the time was Phil Donahue. The network first insisted if he had someone on to oppose going to war he had to have two who were pro war. Then they just fired him.
          When average folks who are not political junkies see this on the Today Show or mainstream network news – which is still where most get their news – they assume they are getting objective, vetted facts, not Republican propaganda. The polls at that time clearly showed it worked.

          1. Dominick Vila May 15, 2015

            The most outrageous part of the WMD con job is that nobody bothered to ask why did WMDs provided by the Reagan administration to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war had suddenly become a threat to our interests or security. Never mind the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the IAEA Inspector Hans Blix told the world that Iraq’s WMDs had been destroyed, or the fact that it was already becoming increasingly obvious that W was in desperate need of a distraction to deflect attention from the fact that he was in office when 9/11 occurred. Saddam’s decision to ignore the contract bids submitted by Cheney and Rumsfeld on behalf of Halliburton and Bechtel, and give those contracts to Russian and French companies, sealed Saddam’s fate. What happened after Cheney became VP was almost inevitable.

          2. FireBaron May 15, 2015

            Dominick, I believe most of the WMDs supplied by Reagan were used against Saddam’s own people as test victims before they were used against the Iranians.

          3. Dominick Vila May 15, 2015

            Some were used to kill Kurds, after we provided Saddam with satellite imagery that suggested collusion between the Kurds and Iran, during the Iran-Iraq war. Years later, that tragedy was used as evidence of criminality to execute Saddam.

          4. Theodora30 May 15, 2015

            I did not know about him giving contracts to Russia of France instead of Halliburton and Bechtel. Do you have a link for that? I find it appalling that Cheney drawing up maps of Iraq’s oil fields as part of his committee on energy before 9-11 is generally ignored. Denying his company contracts makes it even more damning.

          5. Dominick Vila May 15, 2015

            I will try to find a link. My comment was based on recollection of news on this subject. In the interim, the following link may provide considerable insight into what transpired prior to our decision to invade Iraq.

          6. Theodora30 May 16, 2015

            Thanks for the links. If I knew any of this I had forgotten – not that it is surprising.

      3. rustacus21 May 15, 2015

        In watching the NYT over the years, U understand it’s every bit as ‘corporate’ as every other Murdoch rag & e-product out there. And as most ‘corporations’ go, they cater to the pop-money-preferences of right-wing preferences, by carrying water for right-wingers. So by all means, don’t confuse the NYT w/anything more Liberal than ‘sometimes,’ NEEDING to tell truths that are too obvious to ignore in media…

    2. elw May 15, 2015

      This not the first book to be released as factual but is really fiction by the Murdock group and it will not be the last. The bigger scandal here is the way the mainstream media has helped push it. The cost is higher than damage to Hillary – it hurts their viewers, every voter and the Country by spreading mistrust and fear. Shame on them and shame on the media. I do not know about anyone else, but I no longer believe anything I hear from any newscaster or read in a paper. My motto has become, well I wait and see what is being said 2 months from now.

    3. rustacus21 May 15, 2015

      It would be a wonderful thing if the Clinton’s – for once – would take their haters to task for making their years in public SERVICE & the many wonderful & countless acts of selfless giving, pure hell! But we must recognize it for what it is – childish jealousies – for his (Clinton) not being who they thought/think he was/is & 2-for doing the great things, as an executive (President) that, in the 60-some years since Eisenhower, NO Republican President has had the ability or brains (or more importantly – the morality) to achieve! Remember, the Republican Congress in the post-FDR years, created the legislation – in anticipation of another such Liberal – using their White House years exquisitely towards the benefit & uplift of the ‘people,’ foresaw the coming just such an individual as an FDR – embodied in the Clinton’s. Looking over the national wreckage of the last 14 years & realizing only now, that we had the chance to extend the Clinton legacy (via President Gore), we can only long for the time when we had a President astute enough to tackle ALL the problems – even Republican haters – that came his way…

  2. elw May 15, 2015

    Well the sad thing is, the damage is already done no matter how many errors they have and might correct later. The Right will use those bogus allegations as gospel truth for the next decade and beyond. Murdock and his spawn knew exactly what they were doing and they now have what they intended a following that will hold on and spread their lies until they can no longer speak. The media should be shamed of itself and what they claim is journalism.

  3. Eleanore Whitaker May 17, 2015

    It is long past time for people to top the lies and contortions of truth. When a person deliberately lies, they can be hauled into court for libel and/or slander. Too many times now, the 1st Amendment right to free speech has gone without responsibility for what people say.

    They hated Bill Clinton. They hate Hillary. They loathe Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and despise President Obama.

    Murdoch had the gall to say he only became and “American” for the money and again stated that his media will publish what “I tell them to.” That means he is directly accountable for lies and slander in his media. He said so. Therefore, he should be sued for trying to pull off another round of deliberate libel and scandal.

    He obviously learned nothing from his London media’s getting sued for wiretapping. Men like this old bull think they are above the law. Show them they are not.

    When nothing in media can be trusted to be fact or truth, what will the people of the US have gained from this?

  4. Eleanore Whitaker May 17, 2015

    The other thing that needs to be investigated today by the US Justice Dept. is just how close some tycoons have come to owning the media, oil interests and a host of other “holding companies.” These media tycoons don’t just own media. Their interests would scare the hell out of most Americans. It’s coming down to a handful of TOO RICH men who play competitive games with each other at the expense of our Constitutional freedoms..


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.