Type to search

Pay For Play? The Scandal Is Judicial Watch Misleading Gullible Media

Editor's Blog Featured Post Politics White House

Pay For Play? The Scandal Is Judicial Watch Misleading Gullible Media

U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton speaks during a campaign rally in Kissimmee, Florida, U.S. August 8, 2016. REUTERS/Chris Keane

Listening to the national media over the past few weeks, many Americans may now believe that the Clinton Foundation was set up as a “pay-to-play” scheme for Hillary Clinton to squeeze wealthy foreigners and rich Americans for millions of dollars. According to this theory, popularized by a lavishly funded right-wing organization called Judicial Watch, the Secretary of State would only deal with people and governments that had donated big money to her husband’s foundation.

But that story is itself a scam and a fraud, perpetrated by Judicial Watch with misleading information fed to gullible and lazy Washington journalists.

Consider the tale of the Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain, head of state of one of America’s primary allies in the Persian Gulf. Rummaging through thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails, Judicial Watch discovered that the prince had requested a meeting with the Secretary of State on a specific day in 2010, via an email from Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band to Hillary’s aide Huma Abedin.

In a hysterical press release, Judicial Watch denounced this request as an outrageous example of unethical and possibly illegal behavior, because “by 2010, [the crown prince] had contributed $32 million” to CGI [the Clinton Global Initiative].”

That damning narrative, usually condensed into “Bahraini prince gave $32 million to Clinton Foundation,” appeared in news outlets across the country.

By leaving out the most important facts — which show there was no unethical conduct — Judicial Watch could confidently assume that gullible (or malicious) journalists would omit that crucial information as well. And of course, they did.

The simple fact is that not one cent of that $32 million ever went into the bank accounts of the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton Foundation, or any member of the Clinton family. Every cent went instead toward the college education of Bahraini students, which was the purpose of the Crown Prince’s “commitment,” announced like hundreds of others at the Clinton Global Initiative conferences in New York.

More misleading still, Judicial Watch failed to mention that the crown prince’s $32 million commitment was announced at the very first Clinton Global Initiative meeting in September 2005 — or more than three years before Barack Obama asked Hillary Clinton to serve as Secretary of State. Unless the crown prince was clairvoyant, he had no way of knowing that his 2005 CGI commitment would induce the nation’s top diplomat to meet with him five years later.

So the money didn’t go to the foundation and was committed long before Hillary went to work in the State Department. That doesn’t fit any sane definition of “pay to play.” But it does reveal the deception behind those screaming press releases from Judicial Watch, an outfit whose claims deserve to be treated like anthrax by any journalist with integrity.

Unfortunately, many Washington reporters seem eager to repeat any accusation brandished against the Clintons, even from a dubious source, without rudimentary checking. Upon receipt of that dishonest press release from Judicial Watch, any reporter could have called the Clinton Foundation to learn the truth about the crown prince’s $32 million commitment to his own country’s students. Indeed, any reporter could have discovered the same facts by entering a few data points into a search engine like Google.

From the context of the emails quoted by Judicial Watch, it is obvious that Clinton was initially reluctant to meet with the crown prince on a particular day on short notice. Any reporter who believes that the Secretary of State would simply refuse to see the head of state of one of America’s principal allies in the Persian Gulf, whether he made a CGI commitment or not, is too stupid to write about foreign affairs.

Similar stories have emanated not only from Judicial Watch, but from the Associated Press and other outlets in recent days — and so far, all are similarly flawed, relying on the omission of essential facts and the emphasis of false narratives.

It is important to recall that when Obama asked Clinton to serve in his cabinet, she resisted at first. When she agreed, her advisers and the president-elect’s transition team negotiated a set of rules to govern her husband’s philanthropic and business activities. With very few and minor exceptions, they adhered to those rules — and have continued to disclose all of the Clinton Foundation’s donors long after she left government.

Unlike the Clinton Foundation, however, Judicial Watch doesn’t disclose the names of the donors who provide almost $30 million annually to finance its ongoing harassment of the Clintons and their aides, which has continued for decades. Unlike the Clinton Foundation, which has saved millions of lives, Judicial Watch exploits its nonprofit status to advance the partisan objectives of its unnamed donors. And unlike the Clinton Foundation, which enjoys a four-star rating from the watchdog Charity Navigator, the nonprofit and “charitable” Judicial Watch only gets two stars, because its operations are inscrutable and it spends an excessive percentage of its revenues on salaries and fundraising.

Perhaps it is time for someone in the media to investigate their conduct.

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. jimmy midnight August 26, 2016

    Today’s “journalists,” a majority of whom are D’s, will, quite thoughtlessly, run with trumped-up (pun intended) rumor-mongering like the above in a desperate effort to appear impartial.

    Many of our people wouldn’t know impartial if it “knocked ’em down and stepped in their face.” Perhaps those of us who do should start hollering, “Lock ’em up!” when organizations like Judicial Watch and ALEC are brought up.

    But in addition to not being brainwashed, we’re not a vengeful people, either.

    1. Eleanore Whitaker August 26, 2016

      Do you men ALWAYS lie and think no one knows it? The majority of journalists are Dems? Do you live in some remote corner of the earth? So I am going to prove what a liar you are.

      The NY Times…owned by an ultra conservative. The NY Post, Wall Street Journal, PBS and several European media are ALL owned by Rupert Murdoch, King of the Ultra Radical liar nutbags of the right.

      Many of YOUR people can’t tell their butts from their faces. But when you lie, those of us who prize truth and facts have no reservations about proving just how far you asshats will go to lie.

      The Big Six Media billionaires are ALL right wing ultra conservatives with the exception of ONLY one….Soros and his media interests come no where near that of Ted Turner and Charles and David Koch.

      I am sure you Mammy and Pappy in DogPatch told you that you lie and get away with it. But Mammy and Pappy Yokum had NO education. I and millions of Americans do. Shouldn’t you be out on a ledge whistlin’ Dixie? Eatin’ yo grit and gravy? Suckin’ up yo White Lightin’

      You have zero credibility because asshats like you post without any proof. Prove what you posted or stop posting what you know are lies.

      Jessus….These hicks never learn that they are THE most “ignernt” people in this country. Then, they wonder why those of us who were properly raised and educated think they are morons?

      1. jimmy midnight August 26, 2016

        Quite right, Eleanore, about media OWNERS. Another reason D REPORTERS run with the garbage passed out by the ALEC’s and the Judicial Watches.

        And for that matter, the Brietbarts. As for asshats, what I always say is, “Have one, be one.” Don’t jump to conclusions, I bet I’m well to the left of you. 🙂

        1. Eleanore Whitaker August 27, 2016

          Why do you keep insisting it is Democrats own the media when they absolutely DO NOT? There are 6 major media billionaire moguls in the US. Only one of them is not an ultra right wing conservative.

          As for your Republican and right winger garbage, do explain to us how Fox News, owned by self-proclaimed ultra right winger, Rupert Murdoch hires Democrats? What about Limbaugh? Or O’Reilly? These are NOT Democrats.

          As for the Berniecrats out there, I have NO respect for Sanders, the Great Interloper, who is so full of himself that his gas bag will any day now blow him away.

          Sanders knows he has to keep his big mouth open and use those snide, sly little innuendos to keep his face in the public eye. Otherwise, he’d be yesterday’s fish wrap. And, there is another reason. The more he is out there, the more money he makes from his “speaking engagements.” The very issue he used to attack Hillary. Nice though that when the boysies all do it, they think it is fine and dandy. Let any woman do it and the boysies are on it like white on reice.

  2. FT66 August 26, 2016

    Judicial Watch is nothing more than a witch-hunting organisation which was set up to go after the Clintons. If they are good in digging how much was donated from different people to the Foundation, why not dig more and see where the money went and whether was put in good use or not. This human nature really sucks. We can’t go after each other this way. It is extremely dangerous.

    1. Jon August 26, 2016

      I don’t know about it. Maybe Judicial Watch is right. One time I washed my car and it rained 3 days later. Another time I washed it and t rained 5 days later. The only possible conclusion to be drawn is that when I wash my car, it will rain 3 to 5 days later. If someone donated to the CGI and later met or spoke with Secretary of State Clinton, the only conclusion possible conclusion is there must be a connection just as there was with washing my car and rain falling days later.

      1. LilySmiles August 26, 2016

        BS. ZERO evidence of any policy decisions affected in any way. Do lots of research on Judicial Watch. Lots. Research William Safire, Larry Klayman and Tom Fitton. That’s the lineage.

        1. iamproteus August 26, 2016

          Lily, I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the concept of sarcasm/satire.

        2. Marilyn August 26, 2016

          I think you missed Jon’s snark.

      2. Laura Ousley August 26, 2016

        Too funny!

      3. Insinnergy August 27, 2016

        I salute you, sir. Best comment today. 🙂

      4. GreenEagle August 31, 2016

        Jon, if you tell me you live in L.A. I might think you are on to something. In Southern California, we say, “I washed my car and it rained six months later. I know there is some sort of connection there.”

  3. KatnDan August 26, 2016

    most people I hope look up the source of info. About a year ago I looked them up as well as larry klayman. truly a nut. they actually went to the white house to arrest Obama for treason. they have sued the Clintons Obamas probably a thousand times. Same organization/sister to Freedom Watch.. This is who FOX and the other lame media site as their source without checking….pitiful then that americans are just as lame to believe it.it isn’t that hard to do real research to fact check yourself.just like the NY times used Schweizer’s fact challenged book clinton cash…. as their unchecked source…

    1. LilySmiles August 26, 2016

      Judicial Watch’s largest donor was William Safire. Bonafide Clinton-hater from the get go. Larry Klayman was in charge for some time, had a falling out and now it’s led by Tom Fitton. Who ONLY appears on where? You guessed it. Fox News. That says it all.

    2. Ramtamtam August 26, 2016

      Most people unfortunately don’t. They take the headline, maybe skim the article and file it under “reasons why Hillary Clinton is devil incarnate”.

    3. Laura Ousley August 26, 2016

      Exactly! I do the same before reading through the article (or afterwards). It is my hope that other people are catching on, and I think they are, to the fact that the Right Wing propaganda machine uses such deceptive titles and names to their publications. Judicial Watch – doesn’t that sound so unbiased and trustworthy? There is always that learning curve for even the most intelligent person.

  4. Jim Samaras August 26, 2016

    Every cent went instead toward the college education of Bahraini students, which was the purpose of the Crown Prince’s “commitment,” Why then donate to the foundation and not directly to the schools? Come on people, wake up!

    1. mary5920 August 26, 2016

      READ the article again:
      “The simple fact is that not one cent of that $32 million ever went into
      the bank accounts of the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton
      Foundation, or any member of the Clinton family. Every cent went instead
      toward the college education of Bahraini students, which was the
      purpose of the Crown Prince’s “commitment,” announced like hundreds of
      others at the Clinton Global Initiative conferences in New York.”

      1. Sand_Cat September 6, 2016

        Think he read it the first time?

    2. Zengo August 26, 2016

      ever donate any money to a charity?

      1. Jim Samaras August 26, 2016

        Yes! The St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital where every dollar goes directly to helping the kids. What does that have to do with anything?

        1. Zengo August 26, 2016

          what it has to do is that in most cases it is more efficient to give money to an organization to distribute than go directly. But, you know, the Clinton Foundation is completely incompetent, I mean it took them 5 years to give the prince a meeting after he donated the millions

          1. dpaano August 26, 2016


          2. Jim Samaras August 26, 2016

            I’m certain it was as innocent as that

          3. Sand_Cat September 1, 2016

            Yes, you’re “certain” about a lot of made-up lies because they suit your political bias.
            Give us a break. How about you, Mr. noble thinker? How much did you give to St. Jude’s, or anything else that doesn’t benefit you personally?

          4. Sand_Cat September 1, 2016

            Another moron appears? Why do I get the feeling that your sentence would have been more truthful had it stopped after “money”?

          5. Zengo September 1, 2016

            dude, you have to learn how to read sarcasm

          6. Sand_Cat September 1, 2016

            Yeah, sorry. I already posted my apology before I saw your note.

          7. Sand_Cat September 1, 2016

            Sorry, I complain about Americans’ being irony-deaf, and now that I re-read your posts, it looks like I’m guilty. But you sucked in our “thinker” troll easily enough. Congrats if that’s the case.

    3. Lokigoc August 26, 2016

      Because they didn’t donate at all. They simply announced they were going to commit that money to education on their own at a Clinton Foundation event. With reading comprehension like that maybe you need to wake up a bit first.

    4. Sand_Cat September 1, 2016

      You’re the one who needs to “wake up.”
      How many people who fund large-scale projects covering wide geographical areas have the time to seek out all the individuals to be helped?
      As always, you’re full of it. What does one call someone who styles himself a “thinker,” but clearly doesn’t know the meaning of the term.
      Crawl back into the slime under whatever rock you came from and leave the thinking to those who at least attempt to be honest.

  5. LilySmiles August 26, 2016

    Bingo. And yes, using the “anti-Clinton” and anti-Hillary” narrative, Judicial Watch has been able to raise many millions to fuel their ongoing churn of filings, inflamed “legal press releases” and more fundraising. I have to admit, they’ve established a great fundraising system that will now be mimicked by many – helped by the current digital landscape that has a huge appetite for content. Credible or not. But for Judicial Watch’s audience, credible sources or vetted information is of little concern. As long as the content confirms their own opinions in their echo chambers.

  6. iamproteus August 26, 2016

    “Perhaps it is time for someone in the media to investigate their conduct.” (referring to Judicial Watch)
    Sounds like a great idea! We see so many R/W rumor-mongers every day in the media tossing out their innuendos, insinuations and outright lies with absolute impunity. Why not have at least one organization/group that takes these people on in a way that shines a bright light on their subterfuge and lies? I know there are individuals, such as the author of this article, that raise their voices but we need an organized opposition with a mandate to expose every lie promulgated by the a-holes we see every day.

  7. Theodora30 August 26, 2016

    The mainstream “liberal” media did not care that Poppy Bush set up his Points of Light Foundation in the first year of his presidency. That foundation took money from oil companies and media conglomerates surely causing at least an appearance of conflict of interest for both Bush administrations. Even worse it took in a lot of federal $$$ in direct opposition to its purpose to encourage private, not governmental, organizations to tackle social problems. Unlike the highly rated Clinton Foundation, Points of Light had a high overhead and squandered a lot of money. Today it is run by Neil Bush, the brother who helped tank a Savings and Loan and later was found to cavort with high priced call girls, so I am sure the media is confident that these problems have been fixed.

    1. tiredofit August 27, 2016

      Or that Theresa Heinz runs two major foundations while John Kerry is Secretary of State, and the Special Olympics were accepting millions while Ted Kennedy was a potential presidential nominee and a leading Senator.

  8. Broken August 26, 2016

    The media aren’t “gullible”.

    They are complicit.

  9. tiredofit August 27, 2016

    “According to this theory, popularized by a lavishly funded right-wing
    organization called Judicial Watch, the Secretary of State would only
    deal with people and governments that had donated big money to her
    husband’s foundation.”

    Currently this theory is being popularized, but at least during this campaign it started with the Sanders folks who pushed it hard. In fact, the main Trump attacks on Clinton — a) racist for super-predator comment and crime bill; b) rigged system stealing the election for Clinton; c) Clinton Foundation was used to hold bribes; and d) paid speeches prove Clinton is only in it for herself — were pushed hard by Sanders supporters.

    I don’t have a problem with the Sanders campaign and supporters doing this, because it is a campaign and the job of a campaign is to win. But each of these are specious at best, and are based on circumstantial evidence and innuendo, and they are carrying over to the general.

    Fortunately, they didn’t work in the primary and don’t seem to be working in the general.

  10. Jim Stoner August 28, 2016

    A gullible media? Do you think we are gullible? Somehow the media in its entirety doesn’t know right from wrong? Somehow the entire media doesn’t recognize what a lie is? Somehow the entire media has no idea what and who Judicial Watch is?

    I guess Joe Conason thinks we are gullible enough to not know he is lying about what the media knows and does. Your name might be Conason but you can’t conusall.

    You guys in the media are not gullible, or lazy, or even close to being real journalists. You are journaliars who knowingly lie for the right with almost every statement you make.

  11. Gary Anderson August 29, 2016

    I will vote for the neocon over the mentally disturbed Republican candidate. And it makes me very mad. I hate everything the neocons stand for. Everything. But Trump with the nuke codes? No way.

    1. Kemo Spear September 1, 2016

      You hate Wall Street, she loves Wall Street. She has shown time and time again that she is not playing with a full deck, yet you will vote for her.
      You are such a hypocrite it is pathetic.

      1. Sand_Cat September 1, 2016

        Not a hypocrite. Has nothing to do with hypocrisy, and you’re either too dumb or too dishonest or (probably) BOTH to acknowledge that. Voting for a candidate one doesn’t like rather than allow a really scary and dishonest candidate supported by a mixture of under-educated idiots and GOP zealots who should know better has NOTHING to do with hypocrisy, which lies with those who should know better but support the crazy anyway.
        You don’t sound all that mentally healthy, either. Hillary haters like you are the ones who are pathetic.

        1. Kemo Spear September 2, 2016

          First off Sand_cat, I was not talking to you. But seeing how you feel the need to throw in your 2 cents, lets break it down. Where oh where did I say I was a “Hillary hater”? No where. Yet because I make a comment about her, by your line of thinking I MUST be one. That right there shows your ignorance and your bias. You then throw out, “Voting for a candidate one doesn’t like rather than allow a really scary and dishonest candidate supported by a mixture of under-educated idiots GOP zealots who should know better.” Yet it can also be said this way: ” Voting for a candidate one doesn’t like rather than allow a really scary and dishonest candidate supported by a mixture of under-educated idiots and DEM zealots who should know better.”
          If you have not been paying attention to the news, Hillary has been caught in so many lies, double deals, pay to play and a plethora of other scandals that it is beyond disgusting. But,it seems that you are willing to over look that because your hate and vitriol for the other candidate is all consuming you are willing to turn a blind eye to all of that. By doing just that makes you the zealot who should know better.
          The one who is mentally unhealthy, under-educated, pathetic and who should know better but support the crazy anyway is yourself.

          1. Sand_Cat September 2, 2016

            Well, idiot, this may be news to you, but the person who wrote the article and Mr. Anderson weren’t talking to YOU, but that didn’t stop you from putting in you generous helping of malice and lies.
            Where did you “say” you are a Hillary hater? Your whole post SCREAMS it. As pointed out elsewhere, how many bigots and racists vehemently deny the fact, at least in public. Somehow, even liars and morons like you can sense when admitting their feelings reveals them for the ignorant and dishonest knaves they are, and usually avoid it.
            So, go ahead and list the SPECIFIC “double dealing” and “dishonesty” you claim for Hillary, and what is your EVIDENCE? While you’re at it, why don’t you refute the lies with which Donald Trump and the other GOP candidates have filled the airwaves; you know, the ones (most) shown to be lies by those who know the facts. But I guess “fact” is too big and complex a word for you.
            Until you can do that, why don’t you shove it!

          2. Kemo Spear September 2, 2016

            Touché on your first salvo. Well done & I deserved that. But, I am not a Hillary hater, as you claim, I just do not trust the woman, just like I do not trust Trump either.

            Now on to your “go ahead and list the SPECIFIC “double dealing” and “dishonesty” you claim for Hillary,

            1. Dead Broke – In an interview, Clinton stated that she “came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt.” The Facts: Even the left-leaning Politifact found this to be false.

            2.Sniper Fire – During the 2008 campaign, Clinton said she came under sniper fire in Bosnia during the ’90s. She went so far as to claim her group ran “with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” Video of her actual arrival surfaced showing a very calm scene instead, and the Democrat would quickly say she simply misspoke

            The Facts: Videos uncovered of then-First Lady Clinton’s arrival in Bosnia showed “a calm scene without any obvious danger”.

            3. Sir Edmund Hillary – Seems Clinton can’t even bring herself to tell the truth about her own name. She claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, one of the first men to climb Mt. Everest.

            The Facts: One small problem though, the explorer didn’t climb Everest until Clinton was 6 years old

            4.Secretary Clinton claimed her e-mail server set up was in “accordance with the rules and the regulations in effect.”

            The Facts: Federal Judge: Hillary Clinton “violated government policy” when she used a private server to store official State Department messages.

            5. When talking about immigrant stories, Clinton asserted that “all my grandparents… came over here.”

            The Facts: PolitiFact says it’s “very clear” that Clinton’s claim is “False.” In truth, only one of Clinton’s grandparents immigrated to America.4: When talking about immigrant stories, Clinton asserted that “all my grandparents… came over here.”

            That is just a small list of her “dishonesty”. As for her “double dealing”, it is more of a “pay to play via the Clinton Foundation”, https://youtu.be/ZSrgxEWJdps

            There are just some facts for you that anyone can find by doing a simple search.

            Now, why don’t you do the same and answer your own questions of “refute the lies with which Donald Trump and the other GOP candidates have filled the airwaves”.
            I’m an independent, unlike yourself. I do not have a party line to follow. Its called being a free thinker. Try it some time.

          3. Kemo Spear September 2, 2016

            With that being said, I am done with you.

          4. Independent1 September 5, 2016

            Just some trivia for you on the Clinton Foundation many claim is pay to play.

            First of all, no one has been able to prove Bill or Hillary have gotten 1 dime from the CF. So if she did some favors in expediting the processing of State Department applications for people while she was SOS such that these people she did a favor for donated to a Charity that has done more good in the U.S. and around the world than possibly any other family owned charity other than maybe the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – what is the problem??

            And after analyzing the CF’s bookkeeping, CharityWatch rated the CF as an ‘A’ charity. And they did that because CharityWatch concluded that about 89% of the monies donated to CF went directly to charity work – only about 11% for overhead. When the standard in the industry was 75% to charity work and 25% to overhead.

            Now here’s a little excerpt on just how much help CF gives to people around the world. Keeping in mind that CF operates 11 separate charities employing over 2,000 people around the world that actually do their own charity work such that numerous other charities use the CF’s organization to even do their work. So if other charities donate, shouldn’t people assume that the CF has a pretty good reputation within the Charity Industry??

            So when you go about bad mouthing the CF, keep some of the following in mind:

            Bill Clinton set up the public charity after he wrapped up his
            presidency in 2001 with the idea of bringing government, businesses and social groups together to tackle big problems. It was kind of a new idea at the time. On Monday, Clinton wrote in a post on Medium that the foundation is about “creating opportunities and solving problems faster,better, at lower cost so that more people are empowered to build betterfutures for themselves, their families and their communities.” …

            The foundation is made up of 11 non-profit groups that work on four major issues: global health and wellness, climate change, economic development and improving opportunities for girls and women.

            Health is a big focus. In more than 70 countries, according to the foundation, it helps 11.5 million people, including 800,000 children, with HIV/AIDS get their medication at 90% lower cost — more than half the adults and three-quarters of the children getting treatment in the world today.

            All those calling for the immediate closure of the foundation are calling for the disruption of health care to over 11 million people, and putting in doubt the lives of over half the people being treated for HIV anywhere in the world. Read that part again: the Clinton Foundation helps 800,000 kids getting treatment for HIV/AIDS. That’s what it means to shut down the Clinton Foundation.

          5. Kemo Spear September 6, 2016

            Oh this is too rich!!! because I have a different view than yours, I MUST be a Republican. Wow! Just, WOW! What a great way to profile someone and show your ignorance at the same time. I have stated before that I am not for Trump, but I am also not for Hillary either.

            Just for giggles, I am going to leave this here for you to watch. https://youtu.be/HeplUFT8BMI

            I’m done here.

          6. Independent1 September 5, 2016

            And seeing you’re such a HIllary hater, I’m sure the following won’t interest you, but I’ll pass the info along to you anyway.

            That night in the theater in 2012 during the Women of the World Conference, the other six brave women came up on the stage. Anabella De Leon of Guatemala pointed to Hillary Clinton, who was sitting right in the front row, and said, “I met her and my life changed.” And all weekend long, women from all over the world said the same thing:

            “I’m alive because she came to my village, put her arm around me, and had a photograph taken together.”

            “I’m alive because she went on our local TV and talked about my work, and now they’re afraid to kill me.”

            “I’m alive because she came to my country and she talked to our leaders, because I heard her speak, because I read about her.”

            This hidden history Hillary has, the story of her parallel agenda, the shadow diplomacy unheralded, uncelebrated — careful, constant work on behalf of women and girls that she has always conducted alongside everything else a First Lady, a Senator, and now Secretary of State is obliged to do.

            And it deserves to be amplified. This willingness to take it, to lead a revolution – and revelation, beginning in Beijing in 1995, when she first raised her voice to say the words you’ve heard many times throughout this conference: “Women’s Rights Are Human Rights.”

            Everywhere she goes, she meets with the head of state and she meets with the women leaders of grassroots organizations in each country. This goes automatically on her schedule. As you’ve seen, when she went to Burma – our first government trip there in 40 years. She met with its dictator and then she met with Aung San Suu Kyi, the woman he kept under detention for 15 years, the leader of Burma’s pro-democracy movement. This isn’t just symbolism. It’s how you change the world.


          7. Kemo Spear September 6, 2016

            The DailyKos??? REALLY????
            one of the most Liberal websites out there and you are using them to prove your point?
            I am sure if I went to Fox news (I don’t, but I am proving a point here)I could find a ton of articles about all the horrible things Hillary has done along with people who lost their lives because of her (with their own facts to back up the argument), but you would automatically discredit it because of their bias. Do you see what I am getting at here?
            Look, it is obvious that you are going to vote for her, and that is your right. I am not going to vote for her and that is my right as well.

          8. Independent1 September 6, 2016

            Yeah! The Daily Kos!! And all the Kos was doing was reporting an event which had been published several years earlier in the mainstream media when Meryl Streep had hosted the Women in the World Conference.

            Exactly how was the Daily Kos suppose to bias what went on in that conference??

            What is the matter with you moronic right-wingers. You salivate at the propaganda and lies that are spewed every minute by America’s clearly most lying broadcasting outlet Faux News. And you accept its fabrications and outright lies as gospel, but when you read a truthful report on a conference that took place 3-4 years ago, you refuse to believe truthful reporting!!!

            Wow!! How any people can be more outright stupid than you right-wingers is totally beyond me!! Go stick your head in bucket ot cow manures!! Manure is clearly what makes up your brain!!!

          9. Independent1 September 5, 2016

            And similarly, I’m sure you couldn’t care less that Hillary probably accomplished more while she was senator of New York and has more overall experience than any previous presidential candidate in the history of our country.

            But I’ll pass this little blurb along for you too:

            Hillary Clinton is smart, steady and able to rebound quickly from defeat. When her attempt at health care reform failed during her husband’s first term, Clinton worked with senators from both parties – Democrat Ted Kennedy and Republican Orrin Hatch — to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which cut the uninsured rate of American children in half. More than eight million children have coverage because of the program.

            Critics who claim Clinton has no record of accomplishment despite her sparkling resume need to look closer at her record.

            She helped secure more than $21 billion for World Trade Center redevelopment. She led investigations into the health problems of 9/11 first responders. She promoted increased National Institutes of Health funding for research into cancer and asthma. She was the principal author of sanctions – particularly on oil imports to the European Union– that brought Iran to the negotiating table. She helped bring about a
            2012 cease-fire between Hamas and Israel that headed off an Israeli invasion of Gaza. She named an “ambassador at large” for women’s rights.

            “Nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama’s second term,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., “has Secretary Clinton’s fingerprints on it.”


            And this on her honesty:

            One basic test of a politician’s honesty is whether that person tells the truth when on the campaign trail, and by that standard Clinton does well. PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site, found 50 percent of the Clinton statements it examined to be either true or mostly true.

            That compares to 49 percent for Bernie Sanders’s, 9 percent for Trump’s, 22 percent for Ted Cruz’s and 52 percent for John Kasich’s. Here we have a rare metric of integrity among candidates, and it suggests that contrary to popular impressions, Clinton is relatively honest — by politician standards.

          10. Kemo Spear September 6, 2016

            WOW! You know when you use a proven left leaning bias site to prove your point, you have only proven that you have drunk the Kool-Aid.
            But, keep trying.

          11. Independent1 September 6, 2016

            The St. Petersburg, Florida Sun-Sentinel newspaper is a left-biased site?? The paper whose editor decided this year that neither Trump, Cruz, Rubio or Kasich was qualified to be president?? And therefore refused to endorse any of them!! The paper who would have endorsed Bush but since he dropped out didn’t??

            And since when is the NYTimes left-wing biased?? Especially given that it has mindlessly brought out several fake conspiracy theories against Hillary in just the recent past in its effort to make her look bad??

            You right-wingers are so low IQ you don’t even know when you’re acting like total idiots!!!!!!!

            This article from LiveScience is so right on and you clearly fit it to a ‘t’!!!

            Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

            There’s no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

            The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

            “Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood,” he said.


            And note specifically these findings:

            Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

          12. Independent1 September 6, 2016

            But don’t despair, but if you get your moronic way and Trump gets elected, don’t go whining when Trump and the GOP do nothing but turn our entire nation into the hellholes that GOP-governments have turned virtually every state they govern in America. States which BY FAR suck the most welfare dollars from Washington in the nation and where the most people live in poverty and misery – and the states where the vast majority of the people in America who are broke and on the verge of bankruptcy also live!!!!!!

          13. Independent1 September 5, 2016

            I apologize for all the stuff on Hillary you may not have wanted to see – but as Sandy said, this election is about ensuring that a disaster does not happen to America in the form of someone named Donald Trump. Whether you like Hillary or not, she is A FAR BETTER PERSON THAN DONALD TRUMP, and few people have done more than Bill and Hillary to help millions of people around the world- while all Trump has ever done is to try to take advantage of everyone he meets.

            Please keep all this in mind as we get closer to election 2016.

          14. Kemo Spear September 6, 2016

            You are entitled to your opinion & I am entitled to mine. And I will keep all of what you said in mind as we get closer to election 2016. It will make me vote for who ever is running against her.

          15. Sand_Cat September 2, 2016

            Thanks for replying rationally (more than I deserved).
            Pretty much all of the things you cited – except the email server thing, are basically trivial exaggerations of the kind one expects from any politician. The email thing is absurd because the sainted Colin Powell (not in my book) and several of the other thugs in the previous administration did the same thing and deleted the evidence, and the State Dept requirements sound to be 100 years old and involve printing emails and putting them in boxes, not to mention that others before them likely did the same. This whole article was about the trivial things blown out of proportion and otherwise distorted, as well as GOP lies.
            So far as my doing a “party line,” I think you seriously misunderstand me. I have no affection for Clinton’s neo conservative ideas or aggressive foreign policy. I was foolish enough to let myself be carried away with optimism when Obama won in 2008, despite the fact that I was furious about his vote for the FISA whitewash, and I voted for Jill Stein in 2012, despite the fact that I was terrified Romney would win, because I was angry about other Obama policies. Despite my disagreements on policy, I think the man is the first really dignified and “presidential” White House occupant in a long time, but maybe that’s because I felt humiliated by the carryings-on during the Reagan, Clinton, and both Bush Administrations, and at least I felt he always came across as calm, rational, and in control, with a genuine effort to fulfill his promise to change the toxic state of national politics. My support for Clinton is not any “party line,” it’s pure damage control. Don’t you find Trump disturbing to the point of being frightening? I’m supporting the candidate who I feel will do the least damage. Sanders I probably coul;d have felt good about supporting, but I think we definitely need no more Bushes and no more Clintons in the White House, but I’ll take Hillary if the alternative is Trump (or practically ANY Republican except maybe Kasich or – in the last election – Huntsman, which is why they were doomed from the start).
            The crap about “pay to play” seems to me just that. I doubt if there’s a shred of real evidence to support it, and the scum who specialize in things like that and Benghazi (the “Swift Boaters,” etc.) are in my opinion far, far more despicable than either Clinton, and perhaps even more than Trump.
            Call me names, but don’t call me an enthusiastic Hillary supporter.
            Being a “free thinker” sounds great, but just what does your free thinking suggest you should do this election?

            But I gather you’re “done with” me. Nice talking to someone rational.

      2. Gary Anderson September 4, 2016

        No, it is a question of the lesser of two evils, Kemo. I don’t like her at all. I wouldn’t care if she were impeached the day she took office. But Trump is far more dangerous because he is slightly mental, IMO.

      3. Bob Eddy September 17, 2016

        Wait! Has Trump changed sexes? It should be “HE loves Wall Street….HE has shown time and again HE is not playing with a full deck.”

  12. gchakko August 30, 2016

    The problem with the media is a general and widespread one globally with shades of difference differing from country to country and continent to continent. Taking this particular case, one ought to remind oneself of the distinction between black and white complicity, somewhat akin to black and white lies, to categorise journalists, with a third group who are honest, or, have the guts to be honest and are not corrupt, not allowing themselves to be bought at any cost, writing factually, and when objective facts are either lacking or get controversial /contradictory on a topic, they either don’t write, if
    they do, they oblige themselves to present both sides fairly and let the reader decide. The third category is a minority in today’s world. A fourth category is the fashion-prone writers who sway the way the wind blows (petite bourgeoisie) and write according to what is “in”, to keep up with the Jones’s, who also happily resort to white complicity if
    the situation is opportune. But what is happening in the U.S. media in general in these election times is truly bizarre, blown out of proportions with no ethicality whatsoever.

    Media partakers and their writers may have their own political sympathies to a particular party, but to go beyond and malign an opposite political group recklessly
    is pure rowdyism alias roguery and such acts need be controlled by law.

    George Chakko, former U.N. correspondent, now retiree in Vienna, Austria.
    30/08/2016 18:11 hrs CET

  13. TiredOfTheHaters August 30, 2016

    Facts are not an option for the media option when it comes to Clinton reporting.????

  14. GreenEagle August 31, 2016

    How can anyone who thinks he is qualified to comment on the Clintons not know the degraded history of Judicial Watch? The press has not been duped by Judicial Watch, they are its collaborators.

  15. Jack Hughes September 5, 2016

    Joe Conason does what the corporate news media refuses to do — deconstructs the dishonest right-wing smears against the Clintons.

  16. Bertha5787 September 8, 2016

    I usually make in the span of $6 thousand-$8 thousand /month with my internet task. Those who are prepared to finish simple online task for 2h-5h /a day from your sofa at home and gain good benefit in the same time… This is a work for you… http://ur1.ca/pm79n


  17. EUGENE A. PITTS September 22, 2016

    They need to be investigating Trump who by all accounts has violated the law and should be brought into court and soon I hope. The Clinton Foundation has done many good thing for this country and the world. Trump charity has only benefited himself and paid his legal bills which is against the law. Jail is where he belong and it will happen soon. Just Watch

  18. norma.gregory September 26, 2016

    I currently make something like $6000-$8000 /month from freelancing on internet. Those who are ready to work basic freelance task for few h a day from your house and make decent benefit for doing it… This is an opportunity for you… http://korta.nu/NDe


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.