fbpx

Type to search

Vendetta Or Paranoia? The ‘Times,’ The ‘Beast,’ And The Clintons

Editor's Blog Featured Post Politics

Vendetta Or Paranoia? The ‘Times,’ The ‘Beast,’ And The Clintons

Share

When Lloyd Grove of The Daily Beast showed up in my email yesterday, asking me to talk about the New York Times and the Clintons, I should have known what to expect. I’m sure Grove did his best (and I appreciate the link to our new e-book, The Hunting of Hillary), but his post left much to be desired.

Grove’s fundamental mistake is to skew the discussion of alleged Times bias against the Clintons as Pulitzer-winning Times editors and staffers versus “diehard Clinton loyalists” and “allies.” Evidently, anyone who criticizes media coverage of Bill and Hillary Clinton falls in that latter category — and so he condescends to describe me as such. Whatever my views about the Clintons, however, my concern is fairness and accuracy, not loyalty to any politician. Are James Fallows, Rachel Maddow, Jay Rosen, and Margaret Sullivan, the paper’s public editor — all of whom have lamented evidence of Times bias against Hlllary Clinton — also “loyalists”? I don’t think so.

In my 2008 columns on the Democratic presidential primary for Salon and The New York Observer, Hillary Clinton suffered much tougher treatment than Barack Obama. It isn’t hard to look them up. I also assigned tough stories about her campaign, notably a major exposé of Mark Penn’s anti-union consulting. None of that was the work of a “Clinton loyalist.” Now I edit The National Memo, and Hillary Clinton has received no special dispensation here, either.

As for the question of bias in today’s Times, I sent Grove an email listing specific examples that he naturally ignored:

When Gene Lyons and I wrote The Hunting of the President in 2000, we showed how Times reporting on Whitewater had been slanted and woefully inaccurate from the beginning. Our viewpoint about that “scandal” was thoroughly vindicated. But unlike some other prominent journalists who were once obsessed with Whitewater, the Times editors never acknowledged its central role in that fiasco.

Over the years since, the paper’s coverage of the Clintons has veered back and forth, sometimes wildly — and particularly whenever Hillary Clinton is or appears to be a presidential candidate. Anybody looking for a Times bias can cite several glaring examples: the inaccurate front-page story about the Clinton Foundation’s supposedly shaky financing; the first inaccurate story about foundation donor Frank Giustra and Kazakhstan; the second highly misleading story about Giustra, Kazakhstan, and Uranium One; the peculiar “deal” that the paper did with Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer; and the series of stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails, based on leaks from the Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi — which culminated in the embarrassingly wrong “criminal referral” story.

Reviewing the Times’ role in promoting the Whitewater “scandal,” Grove is more misleading than revealing — and prefers assertions to basic facts. On the Pillsbury reports that exonerated the Clintons, for instance, he links to a tendentious article by Jeff Gerth and Stephen Engelberg claiming that James McDougal, the Clintons’ crooked and deranged Whitewater partner, somehow “protected” them from a financial loss. Actually, McDougal swindled the Clintons and secretly disposed of Whitewater assets for his own benefit.

Indeed, Times editors and reporters repeatedly sought to minimize the exculpatory findings of the Pillsbury report. They also failed to correct the false suggestion at the heart of Gerth’s original “exposé” — namely that Bill Clinton’s banking appointees somehow protected McDougal and his bankrupt Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, when in truth Clinton’s state government did everything in its power to shut him down.

In an email to Grove, Gene Lyons pointed to this crucial problem, noting “the fact, which I think has NEVER been reported by the NYT, that [Arkansas] regulators removed McDougal from his own [Madison Guaranty] S & L and urged the Feds to shut it down long before they did.”

On the upside, I was amused by Gerth’s pompous assertion that his Whitewater reporting has withstood “the test of time.” (Equally comical is a quote from disgraced former Times editor Howell Raines praising Gerth as “one of the best investigative reporters ever.” Now there’s a reliable source!)

The test of time? A conservative estimate of the amount of taxpayer treasure wasted on “investigating” Whitewater – a money-losing venture that ended years before Bill Clinton ran for president – is around $100 million. Which doesn’t include the huge opportunity costs for the country, Congress, and the president, as well as the damage inflicted on many innocent people in Arkansas and elsewhere.

That enormous waste of time and money spent probing a defunct real estate deal is Gerth’s principal legacy to American journalism.

Interested readers can find a thorough accounting of media errors in covering Whitewater – and the troubling way that Republican lawyers and businessmen used both Gerth and the Times – in The Hunting of Hillary. It’s a funny story, if you appreciate dark humor. And it’s still available, free.

File photo: U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is joined onstage by her husband former President Bill Clinton after she delivered her “official launch speech” at a campaign kick off rally in Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park on Roosevelt Island in New York City, June 13, 2015. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri

Tags:
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

154 Comments

  1. JPHALL September 2, 2015

    And the lies just keep on going and growing. Politics and money over truth and justice is the new American journalism.

    Reply
  2. pmbalele September 3, 2015

    GOP, Right wing and NY Times conspiracy against Hillary is over. The e-mails, so called scandal has just disappeared in thin air as it started. Benghazi, Iran, Obamacare were the topic of last month. Right wingers wanted to sink this administration and the Clintons. But American people are smarter now than in 2010. They looked straight and found all were dramatized lies. We are back to the basics. We should now accept Hillary will be the next USA president.

    Reply
  3. Dominick Vila September 3, 2015

    Joe should have inserted the term “Inquisitorial” in front of “investigations”. What has been going on has absolutely nothing to do with breaches of security, ignoring laws, or anything of the sort. Hillary’s persona, character, and candidacy are being destroyed by a party with a record and a lack of vision that should be enough to disqualify all of its members from consideration. Hillary is being attacked because she is, by far, the most formidable and qualified candidate running for elected office in a very long time, rather than because she used e-mails, or is a member of the board of directors of one of the most successful and respected charitable Foundations in the world, or because during her tenure the incidence of terrorist attack against our embassies and consulates was reduced from 11 to 1, etc.

    Reply
    1. plc97477 September 3, 2015

      She is being attacked almost solely because she can win.

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila September 3, 2015

        If the election was based strictly on merit, she would win by a landslide.

        Reply
        1. David September 3, 2015

          Merit? Oh yeah, I guess that’s what four dead in Benghazi provide her with. She is a lying POS. How about Hildebeast having been found out SENDING classified emails on her private server? Must be a right wing conspiracy.

          Reply
          1. Dominick Vila September 3, 2015

            Are you suggesting our misunderestimated previous President should have faced a firing squad for presiding over the slaughter of 3,000 people as a results of the worst foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and over 100 people killed during the 11 (eleven) terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies and consulates during his tenure? Not to mention 4,4000 U.S. soldiers during the Iraq crusade, and tens of thousands maimed.
            You are right, 4 people were killed in Benghazi, but it doesn’t take a Pythagoras to put things in perspective.
            I rather deal with e-mails, especially when the most powerful claim is that some of the information is NOW considered classified, it wasn’t at the time, than deal with false claims of WMDs, imaginary threats to our national security.

            Reply
          2. David September 3, 2015

            Try to deflect accusations on Hildebeast by saying, “Others did worse!”. The issue is, ‘What did Hildebeast do?’. She now has been found to have sent 6-8 emails (found so far) which contained classified info on her private server. She said she didn’t. Oops! A lie! Left the Whitehouse “flat broke”. Oops! A lie! The attack at Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration because of a homemade movie depicting Muhammed (the pedophile). Oops! Yet another lie! Maybe she should go get another $1200.00 hair job — after all, she is the ‘champion of the middle class”.

            Reply
          3. Dominick Vila September 3, 2015

            The charges concerning classified information sent to Hillary via her personal server are based on the fact that some of the information has been re-classified since she received it or sent it. This is like saying that someone should get a ticket for doing 40 mph in an area that was later changed to a 35 mph zone!
            Benghazi was a tragedy that pales in comparison to what happened before she became Secretary of State. Her initial opinion was validated by Al Libby, the mastermind of the attack during interrogations carried out after we captured him. The fact that terrorist groups may have taken advantage of the unrest caused by the Republican video that caused so much turmoil throughout the Islamic world is probably valid, but it does not deny what caused or facilitated the attack in the first place.
            I am as concerned about her hairdo, as I am about Trump’s. How about you? Are you interested in knowing how much your hero pays for his do?

            Reply
          4. David September 3, 2015

            The “Republican video”? Pulleeze!! Get in the game! Oh, I know! It was Bush’s fault!

            Reply
          5. Dominick Vila September 3, 2015

            If you think that video was made and released spontaneously, and the pastor that promised to burn the Qu’ran was a spontaneous action, you are more naive than I thought. That was all planned to provoke an incident to score political points in the USA. The people that paid for it and planned it probably did not expected any Americans to be killed, but that was not an innocent an incident as you think.

            Reply
          6. TheSkalawag929 September 3, 2015

            What did Hilary do David? Everything you bring up has been debunked.
            Which clown in your parade is for the middle-class?

            Reply
          7. David September 3, 2015

            Hmm…what did Hildebeast do? Well, short list: Cattle futures; Whitewater; stealing $190,000 of furniture from the Whitehouse; Benghazi; classified emails (received AND sent on her private server; selling influence as SOS in exchange for “gifts” to the Clinton Foundation; and, being able to do all this (and more) and still able to overcome being “flat broke” when they left the Whitehouse. Psst…even while broke they were able to buy multimillion dollar homes in New York and Washington D.C.

            Reply
          8. TheSkalawag929 September 4, 2015

            Proof David. You right-wingers are only good at casting aspersions. What you list are simply all the faux scandals that you right-wingers have come up with over the years.

            Reply
          9. David September 4, 2015

            Let’s take them one at a time. Cattle futures. Did or did not Hildebeast turn a $1,000 investment into a $100,000 over 10 months in 1978-1979 when her hubby was attorney general of Arkansas and running for Governor? This in the futures market where 2 out of 3 investors lose money and she had never been involved before. newyorktimes.com

            Reply
          10. TheSkalawag929 September 4, 2015

            In all these years has it been proved that Ms. Clinton’s transaction was ILLEGAL? NO it hasn’t.
            As you indicate 1 in 3 futures market investors make money and who is to say that she was not the beneficiary of beginner’s luck.
            All you are producing are shinny objects of distraction. Why? Because republicans have no solutions to the problems the country faces other than tax cuts that predominately benefit the wealthy.

            Reply
          11. David September 4, 2015

            Beginner’s luck! Ha ha. RIght. The evidence was that Tyson took the losses for her investments and she kept all the gains. Hildebeast has been so fortunate. E.g., The Clinton Foundation that has an 88% overhead on contributions made. What great people!
            Whitewater — Not enough evidence to criminally charge Hildebeast. But, explain how in 1978 her and hubby Gov. Bill Clinton get involved with James and Susan McDougal and the Whitewater real estate development. Grand Jury subpoenas Hildebeast for her law firm billing records but the documents are “missing”. Oops! We found them! They were in a closet in the Whitehouse! But, some of them were still missing! The McDougals are convicted of fraud and conspiracy; Vince Foster (billing lawyer at The Rose Law Firm) conveniently commits suicide; and, Bill gets to explain about what was on the ‘blue dress”. I guess it just depends on what your definition of the word “is” is.

            Reply
          12. TheSkalawag929 September 5, 2015

            “The evidence was that Tyson took the losses for her investments and she kept all the gains.” Sooo??? What would she be guilty of? Answer. Nothing.

            ” Not enough evidence to criminally charge Hildebeast.” Correction. No evidence to criminally charge the former First Lady.
            I don’t have to explain anything. It’s up to you right-wing crazies to come up with the evidence to back your claims.
            As far as former President Bill Clinton and the blue dress goes it has nothing to do with Democratic Presidential Candidate Hilary Clinton.

            I notice that when you right-wingers have nothing (which is most and generally ALL THE TIME) you try to disparage your target with name calling.
            Ha Ha !!! It sucks to be you doesn’t it?

            Reply
          13. David September 5, 2015

            Pass it off as nothing…what about the overhead of the Clinton Foundation being 88%? Gotta pay for those trips and salaries!

            Reply
          14. TheSkalawag929 September 5, 2015

            “….what about the overhead of the Clinton Foundation being 88%?” You don’t have to like it. It’s not illegal. And no one is forcing you to donate to the Clinton foundation.
            As I said, you have nothing.

            Reply
          15. David September 5, 2015

            Pass it off as nothing…what about Hildebeast and Blue Dress Billy making off with about $190,000 of furniture and furnishings from the Whitehouse?

            Reply
          16. TheSkalawag929 September 5, 2015

            Another non-issue.
            Focus David.
            This article is about; “Vendetta Or Paranoia? …”

            Reply
          17. David September 6, 2015

            Non-issue? In addition to being a liar, she’s a thief also. Oh, and ‘we found some of the Rose Law Firm records in a closet in one of the offices at the Whitehouse.’ At what point do you begin to think, “Hmmm…something is not quite right here.”?

            Reply
          18. TheSkalawag929 September 6, 2015

            David at what point will you bring up something current, meaningful and relevant?
            All your have are past events that have been disposed of long ago.
            How about putting forth some reasons why anyone in the clown parade,also known as the field of republican presidential candidates, is more qualified to be President of the United States than Mrs. Clinton?

            Reply
          19. David September 6, 2015

            You know, I see where you are coming from. After all, “At this point, what difference does it really make?”. Wake up! Doesn’t it trouble you that her IT man says he will ‘take the fifth’ when testifying before the Subcommittee?

            Reply
          20. TheSkalawag929 September 6, 2015

            David do you even know what the Fifth Amendment provides for?
            What is there in Mrs. Clinton’s IT person taking the Fifth that is detrimental to her?
            YOU are the one who needs to wake up.
            This is just another shinny object to distract you right-wingers from the fact that none of your presidential candidates is truly viable.

            Reply
          21. David September 6, 2015

            As a matter of fact, as an attorney, I happen to know quite a bit about the Fifth Amendment. When the people she surrounds herself with use the Fifth to not answer questions about things involving Hildebeast, I find this to be very “detrimental” to her.

            Reply
          22. TheSkalawag929 September 7, 2015

            Only one person ( singular) that worked for her has said he will invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. I would not call that surrounding one’s self and you would find ANYTHING that Mrs. Clinton does detrimental to her simply because you wish it to be.
            Carson and Cruz really???
            Carson was a good neurosurgeon but that doesn’t qualify him to be president and he has no experience in government.
            Cruz has proven on more than one occasion that he is not trustworthy and there is a significant number of his own colleagues in Congress that don’t like or trust him.

            Reply
          23. David September 7, 2015

            He works for her. He has information that apparently could be trouble for him– and Hildebeast.

            Reply
          24. David September 7, 2015

            Carson is just as qualified as a “community activist”.

            Reply
          25. TheSkalawag929 September 7, 2015

            David your list is BS. You’re just flailing around around in the dark.
            He WORKED for Mrs. Clinton. Past tense.
            Pagliano’s biggest transgression is likely to be he didn’t report this income to the State Dept as he was required to do. A possible reason for invoking the Fifth.
            I don’t see what Lois Lerner has to do with Mrs. Clinton.
            Define “sensitive information”. If by sensitive you mean classified then your are wrong because the emails were not categorized as classified at the time they were sent.
            What difference does what make?
            It appears to me that the only thing the Clintons are guilty of is being the target of right-wing jealousy.
            All you have listed is a herd of dead horses that you are trying to beat some life into.
            I don’t worry about what could be rotten Denmark as much as I do what actually is rotten here. I think it is more important to solve the problems that we actually face now than the made up ones you right-wingers keep trying to muddy the waters with.

            Reply
          26. David September 7, 2015

            Drink that kool-aid! So, you are saying she was too stupid to know that the information was classified when she got it? Or, did she just not give a rat’s as-!

            Reply
          27. TheSkalawag929 September 7, 2015

            David you should work in a movie theater for all the projecting you do.
            It has already been established that the emails in question that she sent were not categorized as classified at the time she sent them.
            As I have said before your arguments are just shinny objects to distract from the issues and the fact that you right-wingers have no solutions.
            Ha! Carson and Cruz really??? I think you are the one guzzling the kool-aid.

            Reply
          28. David September 7, 2015

            First, the word is “shiny” not “shinny”. Second, you still won’t answer the question. So what if the information wasn’t marked “Classified”? The information WAS classified. So, did she not have brains to realize that? Or, did she not care?

            Reply
          29. TheSkalawag929 September 7, 2015

            I stand corrected on the spelling of shiny.
            If the information WASN’T categorized as classified before or when she sent it then no matter how much you right-wingers want it to be it WASN’T CLASSIFIED.
            You can’t make someone guilty retroactively. As an attorney (?) surely you should know that.

            Reply
          30. David September 7, 2015

            That may be. However, you still aren’t addressing the question. Was she too stupid to know that the info in the emails was sensitive?

            Reply
          31. TheSkalawag929 September 8, 2015

            Define sensitive. Sensitive to whom?

            Reply
          32. David September 8, 2015

            Uhhhh…sensitive to her using a private server ‘was not the best choice.”? Classic understatement Hildebeast.

            Reply
          33. TheSkalawag929 September 8, 2015

            David your post neither defines YOUR word of choice (sensitive) nor does it say to whom the emails were “sensitive”.

            Unfortunately for you right-wingers Mrs. Clinton’s emails are proving to be nothing more than mundane.

            Mundane defined as being : common; ordinary; banal; unimaginative.

            Reply
          34. David September 7, 2015

            Drink that kool-aid!

            Reply
          35. TheSkalawag929 September 3, 2015

            Hey David what about the two Lebanon bombing attacks in one year that cost 259 American lives in 1983 under St. Ronnie?
            Or what about the 13 U.S. Embassy attacks during the Bush administration that cost 60 American lives?
            You want to talk about lying POSs.
            Tell me about the veracity of Collin Powell and Condoleezza Rice that cost us more than 4,000 lives and one TRILLION dollars.
            The emails in question were not considered classified at the time they were sent. So Hilary is not guilty of sending ANY classified emails on her private server.
            David you want to talk about merit. How about showing us where your right-wing clown parade has any merit.

            Reply
          36. Insinnergy September 3, 2015

            So you’re saying that the Republican field is defined by it’s qualifications to be President?
            ….Because your leading contenders by a large margin are a Neurosurgeon with a questionable grasp of reality, and a Real Estate Mogul with weird hair, who openly states that women are better on their knees and Mexican border crossers are rapists…?

            Yeah they must totally be qualified to run the country. Far more merit than Hillary… for suuure.

            Also… don’t bother using the “Benghazi” thing… it’s dead. Even noted slime Trey Gowdy has moved on to Hilary’s emails because there’s no there, there.

            Especially considering the multiple dead Americans in embassies during the reign of GWB…
            Where’s your outrage for that?….
            *crickets*

            Yup… thought so.

            Reply
          37. David September 4, 2015

            Outrage? Where is your outrage that the “transparent” Hildebeast’s IT man’s lawyer has said he will invoke the 5th if questioned by Gowdy’s committee? Fifth? What are we hiding?

            Reply
    2. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

      Formidable and qualified? Putting scandals aside she has a track record of failure and incompetence. Her “charitable foundation” is “successful” because she and her husband are influence peddling.

      Reply
      1. TheSkalawag929 September 3, 2015

        All you have is accusations. Where’s the proof?

        Reply
        1. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

          Where are the accomplishments?

          Reply
          1. TheSkalawag929 September 3, 2015

            Focus Otto. YOU are the one slinging accusations. Where’s your proof.
            Show where she is a failure and incompetent.

            Reply
          2. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            It’s on her and her supporters to provide examples of her accomplishments. They can’t, instead they whine about her being a victim.

            Reply
          3. Dominick Vila September 3, 2015

            I don’t whine about Hillary’s victim hood. I think she made a horrible mistake when she decided to use a personal server instead of the .gov medium, and other resources, for official correspondence. I do, however, believe that most of the claims directed at her are baseless and often ridiculous.

            Reply
          4. TheSkalawag929 September 3, 2015

            In other words Otto what you are saying is I got nothing so it’s time to project.

            Reply
          5. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            Hillary’s foreign policy f-ups: Libya, Egypt, Syria, Russia and going back to when her husband was in the White House Serbia.

            Reply
          6. Dominick Vila September 3, 2015

            First of all, you are giving too much credit to American influence in world affairs, and our ability to control them. The uprisings against totalitarian rulers in countries like Libya, Egypt, Syria, Russia (I presume you are talking about the Ukraine and Crimea), and Serbia, did not happen because of what we did, although there is no question that our global economic and geo-political interests influence world events, or because we failed to control those events. People rise, fight, and die in the pursuit of their ideals. Moammar Qaddafi was a dictator and the architect of the attack that destroyed a Pan Am plane over Lockerbie. Good riddance. The problems in Egypt were caused by their leaders over reaching and trying to expedite the transition to democracy too quickly. It didn’t help that part of the population demanded socio-polititical changes before the population and the political infrastructure was ready for such changes. The Syrian civil was was not caused by anything the USA did. Are you suggesting that we should intervene? Or are you saying that we should give up on our demand for Assad to remain in power, and follow the example established by the EU and Russia?
            Our intervention in Serbia was a great success at the time, not only because it helped stop the slaughter of innocent people that was going on at the time, but because we accomplished it without loss of American lives. Anyway, what does a First Lady have to do with U.S. foreign policy?

            Reply
          7. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            You’re really ignorant.

            Reply
          8. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            Toppling Gadaffi was idiocy, it was a major foreign policy blunder, and the only reason he was overthrown was because of US help.

            Reply
          9. Dominick Vila September 3, 2015

            France and the UK took the lead in the military operations that help topple Gadaffi. His outing was long overdue. We should never compromise our values, or our justice system, in favor of keeping a thug in power because he is a convenient tool to achieve our economic interests. Gadaffi was responsible for the downing of a Pan Am jet that killed hundreds of Americans over Lockerbie. He deserved what he got.

            Reply
          10. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            How can anyone pretend overthrowing Gadaffi wasn’t a huge mistake. You’re insane. Many of the rebels we helped overthrow Gadaffi are now part of ISIS, so much for our values.

            Reply
          11. Dominick Vila September 3, 2015

            The overwhelming majority of ISIS members, including its leadership, were members of Saddam Hussein’s Baathist party. They, and their families, fled Iraq during the purge that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein, and our myopic decision to replace him and his regime with Shias aligned spiritually to Iran. I believe Hussein was a thug, but he was far better than the inept and crooked thugs we put in office to replace him.

            Reply
          12. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            Hillary was in favor of that, thanks for bringing it up. Still no examples of Hillary’s formidable achievements.

            Reply
          13. Dominick Vila September 4, 2015

            Hillary was not in favor of what happened after we invaded Iraq. She voted for the invasion when W, Cheney, and Colin Powell convinced all of us that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, including nuclear weapons, that he was planning to use to destroy his neighbors, attack our interests in the region, and threaten our national security. Do you remember Powell’s presentation at the UN and the images of the storage depots where nuclear weapons were stored, and the trucks being used to transport them to launch sites? Being the victim of a con job reflects on the deceivers, not the people that were taken for a ride.
            As for here accomplishments, in addition to her academic and professional achievements, she was instrumental in securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site’s redevelopment. She lead the efforts to investigate the health issues affecting 9/11 first responders. She visited soldiers in Iraq, and reminded them thatAfter visiting soldiers in Iraq, Clinton noted that the insurgency had failed
            to disrupt the democratic elections held earlier, and that parts of the country
            were functioning well. Noting that war deployments were draining regular and
            reserve forces, she cointroduced legislation to increase the size of the
            regular Army by 80,000 soldiers to ease the strain and supported retaining
            and improving health benefits for veterans. She also she introduced the Family Entertainment
            Protection Act.

            That was just in her first term. She was easily
            re-elected
            and accomplished much in her second term as well. And who can forget her
            run for the presidency, receiving more than 17 million votes
            during the nomination process?

            [See a collection of editorial cartoons on Benghazi.]

            As our secretary of state, Clinton visited 112 countries, helping to
            repair
            a badly damaged U.S. reputation. She advocated an expanded role in
            global
            economic issues for the State Department and cited the need for an
            increased
            U.S. diplomatic presence, especially in Iraq, where the Defense
            Department had
            conducted diplomatic missions. Clinton unveiled the Global Hunger and
            Food
            Security program, prevailed over Vice President Biden to send an
            additional 21,000
            troops to Afghanistan, saved the signing of a Turkish-Armenian accord,
            and assisted the president with major decisions as to the U.S.
            position with regard to the revolution in Egypt and the decision to use
            military force in Libya.

            Reply
          14. Otto Greif September 4, 2015

            She visited countries. Wow. You’re claiming Egypt and Libya were accomplishments when both were disasters. You’re in complete denial of reality.

            Reply
          15. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            In Egypt the US sided with the protesters and helped push out Mubarak, who had been a loyal ally of the US for decades. Then when Egyptians elected the kind of Muslim extremist government that all intelligent people knew they would, we stood by while the Egyptian military overthrew the democratically elected government there.

            Reply
          16. TheSkalawag929 September 3, 2015

            The Egyptian people chose to get rid of Mubarak. It was their call not ours. We don’t run Egypt.
            That’s you right-winger’s problem you want to run everybody else’s lives.

            Reply
          17. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            The US government and its agents (NGOs) trained and financed the factions seeking to overthrow Mubarak. Obama called Mubarak on the phone and told him to step down, then gave a televised speech saying the end of Mubarak’s 30-year rule “must begin now”.

            Reply
          18. TheSkalawag929 September 3, 2015

            “The US government and its agents (NGOs) trained and financed the factions seeking to overthrow Mubarak.”

            Otto just because you say so don’t make it so. Show me the proof. Oh and you do realize that NGO stands for:
            A non-governmental organization. A (NGO) is an organization that is neither a part of a government nor a conventional for-profit business. Usually set up by ordinary citizens, NGOs may be funded by governments but they aren’t run by governments.

            So how you’re holding Hilary responsible for their actions is beyond me.
            So far you haven’t shown one foreign policy that Hilary is responsible for.
            You keep on trying Otto. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.

            Reply
          19. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            See “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings”, Ron Nixon, The New York Times, April 14, 2011.

            Reply
          20. Dominick Vila September 3, 2015

            There is no question that we were delighted to see a popular movement by people throughout North Africa, and in countries like Yemen, interested in overthrowing the repressive regimes that ruled those countries for decades, but ultimately the people that made a difference were the indigenous people who rebelled against tyranny. Unfortunately, they tried to achieve too much too fast, with predictable results. I spent many years in countries ruled by military dictators. One of those countries managed to transition to democracy, largely by avoiding reprisals, overt criticisms, or anything that would provoke the military. The other, simply transitioned from far right dictators to far left dictators…and chaos.

            Reply
          21. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            The results weren’t predictable to Hillary and Obama, were they.

            Reply
          22. Dominick Vila September 3, 2015

            The only thing they can be accused of is that they placed too much confidence in the ability of people to overthrow despots and transition to democracy without robust resistance from the military, in countries where the military is never challenged or provoked.

            Reply
          23. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            They were fools, in other words.

            Reply
          24. Dominick Vila September 4, 2015

            No, they believe in humanity, in the rule of law, and support right V wrong. As opposed to those who dealt with our alleged enemies to help thugs (Iran-Contra), those who order cut and runs after almost 300 U.S. Marines were slaughtered at the Beirut airport because such thing did not mean that was “our war”, those who were too busy to heed to the warnings about an imminent terrorist attack on U.S. soil, too busy to attend the daily National Security Briefings because there was too much firewood to chop and too many primers to read, and did nothing to prevent 9/11 and the death of 3,000 Americans on U.S. soil, those who did not even have to answer questions about the 11 terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies and consulates during their tenure because nobody dared ask a question and end up like Valerie Plame, or those that contributed to the S&L debacle in the 1980s and the near collapse of the U.S. economy in 2007. Never mind the one who proudly acknowledged that the policies of obstructionism that delayed the economic recovery and caused so much pain and misery to millions of Americans were designed to ensure President Obama was a one term president.
            They were all beyond being foolish, and some still believe they were great, and are doing everything they can to take us back to those nefarious days.

            Reply
          25. Dominick Vila September 3, 2015

            On the other hand the results of helping Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war was predictable, and readily accepted by the Reagan administration, including what happened to the Kurds after we gave Saddam imagery that suggested collusion between the Kurds and the Iranians…
            It is better to err or expect too much when we support freedom and democracy, than get the desired results when we side with and support thugs. That is, unless you are a Republican, in which case the latter is perfectly acceptable, and could only be enhanced by handling our targets like FedEx packages.

            Reply
          26. TheSkalawag929 September 4, 2015

            This doesn’t show Hilary is responsible their actions.
            You are good at conflation and subterfuge but not so good at providing the proof to back up your wild allegations.

            Reply
          27. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            Hillary wasn’t responsible for foreign policy actions that happened while she was Secretary of State?

            Reply
          28. Dominick Vila September 3, 2015

            Hillary was responsible for foreign policy actions while she was Secretary of State. She was not responsible for it while she was First Lady. That is, unless you are insinuating that the lady that whispered answered in the ears of a seriously ill President was running the country.

            Reply
          29. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            She has claimed to be co-president, and she said in 1999 she called Bill from Africa and urged him to bomb civilians in Serbia.

            Reply
          30. TheSkalawag929 September 4, 2015

            You keep flailing around in the dark rather than turn on a light.

            Reply
          31. charleo1 September 4, 2015

            See, this is one huge problem with the Right my friend. The entire basis sources of info, why you believe what you believe, is just rotten with these crackpot conspiracy theories. Of which neither you, nor anyone else, has a smidgin of proof. It doesn’t even make sense that Obama would want Mubarak out. But it doesn’t matter. You know what you know. You believe what you believe. Because unbeknown to you, you’ve been preprogrammed to accept this kind of drivel as fact. Why? Because given what you think you know of it, it sounds about right. It fits. Obama is Muslim, so he would want the Muslim Brotherhood in charge! However, if some fact disputes those presumptions, like Obama is not a Muslim, and he had no part in creating the popular support that brought the Muslim Brotherhood to temporary power in the first place. Well, all that is quickly dismissed as liberal press propaganda. Ergo, you know what you know, albeit completely without basis, makes no common sense, is not supported in any way, by any facts. But for you, your point is well made.

            Reply
          32. Otto Greif September 4, 2015

            You’re insane. How can you say it “doesn’t make sense that Obama would want Mubarak out” when it’s a matter of public record Obama called Mubarak and told him he needed to step down “now”. You can watch the video of the speech Obama gave on 1/2/2011 where he talks about how he told Mubarak he needs to step down.

            Reply
          33. charleo1 September 4, 2015

            In your conspiracy riddled brain, this call could only mean one thing, right? That Obama was somehow behind the entire Arab Spring. Not that Obama was concerned that Mubarak would slaughter 100s of protesters, believing the U.S. would back a murderous crackdown to hang onto power. Still, that’s a far cry from instigating the uprising, as your prior comment states. And it doesn’t answer the bigger question as to what benefit Obama would possibly gain from more instability in the region? So the premise is ridiculous. The Arab Spring was an indigenous, and nor CIA backed, revolutionary movement spreading out of Tunisia to other Arab Countries throughout the region, including most notably, Egypt, Libya, and Syria.

            Reply
          34. Otto Greif September 4, 2015

            It’s a fact the Obama administration helped facilitate the Arab Spring uprisings, it’s a fact Obama pushed Mubarak out. They didn’t think it would lead to instability, because they are fools.

            Reply
          35. charleo1 September 4, 2015

            I’m fascinated Otto, as to how you’ve came to believe such a thing. Where you find your info, your, “facts?” And also what you believe that Obama was trying to accomplish by pushing Mubarak out? And, how you see that fitting in with what other things you believe about the Obama Administration? For example, how do you think Hillary’s State Dept. or people in the Obama Administration, were able to spark, or facilitate the original revolution in Tunisia? Then export that to Egypt, and ignite demonstrations in Jordan, Libya, Palestine, Yeomen, Saudi Arabia, and later Syria. In a part of the World where we as a Country are so poorly thought of? Or how these sources of yours explained Obama’s recommendation to Congress to withhold the 10 billion dollars in military aid we send Egypt annually, as part of the Camp David Accord Agreement. This after the Muslim Brotherhood won the subsequent election? Or why Obama would then green light the resumption of the aid, after a military backed coup deposed TMB? Why was Obama so reluctant to arm opposing forces in theses Countries? Why not at least try to use the instability as a ruse to send in troops If deposing strong men, and installing a Theocratic Muslim Caliphate, if that was the goal I’ve heard some accuse him of?
            Who’s lying to you O.?

            Reply
          36. Dominick Vila September 3, 2015

            We have a long history of siding with dictators. Mubarak was not the first, and will probably not be the last. We have done that in Latin America, African countries, and in some Asian countries (Vietnam comes to mind) for decades. The only comment I can make about that is that we either live by the values and principles or abandon all pretenses and acknowledge what should be obvious to everyone.

            Reply
          37. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            Instead of staying out of Syria, the US blocked Russia assisting Assad, and since then have been backing Al-Qeda rebels there. This is both morally wrong and stupid. The refugees from there are already a disaster. If Assad loses it will be an even bigger disaster.

            Reply
          38. Dominick Vila September 3, 2015

            The U.S. has not been backing Al Qaeda in Syria or anywhere else. Bear in mind that the criticisms from some Republicans involved not getting involved, rather than getting involved in someone else civil war. I agree with the part about Assad’s removal making a horrible situation worse.

            Reply
          39. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            We’ve been funding and arming people with ties to Al Queda. Hillary is on the record stating “Assad must go, the sooner the better”.

            Reply
          40. Dominick Vila September 4, 2015

            We have been funding, arming, training, and helping rebels for decades. However, there is no evidence to support the claim that we have been supporting Al Qaeda.
            Yes, the U.S. insistence on ousting Assad has been an impediment to the ability of our allies to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the ongoing barbarity that has caused so much death and destruction in Syria. The sooner we drop that demand, the sooner the slaughter will end.

            Reply
          41. Otto Greif September 4, 2015

            We’ve been funding rebels in Syria fully aware that they have ties to Al-Queda.

            Reply
          42. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            In Serbia civilians were bombed, which is a war crime, in order to create a Muslim ethnostate in Central Europe, which is stupid. The intervention there nearly triggered a war with Russia. Hillary fully supported these actions, and you are conveniently forgetting she has claimed for years that she and Bill were “co-presidents”. Seriously, how is it a Clinton suck-up like yourself could forget that.

            Reply
          43. Dominick Vila September 3, 2015

            Our involvement in Serbia ended genocide, and it was achieved without loss of American lives. As opposed to the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, and its consequences.

            Reply
          44. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            There was no genocide. Hillary voted for invading Iraq.

            Reply
          45. Dominick Vila September 4, 2015

            Talking about historical revisionism! Are you saying that Serbia, under Milosevic and his gang, did not engage in genocidal acts in Kosovo? Are you suggesting that the crimes committed in that country were just a figment of our imagination?
            Hillary, like most Americans, believed the garbage the George W. Bush administration was feeding us. She should have known better. However, that episode reflects more on the deceivers than on those who believed in the integrity of a U.S. President.

            Reply
          46. Otto Greif September 4, 2015

            Those crimes were exaggerated, and there was no genocide. It’s funny you are saying the “formidable and accomplished” Hillary was a victim of George Bush, that’s where it always ends up.

            Reply
          47. dpaano January 25, 2016

            As did many others who are sorry about it now….she, unfortunately, fell for the lies being told by GWB, Cheney, and the rest of the warmongers that surrounded him! Unfortunately, sometimes that happens and you make a mistake. She has said that she apologizes for not being more aware of the REAL situation before she voted, but the warmongers were very good at keeping it close to the vest.

            Reply
          48. TheSkalawag929 September 3, 2015

            Just listing five countries doesn’t equate to ” foreign policy f-ups” as YOU call them.
            Come on Otto, where’s the substance?

            Reply
          49. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            That’s a list of her foreign policy failures. You still haven’t named any of her achievements.

            Reply
          50. TheSkalawag929 September 3, 2015

            No Otto that’s just a list of countries. You have yet to list any of her foreign policies that have failed.

            Reply
          51. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            Her foreign policy actions with those countries were all failures. You still haven’t named any of her achievements, because there aren’t any.

            Reply
          52. TheSkalawag929 September 3, 2015

            What were HER foreign policy actions.
            NONE because she doesn’t set foreign policy. That would be her boss’s job. The President of the United States sets foreign policy.

            Reply
          53. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

            So she was just a puppet. So what are her qualifications then?

            Reply
          54. TheSkalawag929 September 4, 2015

            Nope. Why do you ask? No matter what I would list you would never accept them. So suffice it to say that no matter what they are she is infinitely more qualified than any of her republican counterparts.

            Reply
          55. Otto Greif September 4, 2015

            There’s nothing to list.

            Reply
          56. TheSkalawag929 September 5, 2015

            Only in your bubble-sphere. But even so she is still infinitely more qualified than any of the clowns marching in the republican parade.

            Reply
          57. dpaano January 25, 2016

            Maybe Otto can list the so-called “qualifications” that Donald Trump has to become president??? I can’t think of any of a political nature!

            Reply
          58. TheSkalawag929 January 25, 2016

            I don’t think so. It’s been 5 months.

            Reply
          59. dpaano January 26, 2016

            And these qualifications would change in 6 months….seriously? As far as I can see, even more disqualifications have popped up since this article came up.

            Reply
          60. TheSkalawag929 January 26, 2016

            It’s not a question of qualifications changing. It’s Otto’s inability to list ANY in 5 months.
            As for The Donald’s disqualifications, they continue to pop up on a daily basis, like weeds in a flower bed.

            Reply
          61. charleo1 September 4, 2015

            I’ve heard that ask. What were Hillary’s accomplishments as SOS? It’s a Right Winger question for dolt headed Right Wingers. Who have no idea in the first place what it is that Secretary of States are supposed to accomplish. What did Jefferson accomplish as SOS, before becoming a fine President? What did Colin Powell accomplish? Except to help the Bush Administration lie the Country into the biggest military, and geo political blunder in the Nation’s history. But in doing so, Secretary Powell did exactly what SOS are supposed to do. Namely facilitate, promote, and coordinate the policies of the President, and the administrations they serve. So Hillary’s job necessarily became the job of her boss the President. Specifically cleaning up the Gawd awful mess in international relations left in the wake of the previous President. Who had singlehandedly managed to set most of the Mid-East aflame. Then, a World wide recession raised the price of bread, and what exactly was SOS Clinton supposed to do, or what did she do, to cause the Arab Spring? The correct answer, and response to both questions, is nothing. So, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Russia invaded the Crimea. In what World is that a failure of the SOS? Only in the down the rat hole World of the American Right Wing.

            Reply
          62. Otto Greif September 4, 2015

            So no accomplishments.

            Reply
          63. charleo1 September 4, 2015

            None you could possibly understand.

            Reply
          64. Otto Greif September 4, 2015

            It should be easy to name a few accomplishments, feel free to do so at any time.

            Reply
          65. charleo1 September 4, 2015

            How about visiting over 100 Countries to mend a badly tarnished reputation after the invasion of Iraq? Or working with a reluctant, Russia, and China to impose the toughest sanctions regime ever Including unhooking their economy from the World Banking system, to bring a recalcitrant Iran to the negotiating table? Something Condi Rice, and John Bolton tried for years to accomplish, and failed. How about reconstituting, and expanding our Embassy in Iraq? Or pressing the importance of, and lobbying to expanding the residual force in Afghanistan by an additional 21,000 troops?

            Reply
      2. Insinnergy September 3, 2015

        Sorry… was that Bush you were talking about?
        …The guy reading the children’s book upside down?… The guy who never met a sentence he couldn’t destroy with grammar that would embarrass a 3rd Grader?… The guy who purchased a war on credit, dropped taxes on the wealthy, deregulated us into the Financial crisis, suffered the worst modern terrorist attack on his watch, and left the mess to the next guy to clean up?

        Based GWB, whom your party installed, the fact that Hillary simply is not a retard would qualify her.

        Aside from that, she has performed as StateSec for years successfully, and is an accomplished politician. I’d say that makes her qualified.

        On the flip side: Currently your team is overwhelmingly voting for the Neurosurgeon with the knack of saying crazy things, and the Real Estate Mogul with weird hair who considers women look better on their knees and Mexican border crossers are rapists…

        So what was that about qualifications again???

        Reply
        1. Otto Greif September 4, 2015

          She wasn’t a success as Secretary of State.

          Reply
  4. Kurt CPI September 3, 2015

    What’s really funny in all of the discussion, every time the topic comes up, is the re-stating of the obvious. “They’re going after Hillary because she can win” – No! Really?. The opposition is going after the most likely nominee? Whoda thunk? Democrats do the exact same thing, and – yes – Hillary knowingly committed an ethics violation at the very least. From corporate communications to the public school system violation of network use agreements is grounds for termination of employment, criminal or not. In Hillary’s position as the head of state, claiming she doesn’t understand the ramifications of unsecured correspondence simply doesn’t wash, nor do any of her other contrived excuses. Security is always at the forefront of consideration in anything undertaken at that level and she knew better. To think the opposition isn’t going to milk it for all it’s worth is equally as ludicrous. Of course they will. They have every right to do so, she knowingly violated policy that potentially compromised security in a way that every middle school kid understands. Just keep those heads buried in the sand, prop up the front runner for the sake of victory, and just keep telling yourselves that lying to a grand jury is completely excusable if it’s only about sex.

    Reply
    1. bobnstuff September 3, 2015

      The media shouldn’t be the opposition. Whatever happened to fair and balanced. It’s the Republicans that should be doing the attacking not the media

      Reply
    2. Carolyn1520 September 3, 2015

      Then quite a few people inside the beltway have committed the same “ethics violations” before and after Hillary. Knowingly is your opinion. There were very few rules in place regarding emails .What is now deemed to be classified is subjective and what was once not determined to be classified information can and has changed over time.
      Furthermore, middle schoolers have a far better grasp and knowledge of computers and security than people Hillary’s age by virtue of the fact, they started using them at an early age.
      Just keep looking for the perfect scandal and telling yourself you’ll find one. BTW, are you aware Hillary and Bill are two different people?

      Reply
      1. Jerpell September 3, 2015

        Doesn’t make it right, especially for a person running for the highest office.

        Reply
        1. Carolyn1520 September 3, 2015

          Then there needs to be a set of specific rules regarding it. If something isn’t a crime and later the law changes (and running for office doesn’t make it a crime 🙂 you can’t go back and declare someone guilty of current rules not in place then.

          Reply
          1. ralphkr September 3, 2015

            Shuck, Carolyn, didn’t the Magna Carta do away with criminalizing actions by later passing a law covering said action. If Republicans want to go after SOS who used non-government Email then the had better expand their reach to include Baker, Rice, Powell (they would be happy to throw in Powell since he isn’t a ‘real’ Republican), and every other SOS who used Emails. They’ve all avoided government Email service because it is such a kludged up mess and definitely not secure.

            Reply
          2. charleo1 September 4, 2015

            Good point! In fact all this technology is relatively new, legislatively speaking. Heck, it wasn’t that long ago they had to pass a law against sneaking up, and filming thru someone’s bedroom window. Trespass was all they had. Or the pervert landlords installing hidden cameras in the tenant’s showers. His property, they had to make a law. So I don’t believe there was a law against what Hillary did. It was said Colin Powell also used a private server and wiped it clean afterwards. But the entire question is moot. Since as you point out, we don’t retroactively prosecute people in this Country for breaking laws that didn’t exist at the time they committed the action.

            Reply
      2. Kurt CPI September 3, 2015

        If she didn’t understand the risks she has no business being in a world leadership position in the 21st century. Even 60-year-olds (like me) are aware that email is the least secure form of communication on the planet. Unencrypted data transmission over the public Internet can be intercepted and read by anyone along the fuzzy, cloudy path between sender and recipient. Someone entrusted with classified information absolutely knows this. If not, we’re all in trouble.

        Reply
        1. Carolyn1520 September 3, 2015

          Yeah right, that disqualifies her for everything else. Didn’t disqualify sitting president GW Bush or his brother Jeb or Walker or the rest who have used private servers.
          Government email servers get hacked too as evidenced by the breach of OPM. You don’t like Hillary. Got that.
          Anything else?Anything intelligent?
          Didn’t think so.

          Reply
        2. Theodora30 September 4, 2015

          Which is why the State Department has a separate system for sending classified info. The same problem exists when everyone uses the State Department server (which has been repeatedly hacked.) Or phones. If you are seriously interested in understanding the issue read David Ignatius’s article in the Washington Post.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-e-mail-scandal-that-isnt/2015/08/27/b1cabed8-4cf4-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html

          As for retroactively classifying info, no one can protect against that. One email the The CIA wants classified was about responding to a newspaper article about drones, hardly secret info.

          Reply
    3. meridaest September 3, 2015

      This article was about the NYT and Beast treating Hillary with shoddy, biased journalism…not about Republicans. We are not surprised when the opposition passes false information to reporters. That major reporters print it without investigating is an outrage.

      Reply
      1. Kurt CPI September 3, 2015

        Point taken, I was reacting more to the discussion than to the article.

        Reply
    4. charleo1 September 4, 2015

      To your first point Kurt, you are absolutely correct that Republicans are going after Hillary because she is the likely nominee, and if she wins that, she is very likely to beat whoever they nominate. So sure, Americans know, or should, that big time politics is not for sissies, and if it wasn’t her private server, it would be something else. It’s getting so, the safest bet is go with the candidate that has done very little of anything prior to running for public office. And therefore has made few, if any missteps, has few records to scour thru, few enemies to contact, and the less of a personal life the potential candidate has has the better. A former career as a Franciscan Monk would be perfect in this respect. On the other hand, someone who has spent a great deal of their lives in public service, as Hillary Clinton has, not so much. Hence, one advantage Obama in ’08. All the smut the opposition could muster on him, was Reverend Wright, and a lot of personal insults about his job as a community organizer, and Sarah Palin’s vacuous claims he was, “Palling around with terrorists,” which was thin gruel.
      As it turns out what the Right decides to believe is important, (read scandalous.) Is altogether different for the Left. The Left, for it’s part, requires that there actually be a there-there, in order to convince them to abandon their best hopes of hanging onto the WH. And so far, despite various loudly made claims of intentional deception to hide some deep dark secret, and thus reveal the reason for Hillary’s choice of a private. Of course nothing of this sort has been revealed, after thousands of carefully inspected mailings. But that won’t discourage the diggers. So the emphasis of late has turned to security. Surely she should have understood that sending classified material on her private-unsecured server was reckless, irresponsible, and so on. She was told to use a gov. server, so she broke the law, right? No, at worst she ignored her boss. And surely at some point he was aware of it. So why don’t we just ask him? Because it’s just too easy, is why. And speculation, gossip, and innuendo make Presidential contests exciting, and that sells newspapers. And so once again on the security aspect of this. After the inspection of thousands of pieces of material, sent or received on Hillary’s server, they have yet to find a single instance where this alleged infraction occurred. Where correspondence was marked secret, confidential, or sensitive, before Secretary Clinton, or her staff sent the message, or received it, over insecure servers. And yet, like staffer Vince Foster, that Hillary supposedly shot, or had shot. remember that? The gun was in Vince’s hand, and most all of the smoke came directly out of Rush Limbaugh’s, and the Right Wing’s rear end. So, it’s safe to say as to Republicans bearing news of great scandals, at least on the Left, their reputation precedes them.

      Reply
    5. SophieCT September 6, 2015

      Ummm, NO, she did not commit an ethics violation. Stop with the nonsense. She followed the rules. After the fact you decide you don’t like the rules. But instead of saying the rules were bad, you say Hillary is bad. WTF is wrong with you people? I just don’t understand the level of dick-dom that has taken over this country. Just because you don’t like someone doesn’t mean you literally get to assassinate their character.

      Reply
      1. David September 6, 2015

        Followed the rules? Ha! Over two hundred classified emails received on her private server. At least 8 sent. “But, but they weren’t marked ‘classified’!” Really? Then was she too stupid to know that the information contained in them was classified or just didn’t give a damn?
        How about stealing $190,000 worth of furniture and furnishings from the White House when she and Blue Dress Billy left? She is true slime.

        Reply
        1. dpaano January 25, 2016

          Apparently, you aren’t aware that those e-mails weren’t classified until quite a while AFTER they were sent to her, which oftimes happens. Do you not keep up with technology and the news?

          Reply
          1. David January 25, 2016

            I keep ut up enough with the news to know that the FBI is investigating whether Clinton a “cut and pasted” classified intelligence from the governments classified network so that it could be sent to her private email address.

            Reply
          2. dpaano January 26, 2016

            The FBI is NOT investigating Clinton aides….not sure what half-assed news agency you heard that from. There is NO criminal investigations going on with Clinton OR her aides. As I mentioned, sometimes things sent out are classified AFTER they are made public. This has been pointed out many times in several articles in several newspapers.

            Reply
          3. David January 27, 2016

            Ha ha ha…you need to start reading the news! Hildebeast is on her way down!

            Reply
          4. dpaano January 27, 2016

            Yeah, we’ll chat more about that after she’s elected…..

            Reply
  5. Jerpell September 3, 2015

    I wonder how this article would read if all of Hillary’s scandals, corruption and illegal activities she has been a part of over the years had been nicely wrapped around some republican politician…..Hmmm……There has got to be a better candidate than her, where are all the qualified democrats hiding?

    Reply
    1. Carolyn1520 September 3, 2015

      What corruption and illegal activities???? All you have is faux scandals thrown out in the hopes something would stick and I gotta tell you, the right is batting ZERO.
      You got a bus of mouth breathers with Trump leading the pack. You should be asking that question of the right.

      Reply
    2. greenlantern1 September 6, 2015

      Hillary is one.
      Consider her enemies.
      Perfectly clear?

      Reply
  6. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

    Just because the Times was really soft on Obama does not mean it is biased against the Clintons.

    Reply
    1. Insinnergy September 3, 2015

      To my knowledge no-one is making that argument except you, as a straw-man to bolster your point..
      Silly troll.

      Reply
    2. Theodora30 September 4, 2015

      That’s true. But hounding Bill to appoint and Independent Counsel after two Republican led investigations had cleared both Clintons of any wrongdoing in the Whitewater “scandal” is evidence of bias. As is their repeatedly exaggerating the email issue (no criminal referral contrary to their claim) is strong evidence. Any objective media outlet might get one story wrong but to keep allowing the same reporter to keep making the same mistake (even after your public editor has criticized his reporting) is clear evidence of bias.

      Reply
    3. greenlantern1 September 6, 2015

      Ever read the Pentagon Papers?
      Was the Times soft on Nixon?

      Reply
  7. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

    Notice how Hillary supporters never talk about her supposedly unmatched qualifications, all they do is claim she’s a victim.

    Reply
    1. Insinnergy September 3, 2015

      Absolutes are the refuge of a sub-standard intellect.
      Sure… everyone, everywhere only ever claims she’s a victim… yep… suuuure.

      Reply
    2. Theodora30 September 4, 2015

      That is why Republicans launch bogus attacks on strong opponents. It keeps them, their supporters and the media focused on the “scandal” rather than substance. Democrats are notorious for falling into this trap – as is the MSM.

      Reply
    3. greenlantern1 September 6, 2015

      Remember the PLUMBERS?
      Was Henry Kissinger qualified?
      Was Nixon qualified?

      Reply
    4. SophieCT September 6, 2015

      No. I have never noticed that. Then again, I hang around real Hillary supporters. I can’t speak to what you hang out with.

      Reply
  8. Otto Greif September 3, 2015

    Officials should be held to their duty to uphold the law—end of story.

    Reply
    1. Insinnergy September 3, 2015

      Which begs the questions:
      Where is the investigation into Bush, Cheney, the war in Iraq and the missing money?
      Where are the investigations into Rice, and other conservative darlings for using personal email themselves?
      … *crickets*…
      Yep… thought so.

      Reply
      1. Otto Greif September 4, 2015

        Stop changing the subject.

        Reply
        1. greenlantern1 September 6, 2015

          Nixon’s “law”?

          Reply
  9. rosetta.pend September 4, 2015

    I will share excellent internet freelancing opportunity… three to five hours of work /day… Payment each week… Performance depending bonuses…Payscale of $6k to $9k a month… Only few hrs of spare time, desktop or laptop, elementary understanding of internet and dependable( web-connection needed…Have a visit to my disqus_profile for more info

    Reply
  10. Amy Weiss September 5, 2015

    I want to show great work opportunity… three to five hours of work daily… Weekly paycheck… Bonus opportunities…Payscale of $6k to $9k /a month… Just few hours of your free time, any kind of computer, elementary understanding of web and stable connection is what is required…Get ^informed more about it by visiting my profile>page

    Reply
  11. greenlantern1 September 6, 2015

    Remember when Nixon’s secretary, Rose Mary Woods, erased the Watergate Tapes?
    Remember our ONLY, convicted, attorney-general, John Mitchell?
    Perfectly clear?

    Reply
  12. Ron Minor September 6, 2015

    Hey I agree with you, but dude you are a little extra long-winded.. I actually got a little bored by the time I finished…….

    Reply
  13. exdemo55 September 6, 2015

    Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump leads Democrat Hillary Clinton head-to-head, according to a new poll released Friday.

    The poll by SurveyUSA finds that matched up directly, Trump garners 45 percent to Clinton’s 40 percent.

    In other head-to-head matchups, Trump beats out Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) by 44 percent to 40 percent; Vice President Joe Biden by 44 percent to 42 percent; and former Vice President Al Gore by 44 percent to 41 percent.

    Trump’s surge past Clinton marks a dramatic turnaround in the polls.

    A CNN/ORC sampling of national voters in late June — just days after Trump entered the race — found that 59 percent supported Clinton to 34 percent picking Trump in a head-to-head race.

    The same poll taken in July saw Clinton at 57 percent to Trump at 38 percent. And a version taken in August had Clinton with 52 percent support and Trump with 43 percent.

    Trump has seen his campaign’s popularity surge through the summer while Clinton’s has struggled with voter concerns over her transparency and trustworthiness as secretary of State.

    The poll also found that 30 percent of respondents believe Trump will eventually be the Republican nominee, leading the field.

    Reply

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.