Thomas Bishop

Author ››› Thomas Bishop
  • The Washington Examiner’s Claim That Clinton Lied In Sworn Testimony Falls Flat

    Blog ››› ››› THOMAS BISHOP

    The Washington Examiner claimed that new Hillary Clinton emails released by Judicial Watch “appear to contradict her sworn testimony” that she did not recall discussing her private email server with former State Department IT specialist Bryan Pagliano. But the email chain merely showed that four years ago, Clinton asked Pagliano for help receiving emails, not discussing an email server.

    The Examiner’s claim comes in the wake of the latest batch of emails released by the conservative and anti-Clinton Judicial Watch on October 19. Singling out two innocuous email chains where Clinton discussed email issues with Pagliano, the Examiner claimed that Clinton lied to the FBI about not recalling her conversations about her email server with Pagliano:

    "Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall having communications with Bryan Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any emails in her email account," Clinton testified through her lawyer, David Kendall, after raising objections to the question.

    But emails provided to conservative-leaning Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act show Clinton included Pagliano in discussions about her Blackberry, iPad and server when her network experienced problems in 2012.

    The two email chains included among 15 pages of documents published by Judicial Watch on Wednesday, show Pagliano wrote directly to Clinton and copied Justin Cooper, a former Clinton Foundation aide who also provided assistance for the email system, in March 2012.

    "Let me take a look at the server to see if it offers any insight," Pagliano wrote in an email to Clinton after she complained to him and Cooper of the "troubles" plaguing her Blackberry.

    Clinton’s failure to remember a handful of email conversations four years prior discussing a technical issue with an IT specialist does not contradict her sworn testimony to the FBI. The email chain similarly does not show Clinton discussing anything “concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any emails” with Pagliano, but simply discussing her attempting to receive emails to her mobile device. In the email chain, Clinton explained she’s having trouble receiving emails on her BlackBerry and that she took out the battery in an attempt to fix the problem. In replies, Justin Cooper suggested the problem could be with AT&T’s wireless network and suggested she use an iPhone instead. Nowhere in the chain does Clinton say anything that contradicts her sworn testimony.

    The Washington Examiner’s race to scandalize seemingly banal email conversations follows the media’s obsession with false Clinton controversies.

  • Fox News Doesn’t Ask Trump Adviser About Roger Ailes Helping Trump Prepare For Debates

    Blog ››› ››› THOMAS BISHOP

    Fox News’ Brit Hume neglected to ask Trump adviser Newt Gingrich about former Fox president and CEO Roger Ailes aiding the Trump campaign in debate preparations.

    Hume hosted Gingrich to discuss Trump’s foreign policy and his preparations for the upcoming presidential debates. During the interview, Hume asked Gingrich “does [Trump] practice at all” for debates? And followed up by asking whether the debate would be a “brawl” or we would see a more measured Trump in “a subdued atmosphere of a presidential debate?”

    But Hume failed to address reports that Ailes, who was fired as CEO of Fox News following accusations from more than two dozen women of sexual harassment, is advising Trump ahead of the upcoming debates. And CNN reports that “even when he was running Fox News, Roger Ailes was advising Donald Trump” and helping him prepare for the presidential debates:Description:

    The former Fox News chief started advising Trump at a private lunch just days before the launch of his campaign, and regularly offered him advice over the course of the primaries, sources familiar with the discussions said.

    Trump and Ailes met in person several times between June 2015 and June 2016 -- almost always at Fox News headquarters -- and spoke frequently on the phone, the sources said. Even when Ailes and Trump appeared to be at war over Trump's treatment of Megyn Kelly, the two men kept the conversation going.

    But since late July, when Ailes left Fox News amid a torrent of sexual harassment allegations, he has taken on a much more active role in Trump's campaign -- specifically in terms of debate preparation.

    Trump’s campaign has been secretive about Trump’s role in the campaign amid allegations  of sexual harassment and the subsequent  settlement with a former Fox News anchor over allegations of sexual harassment by Ailes.

  • O’Reilly’s Proof That Voter Fraud Exists Was Debunked On His Own Show Four Years Ago

    Blog ››› ››› THOMAS BISHOP

    Fox News host Bill O’Reilly argued that Mitt Romney’s failure to receive any votes in the 2012 presidential election in 59 divisions in Philadelphia was evidence that widespread voter fraud exists presidential elections. This claim was investigated and proved false on O’Reilly’s show one week after the 2012 election.

     O’Reilly invited lawyers Kimberly Guilfoyle and Stacy Schneider to discuss the prevalence of voter fraud in presidential elections. While both Guilfoyle and Schneider agreed that voter fraud is extremely rare, O’Reilly pointed to “reports in Philadelphia that nobody voted for Romney” as proof that voter fraud exists and asked if these reports have been investigated. From the August 16 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:

    O’Reilly himself investigated and debunked these allegations in 2012. Following the election, O’Reilly hosted Fox’s Megyn Kelly to investigate the “shenanigans” and why Romney got zero votes in a number of Philadelphia divisions. Kelly explained that “the same thing happened to John McCain” in 2008 because “the divisions with the unanimous Obama votes have large black, inner-city populations.”

    Furthermore, following the 2012 election, The Philadelphia Inquirer investigated the claim of voter fraud and the voting patterns in those 59 divisions in Philadelphia and reported that they are overwhelmingly Democratic, black, and politically uniform:

    • About 94 percent of the 633 people who live in that division are black. Seven white residents were counted in the 2010 census.

    • In the entire 28th Ward, Romney received only 34 votes to Obama's 5,920.

    • Although voter registration lists, which often contain outdated information, show 12 Republicans live in the ward's 3rd division, The Inquirer was unable to find any of them by calling or visiting their homes.

    • Four of the registered Republicans no longer lived there; four others didn't answer their doors. City Board of Elections registration data say a registered Republican used to live at 25th and York Streets, but none of the neighbors across the street Friday knew him.

    • The ward's 15th division, which also cast no votes for Romney, also cast no votes for McCain in 2008. Thirteen other Philadelphia precincts also cast no votes for the Republican in both 2008 and 2012.

    • Nationally, 93 percent of African-Americans voted for Obama, according to exit polls, so it's not surprising that the president did even better than that in some areas.


  • “I Was There”: AP Reporter Debunks Conspiracy Theory That Video Shows Clinton Suffering From Seizures

    Right-Wing Media Has Pushed Clinton Health Conspiracies In Attempt To Distract From Trump Controversies

    Blog ››› ››› THOMAS BISHOP

    Associated Press reporter Lisa Lerer debunked right-wing conspiracy theories that a video showing Hillary Clinton laughing at press questions shows her suffering from a seizure.

    Right-wing media personalities including Sean HannityAlex Jones, and Matt Drudge, have attempted to change the subject from Donald Trump’s campaign troubles by drumming up a conspiracy that Hillary Clinton is in poor health. Fox host Hannity has led the crusade attacking Clinton, bringing on guests to diagnose Clinton of various diseases using deceptively edited snippets of video and photos of Clinton.

    Hannity repeatedly used video taken several months ago of Clinton’s campaign visit to a bakery where he speculated that her exaggerated motion was possibly a seizure.



    Lerer explained that what happened during Clinton’s campaign visit to Washington D. C. on June 10 while covering the campaign was less controversial (emphasis added):

    I've never been part of a conspiracy theory. Now, video of my surprised facial expression has become Exhibit A in the latest unfounded speculation about Hillary Clinton.

    It starts with Clinton's visit to a muffin shop in Washington on June 10, five days before the District of Columbia's Democratic primary. The then-presumptive Democratic nominee popped in for a photo op with Mayor Muriel Bowser and other officials supporting her campaign.

    As an Associated Press reporter who's spent more than a year covering her candidacy, I was there for her appearance. After she ordered herself a "cold chai," my colleagues and I shouted some questions, mostly about Clinton's recent meeting with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

    Perhaps eager to avoid answering or maybe just taken aback by our volume, Clinton responded with an exaggerated motion, shaking her head vigorously for a few seconds. Video of the moment shows me holding out my recorder in front of her, laughing and stepping back in surprise. After the exchange, she took a few more photos, exited the shop and greeted supporters waiting outside.

    CNN’s senior media correspondent Brian Stelter explained the Clinton health conspiracy theories began from “pro-Trump Twitter accounts, which then went to a fringe right-wing blog, which then went to the Drudge Report” and on to other media outlets.  

  • CNN’s Corey Lewandowski Struggles To Defend Trump From Newest Financial Report Irregularities

    Former Trump Campaign Manager And Newest CNN Contributor Blames Paul Manafort For Mysterious Payment To Company

    Blog ››› ››› THOMAS BISHOP

    In his first interview as a CNN contributor, former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski attempted to defend Donald Trump against allegations of wrongdoing after the Washington Post reported that the campaign paid over $700,000 to a company called Left Hand Enterprises LLC.

    The Washington Post reported on June 23 that a company called Left Hand Enterprises LLC, which was to print and send direct mail advertisements, “received two big payments” totaling “$730,637 over five days.” The first payment was made to the company just three days after it was formed, raising questions about what the company actually did for the campaign:

    On April 25, a new company called Left Hand Enterprises LLC was formed in Delaware, listing its address at an incorporation service provider in Wilmington.

    A few days later, the firm received two big payments totaling $503,133 from Donald Trump's presidential campaign to print and send a major shipment of direct mail. The campaign cut another $227,504 check to Left Hand Enterprises on May 2, new campaign finance filings show.

    The rapid series of payments — $730,637 over five days — made Left Hand the 10th biggest vendor to the Trump campaign for the entire election cycle. But why it was hired, and what work it provided, remains a mystery even to some top Trump aides.


    The first two payments to Left Hand were made on April 28 and April 29 — just days before the crucial May 3 Indiana primary, where Sen. Ted Cruz made his last unsuccessful stand against Trump. Since direct mail firms usually require payment before sending out a shipment, Left Hand would have had very little time to get leaflets to mailboxes in Indiana before voters went to the polls, according to people who work in the industry.

    Lewandowski told CNN’s Erin Burnett that he was not responsible for the payments to Left Hand, but defended Trump claiming that “if there is anything that has not been appropriate, Mr. Trump will find it and fix it.” Burnett challenged Lewandowski asking whether it was he or Paul Manafort who managed the Left Hand payment. Lewandowski blamed Manafort:

    Lewandowski’s defense of his former boss came during the same interview in which he declined to say whether or not he had signed a document that would forbid him from criticizing Trump. Since CNN announced the hiring of Lewandowski as a contributor, the network has received heavy criticism from media figures, including “grumbling” from CNN staffers.

  • Pentagon Criticizes Benghazi Committee For Straining DOD Resources, Partly Over “Speculation”

    Right-Wing Media Has Hyped False Claims And Speculation Into Benghazi That Continue To Fuel The GOP Investigation

    Blog ››› ››› THOMAS BISHOP

    The Department of Defense criticized the investigation of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, saying repeated requests for documents and information have strained DOD resources and that they’re often based on, as Politico put it, “speculative or hypothetical” queries. Right-wing media have created many of the baseless conspiracy theories that helped create and fuel the Benghazi committee.

    In an April 28 letter to the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Hedger explained the strain the House investigation has had on the DOD, which has spent “millions of dollars on Benghazi-specific Congressional compliance, including reviews by four other committees.” Hedger specifically took issue with the ever-expanding investigation -- and its speculative nature -- noting that “DoD interviewees have been asked repeatedly to speculate or engage in discussing on the record hypotheticals posed by Committee Members and staff.” Politico reported on the letter:

    The Pentagon is pushing back against the House Benghazi Committee, saying its repeated requests for documents and interviews are straining the department's resources — and, to make matters worse, many of the queries are speculative or hypothetical.

    Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Hedger complained in a letter to the committee on Thursday about its continued demands for information, and implied that the panel is grasping to make assertions based on theory rather than facts.

    “[W]hile I understand your stated intent is to conduct the most comprehensive review of the attack and response, Congress has as much of an obligation as the executive branch to use federal resources and taxpayer dollars effectively and efficiently,” the letter reads. “The Department has spent millions of dollars on Benghazi-specific Congressional compliance, including reviews by four other committees, which have diligently reviewed the military’s response in particular.”

    Hedger also complained that Defense Department interviewees “have been asked repeatedly to speculate or engage in discussing on the record hypotheticals.”

    “This type of questioning poses the risk that your final report may be based on speculation rather than a fact-based analysis of what a military officer did do or could have done given his or her knowledge at the time of the attacks,” he wrote.

    Fox News was central to the launch and perpetuation of false information that led to the establishment of the Benghazi Select Committee. By May 2, 2014 -- 20 months after the attack -- Fox had devoted 1,098 segments to Benghazi, with 97 percent of its congressional and administration interviews featuring Republicans. In fact, House Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) repeatedly used Fox News as a platform to push speculation and false claims about Benghazi. And Fox chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge bragged that Fox News helped spur the House investigation.

    Right-wing media have repeatedly pushed conspiracy theories in order to scandalize the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attacks. Conservative media have claimed to have uncovered multiple “smoking gun[s]” proving that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration committed wrongdoing in responding to the attacks. By May 2, 2014, Fox had compared Benghazi to Iran-Contra, Watergate, and other controversial actions by the Nixon administration 120 times.  And conservatives continue to promote the false claim that the Obama administration issued a “stand down” order to soldiers responding to the Benghazi attacks.

    Right-wing media continue to fuel the Benghazi dumpster fire in an effort to hurt Hillary Clinton, and conservative Republicans seem all too happy to use the Benghazi Select Committee to investigate the right-wing media’s theories.

  • This False And Sloppy Smear Links Hillary Clinton To The Sandy Hook Massacre


    Hillary Clinton

    UPDATE: IBT has changed its headline to remove the reference to 2012 and updated its article to mention the State Department's statutory authority to review arms deals under the Arms Export Control Act. 

    In an effort to challenge Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's progressive position on gun violence prevention, the International Business Times baselessly linked her to the 2012 murder of 20 children and six staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School, but the publication misread the documents it used to claim the connection.

    IBT’s tenuous and bizarre argument is that the State Department’s role in approving military arms sales to foreign governments somehow undermines Clinton’s support for allowing families of victims to sue companies that sell military-style firearms to civilians who subsequently use them in mass shootings. Specifically, the outlet reported that when Clinton was secretary of state, the State Department “helped approve” a $4.2 million arms contract between Remington Arms Company, whose subsidiary Bushmaster manufactured the gun used by Adam Lanza in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, and the government of Afghanistan.

    IBT did not explain precisely how the State Department “helped approve” the contract, citing only a Defense Department report. Moreover, in order to draw the connection between Clinton and the massacre, IBT claims in its headline, “Hillary Clinton State Department Approved Weapons Sales In 2012 For Company That Made Sandy Hook Rifle.” But the sale in question did not occur in 2012.

    The April 18 article criticized Clinton for “present[ing] herself as a tough advocate for gun control” and supporting “laws that could hold gun manufacturers liable for mass shootings.” It suggested that those positions are undercut because during Clinton’s tenure, the State Department “helped approve more than $100 million in weapons sales for a handful of companies — including the manufacturer of the AR-15 semi-automatic that Adam Lanza used to kill 20 children in Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.” The article continued:

    The sales to foreign nations, noted in Defense Department documents, include $4.2 million in receipts from the Remington Arms Co., which was sued by families of the Sandy Hook victims. They argued that the company was culpable because it marketed military-grade weapons to civilians.

    It is not explained in the article what the connection is between the contract and the State Department, as IBT links only to documents related to a reporting requirement of the Department of Defense. The State Department does in fact have certain authority to control the export of U.S. munitions and other defense articles and services under the Arms Export Control Act, but IBT cites an annual report of Defense, not State.

    Additionally, a review of the Defense Department document reveals that IBT’s claim that the Remington sale occurred in 2012 -- the same year as the Sandy Hook shooting -- is inaccurate. The report was issued May 17, 2012 -- seven months before the shooting -- but it details sales that occurred in fiscal year 2011, which runs from October 2010 through September 2011.

  • Rupert Murdoch’s NY Post Joins National Enquirer And Paper Owned By Trump’s Son-In-Law In Endorsing Trump

    New York Post Editorial Board: “Trump Is Now An Imperfect Messenger Carrying A Vital Message”

    Blog ››› ››› THOMAS BISHOP

    Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post endorsed GOP candidate Donald Trump in the Republican race for the White House, joining The National Enquirer and The New York Observer as the only publications to endorse Trump in the Republican primary.

    Ahead of the April 19 New York GOP primary contest, the New York Post editorial board released a statement endorsing Trump as “an imperfect messenger carrying a vital message.” The Post ignored what it called Trump’s “amateurish, divisive — and downright coarse” rhetoric to praise his “political incorrectness”:

    Trump’s language, too, has too often been amateurish, divisive — and downright coarse.

    But what else to expect from someone who’s never been a professional politician and reflects common-man passions?

    Indeed, his political incorrectness is one of his great attractions — it proves he’s not one of “them.” He’s challenging the victim culture that has turned into a victimizing culture.

    In the general election, we’d expect Trump to stay true to his voters — while reaching out to those he hasn’t won yet.

    Trump is now an imperfect messenger carrying a vital message. But he reflects the best of “New York values” — and offers the best hope for all Americans who rightly feel betrayed by the political class.

    He has the potential — the skills, the know-how, the values — to live up to his campaign slogan: to make America great again.

    For those reasons, The Post today endorses Donald Trump in the GOP primary.

    Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the Post and the executive chairman of the Post’s parent company, News Corp. has supported Trump throughout the primary and called for GOP candidates to “close ranks to fight the real enemy.” News Corp. is also the parent company of Fox News, which has given Trump a disproportionate amount of media coverage and favorable interviews.

    The Post joins the The National Enquirer and The New York Observer as the only publications to endorse Trump in the election. The endorsements both received scrutiny due to the relationships Trump shares with both publications. Trump’s son-in-law is the publisher of The Observer and it has been reported that Trump is close friends with David Pecker, the CEO of The Enquirer’s publisher American Media, Inc.

  • Fox Pushes Conspiracy That Obama Is Protecting Clinton On Emails Due To “Personal Conflict”

    Blog ››› ››› THOMAS BISHOP

    After months of a coordinated smear campaign against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account during her tenure at the State Department, Fox News is now suggesting that President Obama may be protecting Clinton from criminal charges due to a “personal conflict” because he exchanged emails with her over her private server. Fox asserted that Obama was protecting Clinton while admitting that the investigation has found that none of the emails between the two contained classified information.

    On the April 11 edition of The Kelly File, Fox chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge conducted a supposed “fact-check” of Obama’s comment, “I continue to believe [Hillary Clinton] has not jeopardized America’s national security,” which he made during an April 10 interview on Fox News Sunday. Herridge scandalized Obama’s remarks by suggesting that the president should have declined to comment on the investigation and questioning whether Obama may have “a personal conflict” due to reports that he exchanged as many as 19 emails with Clinton.

    In Herridge’s report, she admitted that the emails between the president and Clinton “don’t contain classified information,” but she also included commentary from former Bush administration Assistant Attorney General Thomas Dupree, who suggested that Obama has a “personal conflict” in the investigation.

    Fox News has been on the offensive since the beginning of the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state, baselessly claiming that her private email use constituted a crime and that she negligently transmitted top secret information that put lives at risk.

    Legal experts have consistently explained that “there doesn't seem to be a legitimate basis for any sort of criminal charge against” Clinton. In a March 20 column for the American Prospect, University of Michigan law and sociology professor and former Department of Homeland Security classification expert Richard Lempert explained that after analyzing Clinton’s conduct and “[b]ased on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information.” 

    In addition to the lack of evidence of criminal wrongdoing by then-Secretary of State Clinton, a thorough State Department investigation concluded that past secretaries of state -- including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice -- and their immediate staff also "handled classified material on unclassified email systems."

    Herridge has also repeatedly reported unreliable information provided by unnamed sources in order to attack Clinton. In January, Herridge boosted the reportedly false claim that up to 150 FBI agents were assigned to the investigation on Clinton’s server. On March 29, The Washington Post issued a correction for its own report that nearly 150 agents were involved, noting that there is actually less than 50. NBC News later reported that the number of agents assigned to the case was “about 12,” with a former FBI official quoted as saying, "You need an act of terrorism to get 50 agents working on something." Herridge also cited anonymous sources who accused Clinton of gross negligence and violation of the espionage statutes in her handling of purportedly “classified” or “top secret” information, a claim experts have repeatedly called into question. 


  • Washington Post Corrects Faulty Report That Nearly 150 FBI Agents Are Investigating Clinton Emails

    The Post Now Reports "The Number Of FBI Personnel Involved Is Fewer Than 50"

    Blog ››› ››› THOMAS BISHOP

    The Washington Post has retracted its anonymously sourced claim that 147 FBI agents are detailed to the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, and is now reporting that the real number is fewer than 50. Media outlets trumpeted the Post's report of the supposedly "staggering" number of FBI agents working the investigation as bad news for Clinton.

    On March 27, the Post published a 5,000-word article detailing the FBI's investigation into Clinton's use of a private email and personal Blackberry device during her time as secretary of state. The original story reported: "One hundred forty-seven FBI agents have been deployed to run down leads, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey."

    The Post's claim spread throughout the media, with outlets frequently highlighting the 147 figure in their headlines and some using the report to attack Clinton. National Review termed the figure "a staggering deployment of manpower," while Breitbart News celebrated the "FBI recently kick[ing] its investigation into high gear." The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza highlighted the "eye-popping" 147 figure by commenting, "W-H-A-T?", adding that the reported number of agents seemed "like a ton for a story that Clinton has always insisted was really, at heart, a right-wing Republican creation," while MSNBC's Joe Scarborough called the number the "worst kept secret in DC for months." The story was also highlighted in several segments on Fox News.

    But the next day, Politico reported that the Post's story might be inaccurate. According to Politico, an official close to the investigation refuted the Post's report, saying that "The FBI does not have close to 150 agents working the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server" and that the Post's "number is greatly exaggerated."

    The Washington Post issued a correction to both their initial story on March 29, explaining that they incorrectly reported "that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation" and that multiple U.S. law enforcement officials "have since told The Washington Post that figure is too high" and the actual number of "FBI personnel involved in the case is fewer than 50":

    CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that Clinton used two different email addresses, sometimes interchangeably, as secretary of state. She used only as secretary of state.  Also, an earlier version of this article reported that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. Two U.S. law enforcement officials have since told The Washington Post that figure is too high. The FBI will not provide an exact figure, but the officials say the number of FBI personnel involved is fewer than 50.

    Cillizza issued an update to his post, changing his headline but not the text of his piece to reflect the Post's correction and stating, "I apologize for the error."

    The Washington Post joins other media outlets that have been forced to issue embarrassing corrections after publishing faulty claims on Clinton's emails based on anonymous sources. The New York Times issued two corrections on stories claiming Clinton was the subject of a "criminal probe," based in part on unnamed "Capitol Hill" sources.  

    The media continues to scandalize Hillary Clinton during the FBI's probe, even though legal experts have repeatedly explained that Clinton is unlikely to face prosecution and have termed an indictment "ridiculous."