Right-wing media are claiming that President Obama’s endorsement of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is “a terrible conflict of interest," suggesting the FBI could otherwise indict Clinton but will not do so because of the endorsement. Mainstream media and legal experts have reported for months that the “chatter” that Clinton will be indicted “is just plain ridiculous,” noting that “there doesn’t seem to be a legitimate basis for any sort of criminal charge against” Clinton.
The Associated Press published a June 8 report that cited “security experts” who AP says claim that Clinton’s private email server may have compromised “the names of CIA personnel.” The report referenced three sources, but one of them said the risk was “theoretical” and another said he didn’t see “any particular vulnerability.” The third source, who suggested that CIA personnel names may have been compromised, was an appointee in the Bush administration and has donated to numerous Republican candidates.
The AP report’s claim relied solely on Stewart Baker, identified only as “a Washington lawyer who spent more than three years as an assistant secretary of the Homeland Security Department and is former legal counsel for the National Security Agency.” Baker said that “foreign intelligence services discovered and rifled Hillary Clinton’s server” and that they would have a key to finding the names of CIA personnel due to redacted names in released emails.
The AP did not note that Baker was appointed by Bush to the DHS and has donated thousands of dollars to Republican candidates over the past two decades, including former President Bush and GOP presidential candidates Sen. Bob Dole, Sen. John McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Gov. Chris Christie. From the article:
"Start with the entirely plausible view that foreign intelligence services discovered and rifled Hillary Clinton's server," said Stewart Baker, a Washington lawyer who spent more than three years as an assistant secretary of the Homeland Security Department and is former legal counsel for the National Security Agency.
If so, those infiltrators would have copies of all her emails with the names not flagged as being linked to the agency.
In the process of publicly releasing the emails, however, classification experts seem to have inadvertently provided a key to anyone who has the originals. By redacting names associated with the CIA and using the "B3 CIA PERS/ORG" exemption as the reason, "Presto — the CIA names just fall off the page," Baker said.
Although the AP said multiple experts suggested that Clinton’s email server could have compromised CIA names, the other two sources cited in the report dismissed these claims as unlikely. One anonymous “U.S. official” said the risk of names being revealed is “theoretical and probably remains so at this time.” A second source, Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy director Steven Aftergood, asserted, “I don’t think there’s any particular vulnerability here.” AP also noted that Aftergood “said even if any identities were revealed, they might be the names of analysts or midlevel administrators, not undercover operatives.”
AP’s baseless, theoretical claim follows numerous debunked theories that Clinton’s server was hacked and that it exposed human intelligence agents, mostly stoked by other conservative and unreliable sources. No evidence has come to light that Clinton’s server was hacked.
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Right-Wing Media Have Spent Years Attacking Hillary Clinton For The Sound Of Her Voice
Fox Business completely ignored the economic details of policy proposals outlined by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during a recent speech in Bowling Green, Kentucky, including a $30 billion plan to revitalize coal country, opting instead to mock the sound of her voice.
On May 16, Clinton gave a 31 minute speech outlining economic policy goals she intends to achieve as president, according to The Courier-Journal. These goals included “reducing college debt, raising wages of workers, giving equal pay for equal work and improving the Affordable Care Act,” as well as her “$30 billion plan to revitalize coal country.” Clinton’s coal country revitalization plan creates protections for coal miners’ pensions, ensures adequate funding for local public schools, and provides job training and small business assistance for places once dominated by coal -- an industry that has seen economic forces lead to its decline.
Fox Business host Stuart Varney asked Gov. Phil Bryant (R-MS) to listen to Clinton’s voice during the speech and critique it during an interview on the May 17 edition of Fox Business’ Varney & Co. Varney thought “she used a Southern accent.” Bryant joked that Clinton could join the Blue Collar Comedy Tour if not elected president, and claimed that her supposed “pandering to the crowd” was “a little insulting.” At no point during the discussion did either man reference the policies Clinton actually outlined in her speech.
Right-wing media have repeatedly attacked Clinton’s voice for nearly a decade while ignoring the substance of her remarks. Attacks against Clinton’s voice by right-wing media ranged from her volume, to her allegedly offensive Southern accent, and her supposed use of “a blackface voice” when addressing an African-American audience. A Fox contributor once suggested that Clinton would “speak with a lisp” if she attended an event hosted by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. These sexist attacks on Clinton’s voice are well documented and attempt to distract from the content of the candidate's positions.
Watch the full exchange from the May 17 edition of Fox Business’ Varney & Co.:
STUART VARNEY (HOST): One more thing for you, governor. Hillary Clinton was campaigning in Kentucky, and I think she used a Southern accent, and I want you to listen to it and critique it for a second. Roll tape.
PHIL BRYANT: Do I have to?
VARNEY: Alright, governor, I do have an accent myself. Would you care to critique the accent you just heard?
BRYANT: You know, if she doesn't get elected president, there may be an opening on the Blue Collar Comedy Tour for her with that accent. We'd have to get her a little better jokes, but of course it's a little insulting to hear that type of thing happen. But, she’s pandering to the crowd, Stuart. Some politicians do it, I won't hold that against her too much, and she needs to work a bit on it and maybe throw a “y'all” in there. But what we want to hear is what she is going to do about appointing Supreme Court judges [sic]. She’s been silent on that issue so far, and I’d like to hear if it’s going to be a Bernie Sanders, or who some of her Supreme Court nominees may be when she gets to be president of the United States.
TIME magazine’s Philip Elliott misleadingly called Republican activist and strategist Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash “heavily researched” in an article about the book's film adaptation, despite the book’s numerous errors and the author’s history of shoddy reporting and partisan ties.
Schweizer’s book, which alleged supposed corruption by the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation, had more than 20 errors, fabrications, and distortions and was dismissed by many media outlets and figures -- including TIME itself -- for lacking evidence to back up its charges. Schweizer is a Republican activist and strategist with a history of faulty reporting.
In a May 12 article, Elliott wrote that the film was based “on a heavily researched book by the same name,” and is “careful in laying out a series of facts that are mostly true, though both the book and the movie sometimes draws connections and conclusions that aren’t as solid as their evidence.” Elliott admitted the book and movie make “impossible to prove” assumptions, yet concluded that “as a work of persuasion, the movie is likely to leave on-the-fence Clinton supporters who see it feeling more unsure about casting a vote for her”:
It would be easy to dismiss an hour-long film adaptation of Peter Schweizer’s book about the charitable-political-nonprofit complex of Bill and Hillary Clinton as nothing more than conservative propaganda. But sitting in a Manhattan screening room late Wednesday, it quickly became clear that conservatives weren’t the intended audience for Clinton Cash.
Environmentalists. Anti-nuke activists. Gay-rights advocates. Good-government folks. They’re all going to find themselves increasingly uncomfortable over claims that the likely Democratic nominee, in the film’s words, takes cash from the “darkest, worst corners of the world.”
The 60-minute indictment of the Clintons will soon find its way to an awful lot of televisions ahead of November’s elections. Based on a heavily researched book by the same name, Clinton Cash is careful in laying out a series of facts that are mostly true, though both the book and the movie sometimes draws connections and conclusions that aren’t as solid as their evidence.
“When it comes to the Clintons, you have to follow the money,” Schweizer says in a rough-cut previewed for TIME.
No doubt, there are many places where dotted lines are smudged into solid ones, and some assumptions are made where concrete evidence of quid pro quo is impossible to prove. But as a work of persuasion, the movie is likely to leave on-the-fence Clinton supporters who see it feeling more unsure about casting a vote for her. Made by the conservative Breitbart News’ executive chairman, Stephen K. Bannon, and director M.A. Taylor, this film rises above the traditional campaign hit job.
Unlike Hillary, Clinton Cash is a more narrowly focused production with a clear-cut thesis that it repeats through a litany of perceived shifty associations. One alleges that that the Clintons helped the Russian nuke agency get control of 20% of American uranium as part of a deal that involves a Canadian billionaire, Kazakhstan mining officials and Vladimir Putin. Another claims that the Clintons got into bed with African strongmen with horrendous human rights records. “Paul Kigali is a friend of Bill Clinton’s,” the film tells audiences of Rwanda’s leader and suggests the Clintons are engaging in neo-colonialism in exploiting African countries’ natural resources.
The film also accuses Hillary Clinton of flip-flopping on the Keystone XL pipeline after an investor booked Bill Clinton for lucrative speeches. Schweizer also says Clinton’s State Department spared Sweden’s Ericsson of troubles over selling technology to Iran after it, too, booked Bill Clinton for a paid talk. The list goes on: that Bill Clinton pocketed KGB money, a mining company put Hillary brother, Tony Rodham, on its board after it won concessions.
The individual facts are largely true and based on widely reported events and public documents. The conclusions, however, are not as cut-and-dried as the film makes them out to be when assembled together. In general, the film’s reasoning is that if one thing followed another, it was a case of cause-and-effect.
This is not a movie that is going to dissuade the #imwithher crowd from supporting Clinton. But it is a movie that might keep disaffected liberals at home, energize the Sanders supporters to keep up the fight even after their preferred candidate bows to reality and serve up new fodder for conservative talking heads on cable news. This isn’t a game-changing movie, but one that could keep some less enthusiastic voters on the sidelines.
A New York Post cover story that has been highlighted on Fox News claimed that the Clinton Global Initiative “doled out” $2 million to a company partly owned by a woman the paper insinuated is “rumored” to be Bill Clinton’s mistress. The foundation did not actually give money to the firm, and the rumors in question come from a single anonymous source in the National Enquirer.
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Stuart Varney: "It Is Legitimate To Use The Word Recession" Despite Seven Consecutive Quarters Of Economic Growth
Fox Business host Stuart Varney misleadingly used the Commerce Department's most recent economic growth estimat
On the April 28 edition of Fox Business’ Varney & Co., Varney used the Commerce Department’s quarterly GDP rep
The last recession, which the National Bureau of Economic Research defines as “a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months,” began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, first quarter economic growth has typically lagged behind growth for the rest of the year since the economy emerged from the Bush-era Great Recession:
Varney’s warning that a recession may be imminent does not match expert analysis. On April 28, The Washington Post reported that “most analysts say that the United States faces little risk of recession.” Reuters reported
Varney is a serial misinformer on the economy, repeatedly attempting to spin data to claim President Obama’s economic policies have failed, even though the president’s economic legacy of the last seven years shows the unemployment rate has been cut in half, annual deficits have gone down, GDP has grown, and the United States enjoyed the third-longest stock market upswing in its history. Varney’s spin on economic data has gone so far that on December 4 -- in response to a strong November jobs report that beat most economists' expectations -- he managed to conclude that the pace of job creation was "mediocre," and on January 8 he downplayed the December jobs report as merely "modest" even though it was arguably the strongest jobs report of 2015.
Breitbart News' Stephen K. Bannon and Republican activist and strategist Peter Schweizer have turned Schweizer’s error-ridden book Clinton Cash into a movie in order to "engage voters" and attack Hillary Clinton.
According to Bloomberg News, the movie will premiere in Cannes, France in May at a screening arranged for distributors, but it will make its American debut “on the eve of the Democratic National Convention.” As Bloomberg explained, "the Clinton Cash movie is less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons”:
But while polls suggest Trump and Sanders will have a hard time stopping [Clinton], the team behind Clinton Cash—[Peter] Schweizer and Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News—haven’t given up. They’ve turned Clinton Cash into a movie, directed by M.A. Taylor, that will premiere next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors).
As the trailer below indicates, the Clinton Cash movie is less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons[.]
“It’s a story that resonated with people on the printed page,” said Schweizer. “We felt we needed to look at other platforms, too. The key is to engage voters. If you look at what’s motivating Trump and Sanders fans, it’s disgust with cronyism and corruption in Washington.”
According to Bannon, the film’s U.S. premiere will be held in Philadelphia on July 24 on the eve of the Democratic National Convention. During the first week of August, he added, it will have a limited release in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Francisco.
Media outlets -- particularly The New York Times and The Washington Post, which had exclusive editorial agreements with Schweizer -- hyped the book before its release. Fox News gave the book more than $107 million in free publicity -- before the book was even released. However, the book contained numerous false and m
To read more about the 20-plus errors, fabrications, and distortions in Peter Schweizer's book, click here.
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...