Hillary Clinton

Tags ››› Hillary Clinton
  • Newspaper Editorials Slam McCain For Unprecedented Pledge To Block Any Clinton Nominee For Supreme Court

    ››› ››› ZACHARY PLEAT

    Newspaper editorial boards are sharply criticizing Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for promising that he and his fellow Republican senators would block any and all nominees for the Supreme Court put forth by a President Hillary Clinton, noting that McCain’s promise upends the GOP’s stated reasons for refusing to even hold a vote on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.

  • Fox News Debunks Its Own Attempt To Prop Up False Trump Claim Of New Clinton Email Scandal

    Minutes After Catherine Herridge Supports Trump’s Claim Of “Collusion” In DOJ Investigation, Andrew Napolitano Explains That She And Trump Are Wrong

    Blog ››› ››› ZACHARY PLEAT

    Fox News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano debunked Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s claim that a stolen email from a Clinton campaign staffer showed “collusion” in the Justice Department’s investigation into Clinton’s use of private email during her time as secretary of state, just minutes after Fox’s chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge supported Trump’s claim.

    After an NBC News reporter drew attention to stolen emails belonging to Clinton campaign press secretary Brian Fallon, which were released by WikiLeaks, Trump’s campaign charged that one of the emails “reveals ‘collusion’ between Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Justice Department that tainted the criminal investigation into Clinton’s private email set-up.” The email in question, dated May 19, 2015, states: "DOJ folks inform me there is a status hearing in this case this morning, so we could have a window into the judge's thinking about this proposed production schedule as quickly as today." As Politico explained about an hour before the Fox segments, Fallon’s message “predates that probe.”

    Despite the impossibility of the Trump campaign’s claim, Fox’s Herridge repeated the claim. Appearing on Your World, Herridge said, “[T]here's another hacked email that shows former Justice Department staffer Brian Fallon, who is now a senior member of the Clinton campaign team, was working with his former Justice Department colleagues about an upcoming hearing in the email investigation.” She continued, “Trump's campaign called it collusion and wants all the communications to be released from the Clinton campaign. That's obviously not realistic, but for a point of context, at the height of the email investigation, any kind of communication between the Clinton campaign operatives and the Justice Department was clearly inappropriate by either side.”

    But just six minutes after Herridge’s irresponsible and erroneous assertions about that email, Fox’s Napolitano explained that both she and Trump were wrong:

    ANDREW NAPOLITANO: You know, the email that we're talking about has to do with the Freedom of Information Act cases, and not with the criminal investigation. If Donald Trump's allegation were true, and the Justice Department had been tipping off the Clinton campaign about the criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton, that tip itself would be a crime, but that's not what the emails that Catherine Herridge was referencing reveal. In fact, those emails were about the Freedom of Information Act cases, which are civil cases, which anyone can get access to. So I don't see the impropriety here that Trump is concerned about.

    Herridge made sure to note the date of Fallon’s email, but she neglected to inform Fox’s audience that the email was sent two months before the FBI’s investigation began -- making her concern about improper communications in support of the Trump campaign’s claim completely baseless. Herridge has a long history of getting details of the investigation into Clinton’s use of email wrong, thanks to her tendency to rely on anonymous sources that end up burning her.

  • Trump’s Latest Lie Comes Straight From State-Owned Russian Media

    Russia’s Alleged Sidney Blumenthal Quote Actually From Newsweek Article Decrying “Show Trial” GOP Hearings

    Blog ››› ››› BOBBY LEWIS

    At an October 10 campaign rally, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump claimed Clinton family friend and adviser Sidney Blumenthal told Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, that “one important point has been universally acknowledged by nine previous reports about Benghazi: The attack was almost certainly preventable.” Trump alleged Blumenthal said that “if the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate”:

    However, Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald found the alleged Blumenthal comments “really, really familiar.” Eichenwald found the comments “so familiar” because, in fact, “they were something I wrote.”

    In an October 10 article, Eichenwald revealed that Sputnik, a news organization “established by the [Russian] government controlled news agency, Rossiya Segodnya,” discovered in a WikiLeaks dump of Podesta’s hacked emails “a purportedly incriminating email from Blumenthal” calling the Benghazi attacks a “legitimate” talking point against Clinton.

    In reality, Sputnik’s declared “‘October surprise’” quoted “two sentences from a 10,000 word piece” Eichenwald wrote for Newsweek “which apparently Blumenthal had emailed to Podesta.” Contrary to the lies from Sputnik and Trump, Eichenwald’s article is not about how the Benghazi attacks are Hillary Clinton’s fault, but rather “the obscene politicization of the assault that killed four Americans” and “the Republican Benghazi committee which was engaged in a political show trial disguised as a Congressional investigation.” 

    Even though “once they realized their error, Sputnik took the article down,” Trump continued to use Russian state media’s lie as a weapon against his political opponent. This fits Trump and his campaign’s pattern of questionable relations with Russia, including calls for the Kremlin to commit a cyberattack against Hillary Clinton. 

  • Fox’s Kurtz Pushes Fake Clinton Quote That A Different Fox Host Already Apologized For Airing

    Multiple Outlets Already Reported Leaked “Bucket Of Losers” Quote Is Fake

    Blog ››› ››› ZACHARY PLEAT

    Fox News’ media critic Howard Kurtz attributed a fake quote to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, predicting that she would have to answer in tonight’s presidential debate for calling primary opponent Bernie Sanders’ supporters a “bucket of losers.” But Snopes.com and BuzzFeed have already reported that this quote -- originally posted at a fake news site -- is fabricated, and Fox host Megyn Kelly apologized on Friday for pushing the quote on her own show.

    On the October 9 edition of MediaBuzz, Kurtz said Clinton is certain to face debate questions about quotes taken from stolen emails that were recently released by WikiLeaks:

    HOWARD KURTZ (HOST): Hillary Clinton will undoubtedly face a new line of questioning at tonight's debate here in St. Louis about her highly lucrative Wall Street speeches, parts of which were made public in hacked emails obtained by WikiLeaks. While running to the left against Bernie Sanders, she had said in these speeches that she favored, quote, “open trade and open borders,” a stunning contradiction with her public position. She also called Sanders' supporters a “bucket of losers.” And despite her tough on big banks rhetoric, Clinton said this in one speech: “Wall Street insiders are what is needed to fix Wall Street.” Clinton's spokesman said the, quote, “stolen documents” could have been orchestrated by Russian officials trying to help Donald Trump, but would not say they were fake.

    But at least one of those quotes was fake. On October 7, BuzzFeed reported that the “bucket of losers” quote is from a fake transcript “published by the totally dubious site RealTrueNews.org,” and that “the transcript is clearly a hoax.” BuzzFeed also showed that the fake quote was published before WikiLeaks released the stolen emails containing speech excerpts. On October 8, internet rumor debunking website Snopes.com called this claim that Clinton demeaned progressive voters as a “bucket of losers” false, adding that right-wing media outlets including InfoWars, Gateway Pundit, and Fox News were duped into reporting the fake quote as true. Both websites credited the progressive website Crooks and Liars for publishing video of Fox host Megyn Kelly apologizing for airing the quote. Kelly admitted at the end of her show, “That was apparently a doctored quote and not real. And we apologize for that error.”

    Kurtz should immediately do the same for airing a fake quote that his network already admitted was not real. And maybe he should read executive vice president John Moody’s January 2007 memo in response to a false Fox & Friends story about President Obama, which states in part: “For the record: seeing an item on a website does not mean it is right. Nor does it mean it is ready for air on FNC.”

  • The Daily Beast's Olivia Nuzzi Profiles "Propaganda As Fan Fiction" Junk Journalist Ed Klein

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    The Daily Beast’s Olivia Nuzzi profiled discredited journalist Ed Klein, who attempts to paint Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton as a criminal in his new book, Guilty As Sin. Nuzzi explained that Klein “just makes shit up” and that he “produce[s] colorful narrative fiction with only the smallest connection to reality,” but that his “tall tales are likely to provide fodder for Clinton’s detractors” in the 2016 election.

    Klein has a long history of promoting conspiracies about the Clintons, and his work has been labeled "bullshit," "smut," "junk journalism," and "fan fiction" by a wide range of reporters, including many conservatives. Klein’s work -- which consists of outrageous smears about the Clintons (including that Bill Clinton raped Hillary), demonstrably false allegations, and fake quotes -- has been largely ignored in recent years. Despite his poor record, Klein was recently hosted on Fox News’ Fox & Friends to discuss his new book, where previously even co-host Brian Kilmeade had himself called Klein’s work into question. Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has reportedly known Klein for decades, has met with the discredited reporter during the presidential campaign, and according to Nuzzi was “interviewed extensively” for Klein’s book.

    In an October 6 article, Nuzzi described Klein’s “journalistic practices”: taking “real people, their titles and roles unchanged,” but “invent[ing] from whole cloth” the substance of their lives to “produce colorful narrative fiction with only the smallest connection to reality.” From the article:

    To use Edward Klein’s own journalistic practices when writing about his work is to produce colorful narrative fiction with only the smallest connection to reality—the characters are real people, their titles and roles unchanged, but the content of their personalities, their conversations, and their thoughts invented from whole cloth. Klein’s work is propaganda as fan fiction, published and promoted as the serious nonfiction work of a reporter and editor once employed by Newsweek, Vanity Fair, and The New York Times Magazine—all of which is true, except at some point in the last quarter century, Klein lost his goddamn mind.


    He began his career at the New York Daily News, from there became an editor at Newsweek, then left for The New York Times, became the editor of The New York Times Magazine—which won two Pulitzers under his stewardship, from 1977 to 1987—and then, in the mid-1990s, started writing books.

    He’s written 11 books advertised as nonfiction, four of them about the Clintons, whom, he told me in a May interview, he began researching around 2003.

    In case it’s not overwhelmingly clear already, he does not like the couple very much. But Klein’s political opinions are not the problem with his books or even their defining characteristic—that would be that he just makes shit up, and it’s not even good. Yet in the highly emotional and volatile climate of the 2016 presidential election, Klein’s tall tales are likely to provide fodder for Clinton’s detractors—especially Donald Trump, whom Klein has spent a lot of time with over the years and interviewed extensively for Guilty as Sin.


    From the way Klein talks, you’d think he wrote All the President’s Men, not a gossipy trilogy about the muumuu-loving Democratic nominee sexually harassing her female underling and escaping the law yet again. [The Daily Beast, 10/6/16]

  • The Right-Wing Media’s Hillary Clinton Diagnoses, From “Stroke” To “Dead in Six Months”

    ››› ››› NICK FERNANDEZ

    For years, right-wing media have baselessly speculated on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s health, claiming she has suffered various illnesses ranging from “stroke” to “Parkinson’s disease,” and guessing she’ll be “dead in six months.” Here are some of right-wing media’s various Clinton diagnoses.

  • The New York Times Proves "False Balance" Is Ruining Good Campaign Coverage

    Why Treating Every Campaign Controversy Equally Is A Recipe For Bad Reporting

    Blog ››› ››› CARLOS MAZA

    The New York Times’ public editor defended the paper’s coverage of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton from criticism by arguing journalists should try to treat controversies involving Clinton and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump equally. It’s a defense that highlights the real danger posed by “false balance” in campaign journalism during the 2016 election.

    In a September 10 piece titled “The Truth About ‘False Balance,’” New York Times public editor Liz Spayd defended her paper’s extensive reporting on the controversies surrounding the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Critics say the Times’ coverage has hyped minor scandals and contributed to a perception that Clinton and Trump are equally flawed candidates. That coverage, critics argue, perpetuates a “false balance” that fails to reflect the uniquely dangerous and divisive nature of Trump's campaign.

    In her response, Spayd accused critics of trying to force newspapers to insert “moral and ideological judgments” into their campaign coverage, warning of a “slippery slope” if journalists are asked to decide which campaign controversies are worth prioritizing:

    The problem with false balance doctrine is that it masquerades as rational thinking. What the critics really want is for journalists to apply their own moral and ideological judgments to the candidates. Take one example. Suppose journalists deem Clinton’s use of private email servers a minor offense compared with Trump inciting Russia to influence an American election by hacking into computers — remember that? Is the next step for a paternalistic media to barely cover Clinton’s email so that the public isn’t confused about what’s more important? Should her email saga be covered at all? It’s a slippery slope. [emphasis added]

    The problem with Spayd’s argument is that one of the basic functions of a newsroom is to make judgment calls about which stories deserve attention and which don’t.

    When a local TV station interrupts a weather report to cover a deadly terrorist attack, it’s making a judgment about which story should be more important to the public. When a newspaper puts a major oil spill on the front page rather than a story about a low-level crime, it’s making a similar judgment.

    Conversely, if CNN spent the same amount of time covering a celebrity’s stint in rehab as it did on a terrorist attack, it would be rightly mocked. Not because the celebrity rehab story isn’t true, but because one story obviously deserves more attention than the other.

    Those types of editorial decisions don’t create a “slippery slope” -- they define the actions of respectable news sources. Even the Times’ masthead -- “All The News That’s Fit To Print” -- asks the reader to trust the paper’s editorial judgment when deciding what news qualifies as “fit to print.”

    Every journalist in every newsroom in America already makes those decisions. They’re not machines, and they’re not blank slates. Part of their job is exercising their judgment to figure out which stories are worth telling, and how to tell them.

    But Spayd’s argument suggests that journalists should withhold judgment and pretend voters should fixate just as much on emails as they do on mass deportations, or a Muslim ban, or any of the dozens of other unprecedented controversies that would have ended a normal candidate’s campaign but haven’t derailed Trump.

    Spayd suggests that critics of “false balance” are likely liberals hoping to pass off “partisan” judgments as objective facts:

    I can’t help wondering about the ideological motives of those crying false balance, given that they are using the argument mostly in support of liberal causes and candidates. CNN’s Brian Stelter focused his show, “Reliable Sources,” on this subject last weekend. He asked a guest, Jacob Weisberg of Slate magazine, to frame the idea of false balance. Weisberg used an analogy, saying journalists are accustomed to covering candidates who may be apples and oranges, but at least are still both fruits. In Trump, he said, we have not fruit but rancid meat. That sounds like a partisan’s explanation passed off as a factual judgment.

    That Spayd can’t bring herself to admit that Trump and Clinton are categorically different, that Trump is a uniquely dangerous and unqualified candidate, should make any reader wary of the Times’ coverage.

    Listing all of the reasons that Trump deserves to be treated differently -- his ties to white nationalists, his ties to Russia, his calls for an unconstitutional Muslim ban, his racist attacks on Mexican immigrants -- feels silly at this point. The differences between the two candidates are not merely “partisan,” which is why so many high-profile Republicans have come out against their party’s candidate.

    Spayd acknowledges that Trump’s behavior has led many Republicans to reject Trump, but she claims that “If Trump is unequivocally more flawed than his opponent, that should be plenty evident to the voting public come November. But it should be evident from the kinds of facts that bold and dogged reporting unearths, not from journalists being encouraged to impose their own values to tip the scale.”

    This argument ignores how the editorial judgments that journalists make help shape how the voting public weighs those facts and reports. If the Times publishes 16 front page articles on the Clinton Foundation before it gets around to reporting on the Trump Foundation, readers will be left with the impression that the former is more important, no matter how damning the latter story may be.

    Spayd points to the fact that neither candidate is well-liked or trusted, arguing that “if ever there was a time to shine light in all directions, this is it.” It’s a bizarrely self-fulfilling argument. Breathless media coverage about Clinton’s email server and ties to the Clinton Foundation have undoubtedly contributed to voters’ perceptions that Clinton isn’t trustworthy. But Spayd cites that perception to justify yet more breathless media coverage of those controversies, even as she acknowledges it was “not good journalism” when some of the paper’s reports have “revealed relatively little bad behavior, yet were written as if they did.”

    But the more important point is that voters’ biases or perceptions of the candidates shouldn’t dictate what stories news organizations prioritize. If voters are equally suspicious of both candidates, but one is dramatically more dangerous or untrustworthy than the other, good editorial judgment should challenge that suspicion, not merely echo it.

    The truth is no candidate, Clinton or otherwise, can run a campaign without controversies. Journalists will always be able to find a gaffe on which to fixate. But not all campaign controversies are created equally. Part of a journalist’s job is to help readers cut through the noise of a presidential campaign and focus on what really matters.

    And that’s the real problem with Spayd’s argument: Refusing to treat campaign stories differently is a judgment call. It communicates to readers that Clinton’s email server is as shocking and newsworthy as, for example, Trump’s pledge to ban Muslims from entering the country.

    It’s not.

    And any newspaper that’s afraid to make that judgment call -- that’s afraid of telling readers what’s really at stake in November -- is shirking one of the most basic and important functions of a free press during election season.

  • MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Sets Impossible Standard For Clinton To "Pivot" Away From Emails

    Blog ››› ››› NINA MAST

    MSNBC host Chuck Todd criticized Hillary Clinton’s failure to “pivot off of” the topic of her private email server during her time as Secretary of State, ignoring that Clinton has taken responsibility for her actions and undergone multiple investigations.

    During a Meet the Press Daily panel discussion about NBC’s commander-in-chief forum, host Chuck Todd expressed concern that Clinton has “never figured out a pivot off” the email scandal:

    CHUCK TODD (HOST): When you have your own microphone, you can do what you want with it. And, you know, ultimately she's never figured out a pivot off of it. Normally when there is a controversial thing you have to deal with -- look at Trump, say what you want about him, sometimes he is all pivot. But she has not developed the pivot. "You know I'm glad you asked about that, but let me tell you about the larger issue when it comes to X" -- you know she never figured out how to do that. Why?

    In fact, Todd’s comments come after long and expensive investigations into Clinton’s use of a private email server, none of which have yielded any evidence of wrongdoing.

    And Hillary Clinton has repeatedly apologized, taken responsibility, and answered questions about her private email server from an unrelenting press.

    In the past week alone, NBC has written numerous articles concerning Hillary Clinton’s email server, and NBC’s presidential forum questioned Clinton on her emails in the first 8 of 9 questions. And yet, in response to Hillary Clinton’s attempt to give detailed, thorough answers to the press about her emails, Todd criticized her failure to change the subject.