Reader Interactions
29Comments
Comments are closed.
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.
Let there be snark.
When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.
Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.
Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.
Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.
The next time the wall wtreet journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.
The GOP couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.
Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.
Technically true, but collectively nonsense
Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard
All your base are belong to Tunch.
It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.
… pundit janitors mopping up after the GOP
if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.
I was promised a recession.
No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.
Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.
A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.
It’s the corruption, stupid.
Damn right I heard that as a threat.
A dilettante blog from the great progressive state of West Virginia.
T R E 4 5 O N
🎶 Those boots were made for mockin’ 🎵
You are here: Home / Open Threads / Excellent Links / Your All in One Debunking of the Latest Clinton Stuff
different-church-lady
What, nobody want to talk about Greenwald anymore?
Brachiator
I really liked this part of the article.
I had wondered how much power that State actually had over the uranium decision. Apparently, not much.
But that’s the great thing about smear jobs. You don’t really have to prove anything, just suggest that “something doesn’t look right.”
jl
Thanks, Cole. I read a similar debunker, and was going to put link in comments yesterday.
But could not find it again.
Sadly, because I did not realize how Clinton scandal stories have sprouted like mushrooms in last few days. Looking for the debuker (what had like detailed facty things and actual dates on which facty things actually happened, and what speeches were actually paid for and what not) was like looking for needle in a haystack.
On the bright side, if we are going to get the 90s back, then at least that means it will rain and snow in California again, right?
agorabum
Yes. The kochs giving walker vast sums to turn Wisconsin into its subsidiary – no mention. But someone donates to a charity that does great things and pays a former president – and great orator – a speaking fee and suddenly it’s all whispers.
There is a reason Bill is such a get, and it isn’t because of the State Dept.
Also, if he can’t take their money, drink their whiskey, screw their women, and still vote against them, he wouldn’t be slick Willie…
Emma
And thus proving you have more integrity than most media outlets that carry on about the Clintons in the front page and, if they ever print a retraction, hide it next to the obits.
I do not, however, expect it to calm the usual suspects.
Woodrow/Asim
You know, I used to irregularly read Chait. I liked a lot of what he had to say, and was annoyed I couldn’t get a feed/newsletter with just his columns.
I’m not exactly glad he’s managed to solve that annoyance for me, by becoming a much, much bigger one.
NonyNony
I knew something like this was going to come out as soon as I read Jonathon Chait’s article.
Because Chait is an ass and he doesn’t check his facts – I’ve learned never to trust his stuff until I’ve had time to read up on what he’s reporting on myself or read articles that fisk his work from his detractors. So while I didn’t know the facts about this particular case I knew that eventually someone who actually bothers to check facts – and knows Chait’s an ass – would climb that mountain just to nail Chait’s sorry butt to the wall once again. And here we are.
jl
OK, as I remember, the debunker I found had much more detail on the uranium deal n particular. I will dive into the mushroom field and look again. Been another day, so the scandal monger pieces have probably doubled by now.
Redshift
@agorabum:
Even bigger deal – there are no restrictions on foreigners being among those donating unlimited amounts to candidates’ 501c4’s, and since the donors don’t have to be disclosed, we have no way of knowing. The billionaires who are buying GOP candidates don’t even have to be American billionaires. The Saudis could be financing a candidate who’s in favor of our going to war with Iran for them.
jl
I cannot help noting the double standard you see over and over again by the media and the GOP hacks and assorted concern trolls that comprise most of the pundit class.
You got a controversy with a Republican and the ‘did they break the law’ standard is applied. And what they mean by ‘the law’ is the most crabbed and legalistic parsing of the letter (never mind the spirit or the intention of the law). Anything else is being unfair, scandal mongering and obviously viciously partisan attack.
Now you got the HRC emails, and the fact that she, AFAIK, followed standard procedure and precedent, and laws and regulations in force at the time, in determining personal versus official, means nothing. Even the ‘liberal’ Mika lady on Mornin’ Joe brushed off that as total BS and irrelevant.
Redshift
@jl: Forbes had a debunking article with a lot of detail back when the NYT first floated this allegation in 2008.
bemused
When Chait is good, he can be very good but when he is bad, he is appallingly awful.
jl
@Redshift: thanks. I will look for that.
Myiq2xu
These are not the droids you are looking for. Now drink your Koolaid.
Tree With Water
To think the Clinton’s would have failed to cross every t and dotted every i in the running of that outfit is insulting their political IQ.
catclub
@jl:
I noticed that Bill gave a talk paid for by the investment bank that handled the uranium company sale. What fraction of its business was made by this one transaction? I suspect not much.
catclub
@Redshift:
THIS. Actually, it is not ok to have those foreign donations go to political ads, but how do you find out if they do? I suspect the easter bunny will investigate for us.
Plus, Guy owns gambling establishment in Macau – could Chinese money get laundered through that? I know it has never been considered, but I’m just spitballing here.
d58826
I guess my problem with all of this is that once people reach that level of government they have accumulated so many friends, contributors, conflicts of interest that it is impossible to sort it all out. Sure there were stories about Chaney and Halliburton but they ran for a day or two and then were dropped. Rummy didn’t have conflicts with his old employers? Really? And then there is the bush family. I don’t recall anyone making it an impeachable offense that Bush 41 had conflicts when he was CIA director/VP or POTUS. Bush 43 was bailed out of one failed business venture after another. We are seeing a rehash of Hillary’s 1000. investment but no one cared that W walked away with a fortune from his investment in a baseball team even though the original sum that he put in was relatively modest. The right still talks about draft-doggier pot smoking Bill while ignoring the draft habits of Chaney, et. al. or W’s drinking
Most of these stories were reported on and forgotten within a few days. The difference is that the GOP doesn’t have to put up the the likes of Faux news. It doesn’t matter what democrat is running and how ‘pure’ they are, Faux will find (or more likely make-up) something. I doubt that there is a single democratic politician who doesn’t have an late fee at the library in his record. Faux will turn that into the crime of the century. The MSM, in order to avoid being labeled liberal, will of course have to cover it since it is being talked about on the Sunday shows and therefore is ‘news’..
Betty Cracker
I was hoping Conason would pipe up since he’s generally sane about the Clintons. Thanks for linking it!
Waysel
@jl: Any chance it appears in ‘history’ in your computer or browser?
jl
@Waysel: Good idea. Though my browser history has mushroomed with HRC scandal stories too. I will look later today.
ThresherK (GPad)
To be fair, GWB’s post-presidency has been a net boon to the USA, by the “stop poking my ear with a hatpin” standard. So measured that way, Bill Clinton stopping being Prez isn’t so great.
But that’s not what Chait means. As I am a not young, straight white urbane male liberal, I need ome word to give eberyone so the know Chait and I are not to be lumped together.
EconWatcher
@Brachiator:
It’s possible that Conason will turn out to be right. But did this article seem to you like an honest assessment of the evidence? Example: “Knowledgeable observers of CFIUS believe that its operations are dominated by Treasury and Defense, not State.”
Read that sentence a couple of times. Does that sound like good reporting to you?
For conflict of interest, what unnamed people “believe” about who “dominates” CFIUS is irrelevant. For conflict of interest analysis, the relevant question is, was State’s approval or assent required? If it was, then Hillary was required to formally recuse herself from decisionmaking if she had a conflict, and it would be no defense that others also had to approve, or even “doiminated” the approval. The charitable explanation is that Conason is a poor writer who doesn’t explain himself very well, but the language has the feel of a smokescreen.
And another seeming sleight of hand, or at least sloppiness: He says that Hillary wasn’t “personally involved” in State’s decision. Again, not the question. She’s SOS. State does many things for which she is responsible, even if she’s not “personally involved.” (And what does “personally involved” mean? The implication is that she was involved, but not personally.) If she had a conflict, she had to formally recuse herself. Did she?
It could be that this whole scandal has been trumped up. Many others about the Clintons have been.But if so, someone else needs to write the definitive debunking, because this article is not persuasive.
Emma
@EconWatcher: For people like you, nothing that shows the Clintons as anything but horrible will be a persuasive debunking. It has always been thus, since his first campaign.
D58826
Just one other thought on the Clinton ‘scandals’. It seems that most of the reporting has been done using information that is in the public domain, the Foundation web site for example. Now the Clinton’s have been under an electron microscope since at least 1992. Does it seem reasonable that these two very smart people along with their legion of lawyers and accountants are going to lay out in plain sight the trail of corruption that has been alleged? This kind of corruption is usually wrapped up in dummy corporations, Swiss bank accounts, money laundering in the Cayman s, etc.
Turgidson
@Woodrow/Asim:
Chait is fine when he sticks to making fun of Paul Ryan and various other GOP frauds and grifters. It gets hairy whenever he wanders out of that safe zone.
EconWatcher
@Emma:
I voted for Clinton twice, and defended him to one and all when they tried to impeach him over a consensual sexual dalliance. Then he pardoned Marc Rich, and I was left speechless. If you read about that one and are OK with it, then we just have no common ground for discussion.
I’m done defending them, but as you’ll see if you read my post fairly, I won’t condemn them without good evidence either. But I’m a lawyer, and I recognize language that’s been carefully parsed for a reason, and that’s what I see in the Conason piece.
ralphb
@Brachiator: Sigh, From the NYT story:
“Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
Allow me to explain the approval process for the curious.
The Secretary of the Treasury is the Chairperson of CFIUS, and notices to CFIUS are received, processed, and coordinated at the staff level by the Staff Chairperson of CFIUS, who is the Director of the Office of Investment Security in the Department of the Treasury.
The members of CFIUS include the heads of the following departments and offices:
Department of the Treasury (chair)
Department of Justice
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of State
Department of Energy
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Office of Science & Technology Policy
The following offices also observe and, as appropriate, participate in CFIUS’s activities:
Office of Management & Budget
Council of Economic Advisors
National Security Council
National Economic Council
Homeland Security Council
The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting, ex-officio members of CFIUS with roles as defined by statute and regulation.
There is an Under-Secretary who handled CFIOS issue. He has stated and is quoted in the NYT story that Mrs Clinton never interfered with him in performance of his job. Is that a bit clearer?
Dennis
@EconWatcher: Normally I would agree with you. But the problem is that these agents of smear have done this to the Clintons so many times that they have forfeited any presumption of good faith in their presentations of “facts.” They count on reasonable Democrats like you to say “Well, I support the Clintons, but we shouldn’t dismiss this out of hand…”
No. The time for that is past. The Clinton Rules are too obvious now. This kind of stuff will work if we try to engage the Swift Boaters as equal participants in a search for the truth. They must be shamed (if they even can be), they must be jeered at.
Notice how Chait (correctly) states “The New York Times has a report…”. As predicted, the NYT is willing to sell what is left of it’s dwindling credibility in service to it’s Ahab-like chase of the Clinton White Whale.