Monday, September 28, 2015

NYT Blows It Yet Again on an Even Lamer Clinton "Scandal"

Here we go yet again, folks.

Last Thursday, the formerly reputable New York Times was once again fed a faulty story by Hillary-fearing right wingers (this time Judicial Watch) about some sort of scandal-ish type thing that kinda sounds bad. The headline:

Hillary Clinton Personally Signed Off on Job Change for Huma Abedin

I know what you're thinking: "So what?" Good job...this is the logical response. But what they were actually trying for here was a nice little gotcha:
Hillary Rodham Clinton was directly involved in arranging a new government position for a top aide that allowed the aide to begin working for a private consulting firm while remaining at the State Department, according to documents released on Thursday.
The documents, released by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, show that Mrs. Clinton personally signed forms establishing a new title and position for the aide, Huma Abedin, in March 2012. ...
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked Mrs. Clinton whether it was fair to question Mrs. Abedin’s taking a salary from both the State Department and Teneo. ...
“Well, you know, I was not directly involved in that,” Mrs. Clinton replied. “But everything that she did was approved, under the rules, as they existed, by the State Department.”
Uh oh. Hillary forgot that she signed a form once. In a crazy alternate universe where legal email usage results in a 7+ months-long "scandal", this can't be good.


On Sunday afternoon came the correction that once again negated the entirety of their wannabe scoop. You know, something that the New York Times should be used to by now with their often disastrous run of Hillary scandalmongering.
Update: According to a document obtained by The New York Times, the certification of a new employment position for one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s senior aides at the State Department was signed by Mrs. Clinton’s then chief of staff, Cheryl D. Mills, who was authorized to sign such documents for Mrs. Clinton.
In short, this was legal and Clinton wasn't directly involved in it anyway. And so another meaningless Republican-fueled and bored press-enabled "scandal" takes up space where informative pieces about environmental or prescription drug policy should have been.

If the New York Times didn't officially apologize to Hillary Clinton over their "criminal inquiry" fiasco from two months ago, I sincerely doubt that this latest embarrassment will finally make them change their ways.

But for their own should.


  1. This is what the NYT gets for relying on Judicial Watch for its "scoop."

  2. NYT must not apologize, even in the remote chance that they want to, because, they must not allow themselves to be caught deceiving the public about Hillary, something that would hurt them permanently, while they still benefit from the illusion, that the story has substance. Once more, it's clear, that if they're to suffer the consequences of their deceit, it will have to be because "we" find ways of inserting it in "main" street, corporate media.

    1. Hey, maybe after their 14th major F-up this year...they MIGHT think about apologizing! Long shot, I know.

  3. Okay, so Hillary is/was NOT responsible for the actions of HER then Chief-of-Staff? Just hire a STAFF which has authority to sign on your behalf and then you ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE? Okay, now I understand how that works.

    1. It was legal. The question was 'was she DIRECTLY involved?' and the NYT thought they caught her in a fib.

    2. Delegate the authority to COS and then take absolutely no responsibility because she was "not DIRECTLY involved". Great qualification as a candidate for President! The BUCK STOPS WHERE?

    3. Legal and above board. What's the scandal here?

    4. With Ms. Clinton it's always "LEGAL" - a convoluted argument by lawyers - which misses the point that, ONCE AGAIN, Ms. Clinton showed poor judgement with selection and/or oversight of her staff (just as was the case with the 'private e-mail server' rather than a government owned/controlled/managed server).

    5. "With Ms. Clinton it's always legal."

      Great...we agree!