Old Whitewater, keep on rolling

If you blinked, you might have missed the latest WhitewaterGhaziGate scandal.






76 replies
  1. 1
    kped says:

    How could I miss it? Cole breathlessly tweeted it last night!

  2. 2
    John Cole says:

    Out of nowhere to stomp all over my thread!

  3. 3
    John Cole says:

    @kped: Breathlessly- melodramatic much?

  4. 4
    Mike E says:

    One toke over the line, sweet Jesus.

  5. 5
    guachi says:

    If only we could marry the ’90s and the ’10s and get the truly awful phrase Whitewatersplaining.

  6. 6

    @John Cole: I commented on your thread and now both the thread and the comment has vanished into thin air.

  7. 7
    kped says:

    @John Cole: A bit, but when it comes with you and the Clinton’s, ain’t it all a bit melodramatic?

    “Enough is enough! I can’t take another blah blah months of this!”

    Which is to say, given your history with the Clintons, and given the media’s history with them, maybe you should hold off on posting/tweeting about anything related to them until the non-hysterical people have time to review the story.

  8. 8
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @John Cole: Hey, you don’t like it, get your own damn blog.

  9. 9
    Culture of Truth says:

    Shocked, shocked I tell you

  10. 10
    MattF says:

    But… the headline at the NYT site still says ‘Criminal.’ So, WTF?

  11. 11
    Tommy says:

    Oh the Clinton years ….

    I told this story one late, late night here.

    I met this women in grad school at LSU. We started to date. We had “fun.” Nothing serious. Then we found out she was going to law school at Catholic University in DC and I was moving there to work on a political campaign for the person that would be a two-term governor of Maryland.

    We decided to get a place to live together.

    I’d lived with women before. But not women I was dating and having sex with. Pick just about any topic in the world. Music. Books. Food. Movies. We were in total sync.

    This is early 1993, right when Clinton took office.

    Honestly and in hindsight not sure how, we didn’t talk politics that much before we started to live together. This wasn’t a shotgun thing. We’d known each other two plus years and dated on and off for more than one of them.

    Rush came between us …..

    She started to listen to him 24/7. She was never a liberal. But it seemed with Rush, and I think to some extent her classmates at Catholic law school, she went to the “dark side” almost overnight.

    One bedroom place. I spent about 8 months paying half the rent and sleeping on the couch. Towards the end it got ugly. Not with bills. But with Rush and the shit he put into her head.

    So when I think of the “Clinton Years” I got some pretty unhappy thoughts about the Republican party from the get-go.

  12. 12
    John Cole says:

    @kped: Nah- the point of the tweet was that it just seems nuts to go all in for Hillary before the first primary. A lot can happen.

    I’m to the point where anything leveled against the Clintons I let marinate for a week because 99.9% of the time it’s proven to be a nothing burger within 48 hours.

  13. 13

    Huh, it’s almost like the New York Times has an itchy trigger finger when it comes to anything Clinton and overstated what they were told.

    Nah, I’m sure it’s a total co-inkydink. In fact, I’m sure that every other piece of shitty reporting they’ve done about the Clintons for the past 20 years is a completely standalone incident that totally doesn’t show a pattern of behavior. Nope. Not at all.

  14. 14
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @John Cole: presumably a prospective comment.

  15. 15
    kped says:

    @John Cole: Yes, I agree, a lot can happen. This is not “a lot” though. And pushing it is the same “see, there’s more smoke” nonsense.

  16. 16
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Yet the scum at the NYT, who did not learn shit from the fuckups of Jeff Gerth, immediately jump to a conclusion without even bothering the slightest feign at a fact check.

  17. 17
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @Mnemosyne (tablet): Yup, I read “The Hunting of the President” recently; this is SOP for the NYT(and WaPo).

  18. 18
    jl says:

    I heard on news that this latest installment is about some emails HRC’s lawyers gave to other lawyers on a thumb drive in response to some demands of an investigation. And that the emails were unclassified when they were put on the thumb drive and given from one set of lawyers to another, but subsequently became classified.

    I don’t know if that is true, It was like the third time the thing was reported and it was a clarification of a clarification of the original story.

    Why not just dust off an old Kafka novel and read that?

    At any rate, we may be at the stage of this cycle of Clinton scandal mongering that the investigations themselves become a perpetual scandal generation machine. Physicists should study it for tips on achieving perpetual motion.

  19. 19
    scott (the other one) says:

    Is there anything that could get the NYTimes to suck less when it comes to the Clintons? I’m really asking here. Is there any way to shame them into not jumping at every offered tidbit like a starving piranha but maybe exercise just the tiniest bit of professional journalistic integrity?

  20. 20
    Cacti says:

    The “liberal” New York Times hasn’t changed a bit.

  21. 21
    Mike J says:

    @John Cole:

    I’m to the point where anything leveled against the Clintons I let marinate for a week because 99.9% of the time it’s proven to be a nothing burger within 48 hours.

    I’ll believe it when I see it. You are the panic master.

  22. 22
    jl says:

    @scott (the other one): The NYT could put one of their preciously tweetremdous homes and gardens or the rich and famous, or some of the reporters on their ‘tragedy of being not quite rich enough’ beat on these stories. Those folks are much more careful and tend to be able to do some research.

  23. 23
    justawriter says:

    If I were god-emperor of the universe, I would have every J-school student read Fools for Scandal every week for four years and make understanding the damn book 90 percent of their final grade.

  24. 24
    Ruckus says:

    @scott (the other one):
    …the tiniest bit of professional journalistic integrity?
    At the NYT? I think they have detectors at the doors to insure that it never invades the building.

  25. 25
    different-church-lady says:

    @kped: 24 hour rule: ignored for Greenwald, will be ignored for Clinton too.

  26. 26
    catclub says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA: I am trying to work my way through THOTP. It is dense. with facts.

  27. 27
    different-church-lady says:

    @Mnemosyne (tablet):

    Huh, it’s almost like the New York Times has an itchy trigger finger when it comes to anything Clinton and overstated what they were told.

    This one smells worse than that — seeming like they volunteered to get rolled by GOP ratfuckers.

  28. 28

    @Ruckus:

    The New York Times fired Molly Ivins. QED.

  29. 29
    jl says:

    @different-church-lady:

    ” they volunteered to get rolled by GOP ratfuckers. ”

    Funny how that happens so often for a bastion of the free press, very impartially informing the public. But then all the others are funny how that happens so often too, so I guess they figure they just have to go along.

  30. 30
    Germy Shoemangler says:

    @different-church-lady:

    This one smells worse than that — seeming like they volunteered to get rolled by GOP ratfuckers.

    Trey Gowdy’s office?

  31. 31
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @catclub: It’s worth the read, you’ll understand why the Clintons act the way they do(they’re not paranoid, they really are out to get them).

  32. 32
    different-church-lady says:

    Also from TMP: Hillary’s Team Piles On The New York Times For Its Mistaken Email Story

    And good for them. The phenomenon is plant bullshit in the media and everyone will remember the bogus headline and nobody will remember the retraction. By pounding on this incident, the surrogates for Team H can flip it over into, “See? They really are out to get her.” Make the rat-fucking a bigger story than the supposed infraction, make it so the next time this happens people are thinking, “There they go lying about her again.”

    (Linky: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l.....l-responds)

  33. 33

    @scott (the other one):

    Is there anything that could get the NYTimes to suck less when it comes to the Clintons?

    Going out of business.

  34. 34
    Mike J says:

    @different-church-lady:

    Also from TMP: Hillary’s Team Piles On The New York Times For Its Mistaken Email Story

    30 years of attacking is how the Republicans put the media in a permanent crouch.

  35. 35
    justawriter says:

    @Mnemosyne (tablet): As I recall from her book, she was fired for referring to a chicken festival as a “cluster pluck.”

    I miss Molly. She would have ruled Twitter.

  36. 36
    srv says:

    The cancer that is the Clintons continues to plague this country. Such low expectations are now the norm as we can see from the choices the Democrats offer.

    Say what you will about Republicans, but at least they offer variety.

  37. 37
    Germy Shoemangler says:

    David Brock has written a strongly-worded letter to the Times.

    That should solve the problem.

  38. 38
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @srv: Republicans, a wide bench lacking depth.

  39. 39
    Germy Shoemangler says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA: I think they all agree on this: What we sorely need are less pesky regulations on business and banks, less pesky environmental laws, and lower taxes for the wealthy.

  40. 40
    kped says:

    @different-church-lady: Note that Gowdy immediately jumped on this and said it showed they needed to investigate more.

    Frankly, smells like the old Cheney “leak to MTP, then cite MTP as evidence to support your claim”.

  41. 41
  42. 42

    @different-church-lady:

    By pounding on this incident, the surrogates for Team H can flip it over into, “See? They really are out to get her.” Make the rat-fucking a bigger story than the supposed infraction, make it so the next time this happens people are thinking, “There they go lying about her again.”

    It would be nice if they could collect a stenographer journalist scalp or two along the way, so that the lesson would be “taking Trey Goudy’s leaks at face value could be hazardous to your career”.

  43. 43
    catclub says:

    So when Ted Cruz said that McConnell lied, was he correct? It does not look like there are actually GOP senator jumping up and saying Ted was wrong. Just that he crossed the line by calling a liar a liar.

  44. 44
    jl says:

    @kped:

    For fake scandal aficionados out there, have we had enough time yet to start comparing the Issa and Gowdy fail records?

    Seems to me that Issa could Cheney a fake story for more than a few hours before it exploded.

  45. 45
    catclub says:

    @kped: I think the Bush disaster pedants will note that the transmission route was:
    Leak to Judith Miller, see it published in NYT, point out item in NYT when on MTP in front of gullible Tim Russert.

  46. 46
    catclub says:

    @jl:

    Issa could Cheney a fake story

    Scans just like “Keep fucking that chicken.”

  47. 47
    jl says:

    @catclub: Just that Cruz in the wrong for stating the obvious in such a direct way? Or rude that Senate rules allow that kind of latitude, where House rules prevent similar statements about Boehner, and Cruz was rude to House members dignity (whatever of it there may exist)? Something like that probably.

  48. 48
    different-church-lady says:

    @srv:

    Say what you will about Republicans, but at least they offer variety.

    I know. There’s like at least three different flavors of Bush to choose from.

  49. 49
    catclub says:

    @Roger Moore: I was thinking tactical nuclear weapons.

  50. 50
    Germy Shoemangler says:

    @MattF: Well, it won’t. I doubt the NYTimes listens to Brock.

    I like Trey’s trick of leaking to the NYTimes and then citing them as a reason to investigate further. That’s enough to make Cheney chuckle appreciatively.

    Didn’t Carter once give a speech about illegal searches? …..Two cops. One goes to the front of the house, the other goes to the back. The first cop knocks on the door, and the other cop yells “come in!”

  51. 51
    Alex says:

    “If it’s true, it’s true.” -Ron Fournier
    “The first story was not true.” -Norm Ornstein
    “What is true is damaging enough.” -Ron Fournier

    Ron Fournier’s headline? – “Clinton’s Conspiracy of Secrecy Worthy of Criminal Probe”
    Correction at bottom of article? – “NOTE: Initial story referred to DOJ guidance on a “criminal referal.” DOJ later said it’s not a criminal referal. Bottom line is that it would take a DOJ investigation to who compromised classified information and whether a crime was committed.”

    via – https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/624663026059354113

  52. 52
    kped says:

    @catclub: Thank you, that is the correct transmission of falsehood. Gowdy is far more direct. Leak to NYT, then cite NYT to show he is on to something.

    Far less elegant, which is why he is caught so much quicker. Plus, Cummings doesn’t suffer a fool, and is quick to correct the record. Sadly, despite being played over and over, they keep reporting this stuff. You’d think by now they’d put into practice that any leak from Republicans should be double checked with Mr Cummings. But nope. They’ll print anything.

  53. 53
    catclub says:

    @different-church-lady: I detect careful language here.

    ” I spoke personally to the State Department inspector general on Thursday, and he said he never asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton’s email usage,” Cummings said in a statement, as quoted by The Hill.

    There could still be a probe related to the email and handing it over.

    It is also interesting to examine how careful Obama is in his language.

  54. 54
    Turgidson says:

    @srv:

    “Say what you will about Republicans, but at least they offer variety.”

    I wouldn’t call 17 very minor variations on the same shit sandwich “variety.”

  55. 55
    LWA says:

    @srv:
    Hah- it was Bill Clinton who converted me from a Republican to Democrat.

    Or I should say, it was witnessing the GOP beclown themselves for 8 years that did the trick.

  56. 56
    catclub says:

    @Turgidson: I blame the three terms amendment. 25th? 27th?

  57. 57
    Turgidson says:

    @Alex:

    Good ol’ Ron “Severe Dementia” Fournier. Doing his part to catapult the propaganda, as always. I’m disappointed though. There was plenty of room left in his Tweet to blame Obama’s failed leadership for the whole thing.

  58. 58
    Davis X. Machina says:

    We’ll see progress when everyone who was on the Times when the Post drove Watergate is dead.

    Until then, good luck. The Times thought that they got their president twenty years ago, only to have it all turn to ashes…

  59. 59
    J R in WV says:

    @srv:

    The Cancer that is srv continues to eat at the innards of the Ballon-Juice blogosphere, spreading falsehoods from post to post, thread to thread, while never paying any attention to the truth, which is that republicans hate, hate, hate them some Clintons, and won’t ever give up trying to smear any Clinton with any available bullshit.

    Remember how they were so gentle with teen-aged Chelsea, “she’s so ugly because her father is Janet Reno?” This is the way republicans treat youngsters innocent of any political sway whatsoever!

    The republicans are willing to tell any strange story about any Clinton, any Democrat with any power or stature in the press, in the hope that by slinging so much mud the reality of the situation will be totally obscured.

    That worked so well against Bill back in the 90s!

    It appears to be working nearly as well with Hillary here in the 20teens!

    Keep on pluckin’ that chicken, srv! It makes it taste better when you have to give it CPR!

  60. 60
    Roy G. says:

    @srv: But they make great Overton Democrats. All the better to push through TPP and heat up the new cold war with Eurasia.

  61. 61
    MattF says:

    FWIW, the Times has changed the story (as of ’23 minutes ago’ it says). No more ‘criminal’ in the headline, and it’s made clear in the article that the material was classified after it passed through the unclassified server. Unfortunately, the damage is done.

  62. 62
    jl says:

    @Alex:

    ‘ “What is true is damaging enough.” -Ron Fournier ‘

    What we definitely know is true about this story is that partisan Congressional staff GOP hacks can plant bogus GOP partisan BS and that is 100 percent enough for papers like the NYT to splash it practically verbatim on the front page as a news story. And that is bad enough. I will wait to see Fournier write about this problem soon.

    @catclub:
    Well, as I understand it, yes, there is actually an investigation over how the information was handled AFTER it was classified and AFTER it was in the hands of parties other than HRC or her staff.

    I assume the second line is a joke, since either the indadequate blah super genius evil villain Obama was vague and therefore being evasive, or he was precise and therefore being careful… toooooooo careful.

    This is all BS.

  63. 63
    dmbeaster says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA: All bench – no starters. Which is why srv fears Clinton.

  64. 64
    cmorenc says:

    Lies spread by messengers on track shoes, the truth tries to catch up wearing clod-hoppers.

  65. 65
    jl says:

    @kped:

    ” Gowdy is far more direct. Leak to NYT, then cite NYT to show he is on to something.”

    First we find out Jeb! is not the smarter Dub, now we find out Gowdy is not the smarter Issa.

  66. 66
    jl says:

    @jl:

    ” What we definitely know is true about this story is that partisan Congressional staff GOP hacks can plant bogus GOP partisan BS and that is 100 percent enough for papers like the NYT to splash it practically verbatim on the front page as a news story. ”

    And I forgot to add that the GOP can do this over and over again, on nearly a monthly basis, apparently forever.

    Maybe the NYT could write a sad story about an editorial muck racking staff that was ‘not quite bright enough’ or ‘just barely corrupt enough’ or both to get caught read handed at BS repeatedly. That must grate, along with being not quite rich enough.

  67. 67
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @Tommy: Wow, Tommy. That sucks!

    Rush can be seductive, if you’re not aware that he lies all the time. Then listening to him is torture.

  68. 68
    jl says:

    @Another Holocene Human: Tommy’s story is sad. Some teabaggers in my extended family are required to listen to Rush at a very low volume, out of earshot of the other, saner, householders (some of whom also have been teabagger-curious, but do have some minimal standards).

    Edit: Rush’s vicious and contemptuous racism and sexism, and mentally unhealthy violent imagination puts him beyond the pale for everyone except a few of the wingiest wingnuts iin my family, thank goodness. Rush is only mentioned among the inner circle who enjoy the lowest circles of teabagger derangement.

  69. 69
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: No worries, NPR is on it tonight as well. Villager CW by the pound.

  70. 70
    Another Holocene Human says:

    @jl: And yet the GOP was forced to kowtow to him during the last presidential election. One wonders when the curtain will finally fall on that act.

  71. 71
  72. 72
    AnotherBruce says:

    @srv: “Say what you want about Republicans, but at least they offer variety.”

    Say what you want about the tenets of national socialism dude at least it’s an ethos

  73. 73
    Ben says:

    Well, Snowball Snookie used private e-mail accounts during her brief stint as governor and the only response from the teahadists was “these aren’t the droids your looking for”. In addition, it was well known that she was threatening people via these accounts and god knows what else.

  74. 74
    hitchhiker says:

    I swear to dog. Just now I ran down to the local coffee joint to pick up some beans. On the way, turned on NPR for the first time in ages and ages. And what do I hear as the TOP STORY OF THE HOUR but this shmizzleshite mess about how Hillary Clinton is in trouble because even tho’ the NYT was wrong to use the word criminal there is still a problem.

    And it’s her problem b/c she was in NYC today giving a speech about how we need some solid long-term thinking about capitalism & how to make it work for everybody . . . and nobody paid attention to that speech b/c everybody was talking about the NYT story, even tho’ that story turned out to be wrong. And we don’t really understand yet what the issue is, but you know, drip drip drip, it’s just going to kill her if she doesn’t deal with it.

    AND THEN they invited David Fking Brooks to weigh in. And things really went downhill. Guess what, All Things Considered? You’re terrible.

  75. 75
  76. 76
    kped45 says:

    My worry about these stories is the NYT has a grudge. And being proven wrong won’t chasten them. It will only make them double down, because damn it, they know there is something there! Instead of fixing their reputation by reporting properly (like, seriously, if you get a leak from a prominent republican and you don’t immediately quadruple check it’s veracity, you have failed as a journalist), they will try to “fix” their reputation by searching and searching for their white whale, the story that will finally put those troublesome Clinton’s away.

Comments are closed.