Discredited journalist Ed Klein is pushing a dubious conspiracy theory that White House adviser Valerie Jarrett leaked the Hillary Clinton email story to the media, an anonymously sourced allegation that's giving Klein renewed attention in the pages and on the airwaves of the right-wing press.
Earlier this month, a flawed New York Times report sensationalized the fact that as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton used a personal email address to conduct State Department business.
Klein is now positing that Jarrett "leaked" the story to the press, as he writes in a March 16 column in the New York Post. Klein cites anonymous "members of Bill Clinton's camp" and a nameless "source close to the White House" to come to the conclusion that the Obama administration is deliberately trying to "sabotage" the possible presidential ambitions of Obama's former secretary of state.
His conspiracy theory was given a platform across the full spectrum of conservative media, which called it "explosive" and "reveal[ing]." Fox News featured several segments on Klein's theory and even hosted him on the set of Fox & Friends earlier this month to hype his "bombshell claim."
Conservative media continue to afford Klein credibility despite a resume riddled with lies and discredited writing.
A few of his greatest hits:
In a 2010 entry in The Huffington Post, Klein detailed President Obama's "humiliation" of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu, claiming that sources told him of Obama leaving during a meeting with Netenyahu to have dinner with Michelle and their two daughters. One phone call would have revealed that to be impossible, since Michelle, Sasha and Malia were all in New York City at the time."
Klein's latest claims come fresh off the heels of his 2014 book, Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas. Blood Feud was roundly ridiculed for its sourcing problems and unlikely anecdotes, even by Fox figures like Megyn Kelly and Brian Kilmeade.
From the March 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
Loading the player reg...
The New York Times has begun to quietly reverse course on reports about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email use, after Times public editor Margaret Sullivan admitted that the publication's initial misleading insinuation that Clinton violated the law was "not without fault." The new, more accurate reporting underscores the publication's initial sloppiness and rush to judgment.
Right-wing media are accusing President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder of supposedly fostering a culture that led to the shooting of two police officers in Ferguson, Missouri.
Fox & Friends highlighted the Department of Justice's finding of systematic racial bias in the Ferguson Police Department to blame Attorney General Eric Holder for the shooting of two police officers, after previously overlooking the racial bias findings when the report was first released in order to hype the lack of charges against Darren Wilson.
On March 4, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released the findings of their Ferguson investigation in two reports. One report stated that police officer Darren Wilson's "'actions do not constitute prosecutable violations' of federal civil rights law," while the second report found "systemic racial discrimination by the Ferguson Police."
On the March 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, reporter Peter Doocy described the DOJ's finding of racial bias, emphasizing that Attorney General Eric Holder "floated the possibility" of dissolving the Ferguson police department as a result, while co-host Steve Doocy linked the DOJ report and Holder's response to the shooting of two police officers in Ferguson. Doocy described the shooting, saying, "a new wave of violence comes one week after Attorney General Eric Holder vowed to dismantle that city's police department," and questioned whether it was "what he wanted."
Co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck asked Fox senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano whether Holder "fuel[ed] the flame," and Napolitano asserted, "he probably did fuel the flame," emphasizing that "the political environment in which this happened, obviously, the flames were fanned by" Holder.
CNN has quietly revised a sloppy report on the cost and difficulty of reviewing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails, adding to an increasing list of media outlets that have been forced to walk back over-hyped, seemingly-scandalous reports on the topic.
Clinton's emails have come under scrutiny because she used a personal email account, rather than an official government state.gov account, during her time at the State Department. This was legal and in line with State Department regulations at the time, but a misleading New York Times report has set off a media frenzy. Outlets seem desperate to find a scandal, which is leading them to publish stories before they have all the facts straight.
On March 11, CNN published an article (which is still available in its original version on Yahoo) noting that Clinton's emails have been submitted for review for public release as printed-out hard copies, rather than electronic documents. The article compares Clinton to trial lawyers engaging in a "data dump" that is designed "to slowdown opponents by drowning them in unorganized information that's difficult to comb through." Elsewhere, CNN claimed of the printed emails (emphasis added):
By doing it that way, Clinton has made it harder and more expensive for the federal government to quickly review her emails and decide what's OK for the public and what's not.
As of this morning, however, this inaccurate sentence has been removed from the CNN article, and a key fact was added that was not in the original report (emphasis added):
[A] State Department official said that printing emails is common practice because they would have to print Clinton's emails in their normal review process.
The CNN article includes no mention that anything has been updated.
Media figures are acknowledging that Hillary Clinton did not violate federal regulations with her use of personal email, a contrast to The New York Times' initial rush to judgment of possible wrongdoing on Clinton's part that kicked off a media feeding frenzy.
The New York Times published another speculative, counter-factual article in its campaign to scandalize Hillary Clinton's email use, this time insinuating that the former secretary of state is lying about having never sent classified emails during her tenure.
Clinton made clear that she "did not email any classified material to anyone on my email," during a Tuesday press conference made necessary by a manufactured scandal created by earlier shoddy reporting from the Times.
Providing no evidence to contradict Clinton, the Times turned to "some security experts and former government officials" whom they claimed "were skeptical." According to the Times, "Anyone who has tried to pry information from the federal government may have been surprised on Tuesday by Hillary Rodham Clinton's assertion that in all her emails in four years as secretary of state she never strayed into the classified realm."
The Times actually undercut its own reporting, burying the fact that Clinton issued a statement making clear that "Classified information was viewed in hard copy by the secretary while in the office.
That statement further explained: "A separate, closed system was used by the Department for the sole purpose of handling classified communications which was designed to prevent such information from being transmitted anywhere other than within that system, including to outside email accounts."
The Times' reliance on baseless speculation to insinuate wrongdoing adheres to the framework it established when first reporting on Clinton's use of a personal email account.
The New York Times was already forced to walk back their sloppy reporting on Clinton's emails -- after which the publication's public editor admitted conceded the story "was not without fault" and "should have been clearer about precisely what regulations might have been violated." Despite the initial report's suggestion that Clinton violated federal record keeping rules, the Times' key source later clarified that she in fact did not "violate" the law. Others in the media have consequently retracted their own baseless claims made in the rush to scandalize Clinton's emails after Times' report.
From the March 11 edition of CNN's New Day:
Loading the player reg...
From the March 10 edition of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show:
Loading the player reg...
From the March 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Loading the player reg...
From the March 10 edition of MSNBC's The Ed Show:
Loading the player reg...
Multiple media outlets have been forced to walk back and update initial reports scandalizing Hillary Clinton's use of a private email account during her tenure as secretary of state, after The New York Times kicked off the pseudo-scandal in an article the paper later acknowledged was "not without fault."
Eric Bolling, co-host of Fox News' The Five, accused Hillary Clinton of "blusters" and "lying" for saying in her press conference that she was unable to securely access multiple email accounts on one mobile phone, opting instead to use her own email server instead of using two phones. But at the time, it was reportedly not possible to have two accounts on a secure BlackBerry like the one Clinton carreid.
Fox News figures are adopting an impossible standard to launch unprovable allegations against Hillary Clinton, arguing that the absence of an email can insinuate that Clinton either withheld or destroyed evidence.
Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, claimed on the March 8 edition of CBS' Face The Nation that there are "gaps of months" in Clinton's email documents turned over by the State Department for the committee's investigation. To prove his claim, Gowdy referenced a photo of Clinton on her phone during a trip to Tripoli, Libya, and the absence of any email from that day related to Benghazi. According to Gowdy's logic: "It strains credibility to believe that if you're on your way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy that there's not a single document that's been turned over to Congress."
Fox News personalities quickly adopted Gowdy's absurd line of attack against Clinton. On his radio show, Sean Hannity asserted that "you can't tell me that it was an accident that 55,000 pages of emails were turned over but not one was about Benghazi." Fox contributor Andrew Napolitano took the attack further alleging that Clinton's control of her documents means Gowdy "does not know if she gave him everything he subpoenaed." Bill O'Reilly echoed Gowdy's allegations on the March 9 edition of his show, saying "there's already a gap brought out by Congressman Gowdy" because "the day that she traveled to Libya, there's no emails that came out on that and it's inconceivable that she wouldn't have any." And during an interview with Gowdy, Megyn Kelly agreed with demands that Clinton turn over her private email server stating that Clinton "chose to create a situation" where questions about her emails would need to be answered.
According to that fallacious reasoning, the absence of evidence proves wrongdoing on Clinton's part.
The reality is, the State Department turned over Clinton emails related to Benghazi to the Select Committee months ago. In a March 6 letter chastising Gowdy for "the very partisan and political turn" to issue a subpoena to Clinton, Democratic members of the House Select Committee noted that the State Department already turned over 300 Clinton emails related to Benghazi, and those emails confirm the findings of the Accountability Review Board:
These documents include no evidence to suggest that Secretary Clinton ordered the Secretary of Defense to "stand down," no evidence to suggest that she was personally involved in denying requests for security for Benghazi, and no evidence to suggest that she ordered the destruction of documents. Nothing in these emails contradicts or calls into question the findings of the independent Accountability Review Board.