The Hill falsely claimed "Clinton skip[ped] Senate hearing she called for"
An article in the November 1 print edition of The Hill falsely claimed that "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) skipped an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing Wednesday [October 31] that she called for earlier this year." The article continued, "But if Clinton was seeking answers from administration officials [on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, which Clinton opposes] she was not doing it from the committee dais. She was nowhere to be seen at Wednesday's hearing."
In fact, Clinton was present at the October 31 committee hearing, where she stated her opposition to the Yucca Mountain proposal and questioned administration officials. Transcript and video from the hearing is available on Clinton's Senate website, as well as on the Environment and Public Works Senate Committee website. The article appears to have been removed from The Hill website, but Media Matters for America could find no evidence that The Hill issued a correction.
Additionally, October 31 reports on the hearing by McClatchy Newspapers and the Associated Press noted Clinton's presence. From the McClatchy report:
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday declared themselves flatly opposed to building a nuclear waste repository in Nevada, a clear indication that the 2008 presidential election could end a 25-year effort to build the controversial dump.
Clinton delivered her opposition in person and Obama by letter as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held its first hearing on Yucca Mountain since Democrats took over Congress in January.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the panel's chair, said she had scheduled the hearing at the request of Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, who has been campaigning in Nevada on the issue. The state caucuses are Jan. 19.
From the AP report:
Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton joined Nevada officials in lashing out at the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump at a Senate hearing Wednesday.
[...]
Clinton requested the Senate environment committee hearing after promising Nevada voters she'd do so.
The Hill also reported that "Clinton's absence drew a strong rebuke from Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee. ... Inhofe did not mince words about Clinton's absence: 'When Sen. Clinton had the opportunity to ask "hard questions" of administration officials about Yucca Mountain, she was missing in action. In fact, Sen. Clinton failed to ask any questions because she was absent from the last two [Environment and Public Works] hearings on Yucca Mountain.['] " Inhofe was present at the October 31 hearing. The quote The Hill attributed to Inhofe on Clinton's alleged absence is identical to a quote attributed to Inhofe by the Las Vegas Review-Journal on July 26. From the July 26 edition of the Review-Journal:
Inhofe questioned Clinton's call for Senate action. He said she did not attend a committee hearing on Yucca Mountain on March 1, 2006, and a subcommittee hearing on nuclear waste on Sept. 14.
In a statement, Inhofe said he took exception to a Clinton comment to reporters that the Republicans when they ran Congress were "not willing to ask the hard questions" about the repository.
"When Senator Clinton had the opportunity to ask 'hard questions' of administration officials about Yucca Mountain, she was missing in action," Inhofe said.
"In fact, Senator Clinton failed to ask any questions because she was absent from the last two EPW hearings on Yucca Mountain," he said.
One of the hearings was by a subcommittee that Clinton did not belong to. But committee members are allowed to attend all meetings, said Marc Morano, a Republican committee aide.
"She could still attend," Morano said. "Either she did not consider it important enough or she was too busy to attend."
Clinton's campaign responded with information on the senator's whereabouts on the days of the hearings.
On March 1, she attended an overlapping hearing on the Ryan White CARE Act, an aid bill for HIV/AIDS patients.
On Sept. 14, Clinton chaired a meeting of the Democratic Steering Committee that involved international women's rights. She then attended a Senate Armed Services Committee closed meeting on military commissions to handle the treatment of enemy combatants.
Although the article has apparently been removed from The Hill's website, it has been posted on websites such as Free Republic and AgainstHillary.com.
The November 1 Hill article -- "Clinton skips Senate hearing she called for" -- reprinted below in its entirety:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) skipped an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing Wednesday that she called for earlier this year.
Clinton's absence drew a strong rebuke from Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Clinton, a member of the committee, praised Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) a few weeks ago for scheduling the hearing on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, a project that many Nevada voters oppose fiercely.
"I applaud Chairman Boxer for scheduling this important hearing, a step that I called for earlier this year," she said. "I am strongly opposed to Yucca Mountain because there are too many unanswered questions about both the geology of the site and the integrity of the science done to support the decision to store waste there.
"That's why this hearing is so important. We need answers ... and I will be asking for them on the 31st," Clinton added.
But if Clinton was seeking answers from administration officials, she was not doing it from the committee dais. She was nowhere to be seen at Wednesday's hearing.
Inhofe did not mince words about Clinton's absence: "When Sen. Clinton had the opportunity to ask 'hard questions' of administration officials about Yucca Mountain, she was missing in action. In fact, Sen. Clinton failed to ask any questions because she was absent from the last two [Environment and Public Works] hearings on Yucca Mountain.
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, however, made sure to weigh in on the hearing. He penned a letter to Boxer dated Oct. 30 stating his opposition to the Yucca project.
Obama is not a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
"I believe that it is no longer a sustainable federal policy for Yucca Mountain to be considered as a permanent repository," Obama wrote.
Nevada voters are of particular interest to the Democratic hopefuls because the state is scheduled to hold a presidential caucus on Jan. 19.
Clinton's Senate spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
Man, don't these wingers hate it when those pesky little things called facts get in the way of a perfectly good lie?
"Although the article has apparently been removed from The Hill's website, it has been posted on websites such as Free Republic and AgainstHillary.com."
Somebody check out Russert's website.
I'll bet you'll find it there too.
Get ready for it. If you liked what the flying monkeys did to Gore and Kerry, you'll LOVE what they have in store for Hillary; I predict a propaganda sh*tstorm of Biblical proportions if she's the nominee. I have my own reservations about Hillary, but she's about to be buried under a mountain of lies and half-truths that will make the Swiftboating of Kerry look like an endorsement.
If the Democrats don't come up with an effective response this time, we're doomed to another 4-8 years under one more Republican Troglodyte.
And this is all it takes. A seemingly reliable source (at least by conservative media standards) prints a lie, gives the wacko sites a few hours to post their lie, then removes the original as a show of credibility.
In the meantime, the nuts in Freeperville have seen the BS, attributed to a "respectable" source.
And the secondary site doesn't need to print a correction, as long as their posting included "according to..."
And the secondary site doesn't need to print a correction, as long as their posting included "according to..."
Not just sites but the entire news megaloply.
I would remind you that Fox News for example almost never admits a mistake or error. When a lie it is exposed so much they can't tell it anymore, they simply stop reporting the lie. (Except in the late night summaries and talk shows where it continues). Many viewers never know the truth. Pity them.
Bush himself used this dodge when he said "The British have learned than Saddam tried to buy yellow cake". We knew it probably wasn't true but didn't tell the Brits.
I have already heard the giant sucking sound.
Like you, I have reservations, but instead of seeing an honest debate about Clintons beliefs, aspirations and plans for America and how they could play out during her presidency, we get cleavage, cackle, wardrobe choices, vocal shrillness, and boldfaced lies about where she was and when.
All logic, civility and relevance are being sucked out of the campaign by a for-profit media shirking its responsibility.
Agreed. The "Press" which was given Constitutional protection by our Founders apparently exists no more. It has never been a perfect institution, but its current incarnation is practically obscene.
It seems to have happened with the advent of the 24/7 news cycle. You'd think that, with all this extra time to fill, they would do more investigative, in-depth pieces. Unfortunately, they seem to do less of that kind of thing, and more fluff. I guess investigative reporting isn't good for the bottom line. I am ever amazed at how much time they can spend bloviating about insignificant crap, then examine how their colleagues cover the same insignificant crap...then the media coverage itself becomes the story. It's sickening.
Nerz, I'm in complete fear myself about the Hillary nom. I picture greasy haired dudes compiling volumes of lie after lie, scraping to their god Karl and desperately capitulating to their Repub creed - power at any price.
Nevada, 35th most populous state in the union, with only 3 House seats, has been railroaded by the government and the nuclear power industry.
Just how "American" has the Yucca Mountain process been?
Good work MMFA. Whoever wrote this article for the Hill either got their facts wrong or were stupid enough to try to hoist this over on all of us.
Maybe its one of those, "the facts are wrong, but the story is true" stories? :-)
Another black mark for journalism.
The worst part is that it is the Hill for God's sake. They are supposed to be the paper of record for the Congress, and they can't even figure out who was in attendance at a hearing? That seems pretty flimsy to me as just an honest mistake. This media echo chamber is much too focused on certain issues and people to be just lazy journalism. They are laying the groundwork for some big time Clinton lies. And we all know that they have the power to take down a candidate when they want to. It sickens me.
I have some friends that work for the House -- their general opinion are the Hill's reporters are as a whole slackers and incompetent.
You can always know what the facts are on any news on which the Hill posts an opinion. Just know that the facts are absolutely the total opposite from what the Hill says.