For second day in a row, NY Times falsely suggested Bill Clinton refuses to disclose source of speaking fees
SUMMARY: In an article about whether Sen. Hillary Clinton would accept the position of secretary of state in an Obama administration, The New York Times reported that aides to President-elect Barack Obama "have been reviewing Mr. [Bill] Clinton's business dealings, focusing on the array of his post-presidential activities, some details of which have not been made public. That includes the identity of most of the donors to his foundation" and "the source of some of his speaking fees." But the Times did not note that the source and amount of all of Bill Clinton's speaking fees of $200 or more are disclosed annually in Hillary Clinton's Senate disclosure forms.
In a November 18 New York Times article about whether Sen. Hillary Clinton would accept the position of secretary of state in an Obama administration, Raymond Hernandez and Michael Luo reported: "Mr. [Barack] Obama's aides this week have been reviewing Mr. [Bill] Clinton's business dealings, focusing on the array of his post-presidential activities, some details of which have not been made public. That includes the identity of most of the donors to his foundation, the source of some of his speaking fees -- he has earned as much as $425,000 for a one-hour speech -- and his work for the billionaire investor Ronald W. Burkle." In fact, Bill Clinton's speaking fees are disclosed annually in Hillary Clinton's Senate disclosure forms -- including a $425,000 speech he delivered on August 14, 2007, for AEG London, which was listed in Hillary Clinton's 2008 Senate disclosure form.
As Media Matters for America noted, Hillary Clinton is required to disclose all speaking fees she and/or her husband earned of $200 or more, according to the Senate disclosure form. If Hillary Clinton remains in the Senate, Bill Clinton's 2008 speaking fees would be included in her 2009 Senate disclosure forms. If Hillary Clinton becomes secretary of state, executive branch financial disclosure rules would require her -- as the Senate does -- to disclose speaking fees earned by Bill Clinton of $200 or more.
This is the second time in two days in which the Times has misled on the disclosure of Bill Clinton's speaking fees.
From Hernandez and Luo's November 18 New York Times article:
The Clinton camp on Tuesday sought to rebut reports that former President Bill Clinton's finances and other interests could block Mrs. Clinton's path to an appointment.
Mr. Obama's aides this week have been reviewing Mr. Clinton's business dealings, focusing on the array of his post-presidential activities, some details of which have not been made public.
That includes the identity of most of the donors to his foundation, the source of some of his speaking fees -- he has earned as much as $425,000 for a one-hour speech -- and his work for the billionaire investor Ronald W. Burkle.
Funny that the Corporate Media Hacks are hyperventilating over stuff like this, yet are largely silent about the revelation that President Numbnuts and his Toadies were exaggerating the number of Iranian weapons found in Iraq.
Have we somehow reached the point that the revelation of yet another lie from these criminals is just "old news"?
The current administration is replete with white collar criminals and habitual liars, yet the MSM is hysterical over Obama's cabinet picks? GMAFB
Sad.... What do you want to bet that the Times *author* actually GOT his 425K reference FROM Hillary's discloure forms?
... and thought he was some genius that solved some intricate puzzle to actually decipher the forms?
I was looking for some more positives to Hillary having a place in the Obama administration. Maybe if the wacky media is busy following Bill around sniffing his shorts, it will allow President Obama more time to get to work starting to clean up the W. mess.
The media take on Obama's cabinet picks (especially Fox, especially Hannity) is pretty funny. After trying to hammer in the "radical" and "inexperienced" themes throughout the entire campaign, suddenly they're having hissy fits about the number of old-guard Dems being given positions. As Hannity likes to say, "You call that change? (smirk)"
Yes, it is change, Sean, unless you consider Bush's run the same as Clinton's. And I don't think you want to do that, even for entirely wrong reasons.
I wonder if the left leaning press will now display the outrage toward terrorism that has not been displayed for years since this thug released this new take attacking our President Elect
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27800654/
Oh, well he's a real poopy head!
After that they can tell us how many Iraqis have died in the occupation. ILEA might get a few lines,seizing war protestors assets, Guest Workers Inc, the secret changing of executive orders, the Vetrans Adminstrations treatment of returning disabled vets, the profits accrued by profiteers in the No Child Left Behind program, tracking the billions lost to contractors in Iraq, world wide slavery, cruelty and death in juvenile detention centers, new records in marijuana arrests, and the FDA complicent in pushing pharmaceutical drugs. The later now are the cause of more yearly deaths than from ilicit drugs.
So if the liberal media ever magically appears, they've got a lot of work on their vertual desks.
Here's a deal:
I'll trade you some outrage over turrist activity for some outrage over the outright lies heaped upon us by the Bush Administration, and the costly, unnecessary war in which we found ourselves as a result. Then maybe we could get some outrage over the brazen corruption of the Justice Department by that Bush Toadie, Karl Rove. After that, just for grins, could we add just a touch of disgust over the lies just revealed concerning all those Iranian weapons that weren't really found in Iraq, after all?
Deal?
Sure, I think the Bush Administration has been horrible and Karl Rove should be in jail so spare your outrage.
Well, good for you. But since the "Left-leaning Media" have given President Numbnuts a pass on these matters, what response do you expect from them about a bunch of international criminals on whom we're already dropping bombs?
I'll bet that Osama Bin Laden's approval rating is even lower than Bush's. What do you want the "Liberal Media" to do?
I want the media to report that we still face a serious threat from these al qeida slimeballs and that it does not matter who is President Republican or Democratic President, they hate us. Al- Qeida hates America . This is not about Bush, this is about our President Elect .
My question below;
Casey, how would you suggest the "left leaning press" more effectively display their outrage?
Is this your answer to that? The press should report that we're in danger, and that Al Qaeda hates America? What would they use as a source for that?
Seems that Obama has already said that destroying Al Qaeda is a priority. Are you hoping that the press will become War Cheerleaders for him as they did for the unnecessary invasion of Iraq?
You said you wanted more "outrage" about terrorists. This sounds like a warmed over Sean Hannity talking point. How much "outrage" do you need? It's not like many Americans need to be convinced that blowing up children is a bad thing, or that sawing off the heads of journalists is incorrect behavior.
We get it.
When righties bring up this subject, it's usually in response to any criticism of President Numbnuts' foreign policy blunders, as if just reminding us of how bad the terrorists are will excuse Bush's stupidity and lies.
No, we understand that the terrorists are a threat. We just don't think the best way to deal with them is to invade and occupy a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Nerzog, it sounds like you have a pretty well-reasoned view of things. Could you please try to show more of the ineffective outrage that's been the driving force for the past 8 years? Thanks.
This is not about Iraq, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 what is wrong with you?
It's the central front on the war on terror. Haven't you heard? Were you sick the day the Cons handed out that talking point?
What are you getting at then?
You're implying that we made a mistake by lashing out at Iraq. Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11. A couple of dozen people living in caves were responsible.
We've allowed a very few people, not governments, decimate our military, our constitution and our economy in what the administration said was a response to 9/11.
These thugs set us up to be beaten by our worst enemy, ourselves.
Are you trying to say that the "liberal" press should have stood up to the administration and the Chickenhawks in the right wing media? If so, I agree with you.
Are you trying to say that the "liberal" press should have stood up to the administration and the Chickenhawks in the right wing media? If so, I agree with you.
Yes and that is the problem, the media and the American people were sold a bill of goods on Iraq and therefore have seen future terrorism theats to be diminshed "boy who cried wolf" except it is serious, these people do not care what Party our President is from , they hate America and they seem to hate Obama and that should concern us all.
It does concern us, but we have to respond a little more intelligently than we did five years ago.
Could it be that Al Qaeda is trying to goad Obama into responding as Bush did, stomping around the Middle east like a bull in a china shop?
Casey, how would you suggest the "left leaning press" more effectively display their outrage?
If you have the time, who are the left leaning press?
Let's take a look at some of the things that mean ol' "left leaning" press has completely overlooked:
Project Censored's Top 25 Stories You Won't Hear From The Media
By Nicole Belle Tuesday Nov 18, 2008 1:44pmIt's been out for a while, but still cannot be mentioned enough. Project Censored, a media research and analysis group based at California's Sonoma State University has released the 25 Most Important Stories that are completely ignored by the mainstream media. They are:
Pretty much everything on that list is of great concern to the left, yet the "left leaning" press doesn't even report it. Wonder why that "left leaning" press wouldn't run a single story on issues that would benefit the left? Gee, maybe you can answer that, because for the life of me I can't figure out why the "left leaning" press doesn't cover issues of importance to the left...
Snoop! Glad you referenced Project censored- I have all their books! (Although I don't know why, for the life of me, they had to combine certain years, as if their isn't ENOUGH shiite being ignored EVERY year!) Also, those books were my first introduction to Tom Tomorrow (who I met in person here in the 'burgh at a talk- you'll have to excuse my name dropping, because seeing that Frasier guy, I've got nothing...)
I've noticed a pattern here with mr. casey. He's ignored the hard questions from the col. Hmmm, wonder why that is? ;)
Here's what I don't understand about your post:
What use is outage in the media?
What use is people getting incensed--especially if what we're getting incensed about is seven years old? We don't need therapy--we don't even need pregame motivation. What we need are solutions.
The Republicans took our perfectly understandable outrage over the 9/11 terrorist attacks and turned them into a jingoistic circus, a club to beat domestic political opponents over the head with, and an excuse for some of the stupidest, most counterproductive moves this country has EVER made. EVER.
We not only have a terrorist organization to dismntle--thanks to Bush we have a reputation to restore and alliances to rebuild.
Do we need outrage to accomplish these goals? No.
What do we need it for? to make ourselves feel righteous? That was never necessary, and is now worse than useless. The Republicans allowed and encouraged our outrage to degenerate into prolonged hysteria, and it has embarrassed us as a people and as a nation. It's time we wiped the foam of our lips and started acting like adults, if not leaders.
What we should do is what we should have done from the start: quietly and professionally, in concert with the rest of the world, isolate and neutralize these terrorist organizations, capture their leaders and put them on trial for crimes against humanity.
Outrage helps that, at this point, not one tiny bit.
The Times have always had it in for the Clintons for some weird reason I've never understood.
Because Hillary Clinton has neocon tendancies.
No...That's not it.
I see the losers are still po'd their chosen ones lost the election ! booo hooooo !!!
I'm waiting for the first pundit to point out that having H. Clinton in the cabinet puts her in the succession to the Presidency. (Oh, oh. Better watch your back President Obama and all of the others between him and Clinton)
"President Obama" I think that's the first time I typed that. It looks good.
I just saw the top al-qaida guy ( Zawahiri ) called our president elect Obama a negro. Well, I hope the right wing " conservative ' radio and tv talk show hosts at FOX and elsewhere take umbrage at this, publicly, protect the president with the same vigor they protected Bush against such vile verbal attacks. Or invite him to the inauguration ....