Hillary Clinton

Tags ››› Hillary Clinton
  • CNN: “Near Unanimous Agreement” Among Journalists That AP Botched Its Report On Clinton Meetings

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    CNN’s senior media reporter Dylan Byers reported that media outlets criticized an “arguably misleading” story by the Associated Press, where an “inaccurate tweet” promoting the story falsely claimed that “more than half” of the people who met Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state had also donated to the Clinton Foundation.

    According to the AP’s original review (the story has since been changed) of State Department calendars released to the organization so far, covering roughly half of Clinton’s tenure at State, “[a]t least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs.” The AP promoted this story on Twitter by proclaiming “[m]ore than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretary gave money to Clinton Foundation.”

    Byers explained that other journalists “noted that Clinton had held thousands of meetings with government employees, foreign representatives, civil leaders, journalists and others while Secretary of State that were not accounted for in the AP's report,” but the AP “is still standing by its story and has yet to correct its tweet, despite near unanimous agreement among other journalists that the tweet, at least, was false.” The AP’s story was also criticized for characterizing Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, who has been a friend of the Clintons for decades, as little more than a donor asking for help. From Byers’ August 26 report:

    Hillary Clinton is surrounded by suggestions of controversy. Terms like "Clinton Foundation," "email server," and "Benghazi" hover around her like a faint smoke that hints at the existence of fire.

    But finding the fire -- the lie, the misdeed, the unethical act -- is proving to be rather difficult, as evidenced this week by an inaccurate tweet and arguably misleading story from the Associated Press that were quickly rebutted by the Clinton campaign and dismissed by many media outlets.

    Three days later, the Associated Press is still standing by its story and has yet to correct its tweet, despite near unanimous agreement among other journalists that the tweet, at least, was false.

    "The AP's social-media take on the story was seriously flawed," David Boardman, the Dean of the School of Media and Communication at Temple University and former editor of the Seattle Times, told CNNMoney. "It's sloppy, click-grabbing shorthand that is a disservice to the reporting to which it refers."

    [...]

    This "extraordinary" finding, as the AP put it, was deemed less extraordinary by other journalists and pundits who noted that Clinton had held thousands of meetings with government employees, foreign representatives, civil leaders, journalists and others while Secretary of State that were not accounted for in the AP's report.

    [...]

    Meanwhile, other news organizations pilloried the AP's report.

    The Washington Post Fact-Checker wrote that there were "many more nuanced and important details in the story that are being misrepresented — by the AP's own promotional tweet, and by Trump."

    Vox's Matthew Yglesias was more direct: "The AP's big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess," his headline read.

  • Fox's Megyn Kelly Invites Julian Assange To Discuss His Future Plans To Attack Hillary Clinton

    Kelly: “Do You Believe The Information In Your Possession Could Be A Game-Changer In The US Election?"

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    Fox News’ Megyn Kelly invited Wikileaks’ editor-in-chief Julian Assange to discuss the “significant” material on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton he plans to leak before the election day in order to damage her campaign. 

    Previously, Fox had repeated Assange’s conspiracy that a DNC staffer was murdered because of association with WikiLeaks, while a report on Fox and Friends cited Assange in a claim that Google buried stories about the “Clinton body count.” For his part, Assange has discussed an “October Surprise” with unofficial Trump adviser Roger Stone, who claims that the Clintons have murdered 40 people, including JFK Jr., for being “in the way.” From the August 24 edition of Fox News’ The Kelly File:

    MEGYN KELLY (HOST): Julian, thank you very much for being here. So, let's start with the additional information you have regarding Hillary Clinton. When can we expect this information? 

    JULIAN ASSANGE: Well we're working around the clock. We have received quite a lot of material [INAUDIBLE] electoral process and by a major DNC revelation, which has now led to the resignation of five top officials at the DNC, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the president, the last one, late last week. It's a complex business, what we do. We have to assess the veracity, we have a perfect ten-year record, so far, in never getting it wrong. We want the keep that reputation. Understand how things should be formatted, what media should we be involved in, what is the best way to stage it out, do we accumulate everything, assess it, publish all in one batch or do we do several batches. The approach we have decided to take is that we do several batches.

    KELLY: Give us a general sense. Are we going to see it before the November 8th election? 

    ASSANGE: Yes, absolutely.  I mean, in the case of the DNC leaks, for example, we pushed as fast as we could to try to get it in before the Democratic nomination conference because obviously people have a right to understand who it is they're nominating and what sort of process was involved and the same is true here. For the US electoral process, people involved in that election have the right to understand who it is they're electing. 

    KELLY: Now, you've seen it, right? Can you tell us how significant you believe it is? I mean, compare its significance to what we saw released by WikiLeaks in July. 

    ASSANGE:  I don't want to scoop ourselves. We have a lot of pages of material, thousands of pages of material. So, no I have not read every single page, we’re hard at work in doing that, trying to understand, etc. I didn't want to give the game away but it's a variety of different types of documents from different types of institutions that are associated with the election campaign, some quite unexpected angles that are, you know, quite interesting, some even entertaining. 

    KELLY:  Do you -- you know, right now according to the average of all polls, she's beating Donald Trump by 5.5 points nationwide. She's way ahead of him in most of the swing states, not all. Do you believe the information in your possession could be a game-changer in the US election? 

    ASSANGE:  I think it's significant. You know, it depends on how it catches fire in the public and in the media. 

  • The Huge Media Failure Behind The Latest Clinton Global Initiative Pseudo-Scandal

    Despite Reporting, Bahraini Crown Prince Didn’t Give $32 Million To CGI

    ››› ››› ZACHARY PLEAT

    Numerous media outlets covering released State Department emails pushed by the conservative group Judicial Watch falsely claimed that Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain gave the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) tens of millions of dollars, which they suggested was linked to him meeting with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In fact, none of the money in question went to the Clinton Global Initiative -- the crown prince made a “Commitment to Action” to fund the scholarship program at a Clinton Global Initiative event, and the money raised from business donors in Bahrain and elsewhere went to the crown prince’s scholarship program to educate Bahraini students.

  • The New York Times And Trump’s Loopy Note From His Doctor

    Blog ››› ››› ERIC BOEHLERT

    Donald Trump

    With Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his media surrogates making unfounded allegations about Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s mental and physical well-being and demanding she release more medical records, The New York Times recently addressed the issue of candidate health. In a story headlined "Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Ages 68 and 70, Share Few Health Details," the newspaper claimed that both Trump and Clinton “have been more secretive and selective than many recent presidential nominees in providing up-to-date details about their personal health.”

    The Times article quickly conceded that Trump has been less forthcoming than Clinton. But it’s wildly misguided to suggest Trump and Clinton have treated the issue of medical disclosures in a remotely similar fashion. Yes, each candidate has released a letter from his or her personal doctor evaluating the candidate’s current health. But it’s fantasy to pretend that the two doctors’ letters are comparable.

    And that’s where the Times examination really stumbled, by trying to take seriously the dubious letter from Trump’s doctor that was released last December -- a letter that has been widely derided as a joke. “It purports to be a medical letter, but it is one of the most ridiculous documents ever to emerge in any political campaign,” Kurt Eichenwald recently wrote for Newsweek.

    So committed was the paper to the narrative that both Clinton and Trump were hiding their medical past, the Times ignored the real story: Trump has released no verifiable information about his medical history. None. Because to date, Trump’s only medical release is his very weird doctor’s letter, which remains a completely useless document.

    The brief, vague letter was released 11 days after Trump vowed in December to make public a “full medical report” about his physical health and fitness to serve as president. He bragged that the medical report would “show perfection.”

    To date, there’s been no medical report, just the weird, uninformative letter penned by Dr. Harold N. Bornstein.

    Accentuated by typos -- including a very odd “To Whom My Concern” salutation -- and featuring a website URL that doesn’t work, Trump’s four-paragraph medical letter was filled with strange terms like “astonishingly excellent,” which convey no medical meaning.  

    Dr. Jennifer Gunter dissected the Trump letter for The Huffington Post, noting that doctors "just don't typically write vague, quasi-medical things in letters. ... I would never write anything this terrible for a jury duty excuse or a back to work note. ... It’s medically illiterate.”

    At one point, Trump’s doctor boasted that the Republican nominee’s “physical strength and stamina are extraordinary.” But the doctor never explained how he measured Trump’s stamina and strength. Bornstein also claimed Trump had lost “at least fifteen pounds” in the previous year, but he never listed the candidate’s current weight.

    Another gaping hole, as noted by Eichenwald:

    The letter from the Trump campaign mentions nothing about family history, as any normal letter assessing someone’s medical condition would. (Clinton’s does.) Family history is critical in understanding possible diseases that may emerge, particularly those with a genetic link. Trump’s father, Fred Trump, died from complications of late-onset Alzheimer’s disease.

    Meanwhile, Bornstein in the letter says he’s been treating Trump for decades. But note that the physician is a gastroenterologist, a doctor who treats digestive tract problems. If Trump is in such “astonishingly excellent” health, why has he been going to see a gastroenterologist for nearly half his life? (Clinton’s letter of medical evaluation was written by Lisa Bardack, director of internal medicine in the Mount Sinai Health System at CareMount Medical.)

    None of it makes any sense, which is why the Trump letter has been widely derided as a joke. Yet this week the Times opted to treat the letter as legitimate in an effort to portray Trump and Clinton as equally secretive.

    The truth is, Clinton has released about as much medical information as President Obama did when he ran for president in 2008. By contrast, Trump has released only a baffling, useless document from his gastroenterologist. “The letter provides essentially no medical information,” wrote Gunter.

    The Times is right that there is a candidate in this race who’s being “more secretive and selective” about releasing medical information. But it’s not Clinton.

  • Fox Claim That Half Of Clinton State Dept. Visitors Were Donors Undermined By AP Report

    Associated Press Explains That Report Only Includes Her Meetings With People Outside The Government

    Blog ››› ››› BOBBY LEWIS

    Fox News personalities deceptively cited an Associated Press report to claim that half of all of Hillary Clinton’s visitors during her tenure as secretary of state were donors to the Clinton Foundation. But the AP only included her meetings with people “outside the government,” and the report made clear that her actions do not appear to violate the law. 

    A review of State Department calendars showed “at least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton … donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs,”  according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press.

    Fox News argued the report was proof of “influence peddling,” claiming it found over 50 percent of all Clinton’s meetings at the State Department were with Clinton Foundation donors. Stuart Varney, guest host of Your World with Neil Cavuto, called the AP report “clear evidence” of “a round robin of influence peddling” because Clinton “holds meetings half the time” with donors: 

    STUART VARNEY (HOST): This late report from the AP, roughly half the people who had meetings with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had contributed money to the foundation. That is clear evidence, it seems, of influence peddling, doesn't it? You can't laugh that off, can you? 

    [...]

    You give money to a foundation. The foundation is headed by the Clintons. Hillary Clinton is secretary of state. She holds meetings half the time with with people who have given money to the foundation. That's a round robin of influence peddling. 

    The AP report makes clear that the meetings “do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former President Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009.” Additionally, AP explains that 154 meetings “did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives”:

    More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

    At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. 

    [...]

    The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. 

    [...]

    The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.

  • Media Scandalize Clinton Connections By Mischaracterizing International Security Advisory Board Appointee As Unfit

    ››› ››› NICK FERNANDEZ

    Right-wing media are scandalizing the 2011 State Department International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) appointment of Rajiv Fernando, a Chicago-based securities trader and Clinton Foundation donor, suggesting Fernando knew “absolutely nothing about intel” and claiming he was only appointed because “he donated up to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.” But Fernando is an expert in cybersecurity, which the ISAB prepared a report on in 2014, and the State Department said the ISAB is “looking for a broad range of experiences” when considering candidates.

  • Fox Sunday Shows Baselessly Suggest Clinton Gave Favors To Foundation Donors

    ››› ››› BOBBY LEWIS

    Fox News’ Sunday shows continued to hype the claim by the conservative group Judicial Watch that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton gave favors to a Clinton Foundation donor when she was secretary of state. The Fox reports ignored that the emails provide no evidence of the donor seeking to benefit from the State Department and that the person the donor asked to meet has “never met nor spoken” with him.