Hillary Clinton

Tags ››› Hillary Clinton
  • Fox's Varney Dubiously Claims US Is "Sliding Toward Recession" After Economy Grows Slightly Less Than Expected

    Stuart Varney: "It Is Legitimate To Use The Word Recession" Despite Seven Consecutive Quarters Of Economic Growth

    Blog ››› ››› ALEX MORASH

    Fox Business host Stuart Varney misleadingly used the Commerce Department's most recent economic growth estimate to claim the United States is "sliding toward recession." In reality, there are many reasons to believe economic activity will pick back up in the spring and summer this year.

    On the April 28 edition of Fox Business’ Varney & Co., Varney used the Commerce Department’s quarterly GDP report, which estimated economic expansion to be 0.5 percent in the first three months of 2016, to claim America is “sliding toward recession.” Guest Julie Roginsky attempted to correct Varney's characterization of the economy, explaining that the United States' economy is still growing and has created nearly 15 million new jobs over the course of “73 consecutive months of job growth,” but she couldn't budge the host from his talking points. Varney concluded the segment by claiming that the economy's supposed "downtrend" creates a "political problem" for Democratic politicians like Hillary Clinton:

     

    The last recession, which the National Bureau of Economic Research defines as “a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months,” began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, first quarter economic growth has typically lagged behind growth for the rest of the year since the economy emerged from the Bush-era Great Recession:

    Varney’s warning that a recession may be imminent does not match expert analysis. On April 28, The Washington Post reported that “most analysts say that the United States faces little risk of recession.” Reuters reported that "a pick-up in activity is anticipated" in the coming months "given a buoyant labor market." In fact, while Varney was pushing his dire warning about the state of the economy, Bank of America economist Ethan Harris was on CNBC's Squawk Box explaining how one could assume a recession is happening in the first quarter of almost every year “if you don’t adjust the data,” because “the winter hits” and the “shopping season ends.” In an interview with ABC News, economist Ian Shepherdson acknowledged that the current data "looks grim, but the second quarter will be much better."

    Varney is a serial misinformer on the economy, repeatedly attempting to spin data to claim President Obama’s economic policies have failed, even though the president’s economic legacy of the last seven years shows the unemployment rate has been cut in half, annual deficits have gone down, GDP has grown, and the United States enjoyed the third-longest stock market upswing in its history. Varney’s spin on economic data has gone so far that on December 4 -- in response to a strong November jobs report that beat most economists' expectations -- he managed to conclude that the pace of job creation was "mediocre," and on January 8 he downplayed the December jobs report as merely "modest" even though it was arguably the strongest jobs report of 2015.

  • Error-Filled Book Clinton Cash To Be Turned Into Movie For 2016 Election

    Blog ››› ››› ALEX KAPLAN

    Breitbart News' Stephen K. Bannon and Republican activist and strategist Peter Schweizer have turned Schweizer’s error-ridden book Clinton Cash into a movie in order to "engage voters" and attack Hillary Clinton.

    According to Bloomberg News, the movie will premiere in Cannes, France in May at a screening arranged for distributors, but it will make its American debut “on the eve of the Democratic National Convention.” As Bloomberg explained, "the Clinton Cash movie is less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons”:

    But while polls suggest Trump and Sanders will have a hard time stopping [Clinton], the team behind Clinton Cash—[Peter] Schweizer and Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News—haven’t given up. They’ve turned Clinton Cash into a movie, directed by M.A. Taylor, that will premiere next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors).

    As the trailer below indicates, the Clinton Cash movie is less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons[.]

    “It’s a story that resonated with people on the printed page,” said Schweizer. “We felt we needed to look at other platforms, too. The key is to engage voters. If you look at what’s motivating Trump and Sanders fans, it’s disgust with cronyism and corruption in Washington.”

    […]

    According to Bannon, the film’s U.S. premiere will be held in Philadelphia on July 24 on the eve of the Democratic National Convention. During the first week of August, he added, it will have a limited release in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Francisco.

    Media outlets -- particularly The New York Times and The Washington Post, which had exclusive editorial agreements with Schweizer -- hyped the book before its release. Fox News gave the book more than $107 million in free publicity -- before the book was even released. However, the book contained numerous false and misleading claims. Many media outlets subsequently admitted the book had little evidence to back up its claims. Schweizer, who has a history of faulty reporting, attempted to claim he was non-partisan because he was also investigating Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R). The result of that effort was a 38-page e-book, which is nearly a quarter of the length of Clinton Cash.

    To read more about the 20-plus errors, fabrications, and distortions in Peter Schweizer's book, click here.

  • Right-Wing Media Can't Believe Hillary Clinton Has Hot Sauce In Her Bag

    ››› ››› BRENNAN SUEN

    Right-wing media figures attacked Hillary Clinton for saying that she always carries hot sauce with her during an interview with a New York hip-hop radio show, attacking her for “pandering” and “casual racism.” But Salon reports that Clinton “has been talking about carrying hot sauce since 2008,” and various outlets over the years have reported that Clinton “packed pepper sauce” in her bag and had “a collection of more than 100 hot sauces” when she was first lady.

  • After Obama Says He Is Not Influencing Email Investigation, Conservative Media Claim President Is “Tipping The Scale” For Clinton

    ››› ››› JULIE ALDERMAN

    Right-wing media, including several Fox figures, accused President Obama of “tipping the scales” in favor of Hillary Clinton in the ongoing investigation into her email practices after Obama responded to a question posed by Fox’s Chris Wallace about his influence in the matter. During a Fox News Sunday interview, Obama said he guaranteed that “there is no political influence” in the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s private email server, and right-wing media responded by criticizing Obama for even answering the question.

  • Politico: Precedent Is On Clinton's Side Regarding Email Investigation

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    Politico’s Senior White House Reporter Josh Gerstein reviewed “dozens of federal indictments for mishandling of classified records” and then reported that an indictment of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server is “highly unlikely.” He also noted that the cases that did lead to an indictment “almost always” included "a deliberate intent to violate classification rules" and “aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.”

    Right-wing media have repeatedly attempted to muddy the facts surrounding the investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Clinton’s private email server by falsely comparing the case to that of Gen. David Petraeus, speculating on the implications or hidden motives of every new turn in the investigation, and even suggesting that the Department of Justice would handle the investigation “on political grounds, not legal grounds.”

    In the April 11 article, Gerstein wrote that “former prosecutors, investigators and defense attorneys generally agree that prosecution for classified information breaches is the exception rather than the rule, with criminal charges being reserved for cases the government views as the most egregious or flagrant.” Moreover, Gerstein highlighted interagency disputes over what is considered classified in Clinton’s emails. He noted that the State Department “has publicly disputed some of the intelligence community’s claims that information in Clinton’s account was highly sensitive,” and that it “seems doubtful that prosecutors would pursue charges if State Department officials are likely to contradict an intelligence agency’s assessment about the sensitivity of the records.” From the April 11 article:

    It’s the most explosive question of the 2016 presidential campaign: Could Hillary Clinton get indicted for her handling of sensitive materials through her home email server?

    A POLITICO review of dozens of recent federal investigations for mishandling of classified records suggests that it’s highly unlikely — but not impossible.

    The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but — in nearly all instances that were prosecuted —aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.

    The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.

    Clinton herself, gearing up for her FBI testimony, said last week that a prosecution is “not gonna happen.” And former prosecutors, investigators and defense attorneys generally agree that prosecution for classified information breaches is the exception rather than the rule, with criminal charges being reserved for cases the government views as the most egregious or flagrant.

    […]

     

    In addition, attorneys noted that mishandling of diplomatic information that doesn’t have an obvious national security component to it probably couldn’t be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, which is the felony statute most widely cited in discussions of the potential legal fallout of the Clinton email flap.

    So, the real focus is likely to be a narrower set of messages: 65 deemed “Secret” and 22 deemed “Top Secret.” Because of the nature of email, the actual amount of highly sensitive information is more limited than those numbers suggest. The 22 “Top Secret” messages consist of seven “threads,” presumably with the same classified subject matter discussed in each email in the thread.

    Using some of those exchanges to build a criminal case would also run into another challenge: the State Department has publicly disputed some of the intelligence community’s claims that information in Clinton’s account was highly sensitive. It seems doubtful that prosecutors would pursue charges if State Department officials are likely to contradict an intelligence agency’s assessment about the sensitivity of the records.

    […]

    However, some experts on national security law said Clinton’s intent is far more important than the volume of emails at issue or how long they spent on her server. They noted that none of the information was marked classified and that there’s no indication she was trying to send classified information to anyone not authorized to look at it.

    “The law treats the intentional disclosure of one piece of classified information to someone not entitled to receive it far more seriously than the accidental communication of dozens of pieces of classified information to people who were not supposed to get it,” American University law professor Stephen Vladeck said, citing explicit and implicit requirements that a person charged with violating the laws relating to classified information know that the information they mishandled was classified.

    […]

    Several experts told POLITICO that in light of the legal obstacles to a case and the Justice Department’s track record in such prosecutions they are confident Clinton won’t face charges.

    “Based on everything I’ve seen in the public media, not only don’t I see the basis for criminal prosecution, I don’t even see the basis for administrative action such as revoking a clearance or suspending it,” said Leonard, the former director of the Information Security Oversight Office.

    “Looked at as a potential criminal case, this would be laughed out of court,” said William Jeffress, a Washington attorney on the defense team for former Bush White House aide Scooter Libby during his trial for lying in a leak investigation. “There hasn’t been any case remotely approaching a situation where someone received emails that were not marked classified, who simply receives them and maybe replies to them and a criminal prosecution is brought,” Jeffress said.