trouble.

..... between Republican Hillary haters, and haters here on DU is the facade they hide behind. They are mirror images of each other. Striving to attain different goals with the same tactics. That is my opinion.

And neither was the NY Times which published and retracted & worked with FOX news.....

to promote scumbag Peter Schweizers BS book...he was selling a book too.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-cash-publisher-corrects-7-or-8-inaccurate-passages-117946

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/05/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizer-admits-hes/203528

Fox News uses input from New York Times reporter (!) for ‘Clinton Cash’ piece
Earlier this week, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow devoted considerable time to examining the agreements of major media outlets with Peter Schweizer, the author of “Clinton Cash,” a soon-to-be-released book highlighting overlaps between the work of the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. No surprise, said Maddow, that Fox News would be partnering with such an author, who advised Sarah Palin and assisted the George W. Bush White House with speechwriting. Some surprise, said Maddow, that a news org like the New York Times would strike an exclusive agreement with Schweizer.

Now for an even bigger surprise: Not only did the New York Times work with Schweizer; it also worked directly with Fox News!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/04/23/fox-news-uses-input-from-new-york-times-reporter-for-clinton-cash-piece/

Twenty-Plus Errors, Fabrications, And Distortions In Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash
Republican activist and consultant Peter Schweizer's new book Clinton Cash, obtained by Media Matters ahead of its publication date, is a trainwreck of sloppy research and shoddy reporting that contains over twenty errors, fabrications, and distortions. Schweizer pushes conspiracies "based on little evidence" that are "inconsistent with the facts" and "false"; takes quotes "badly out of context"; excludes exculpatory information that undermines his claims; and falls for a fake press release.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/30/twenty-plus-errors-fabrications-and-distortions/203480

Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/26/clinton-cash-crushed-facts-author-admits-evidence-clinton-crimes.html

'Clinton Cash' author can't even defend his wild claims on Fox News
First, former Bush speechwriter and Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer claimed—with an assist from the New York Times—that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had approved a deal involving a Russian uranium mining company. Unfortunately for Schweizer and the Times the facts showed that the State Department is just one of nine votes on the committee that had to approve that deal, that Clinton wasn't personally involved in the review, and that other independent agencies also had to approve it. But fear not! Schweizer had a fallback position, which he trotted out on Fox News Sunday, because of course Fox News:

WALLACE: Nine separate agencies and they point out there's no hard evidence, and you don't cite any in the book that Hillary Clinton took direct action, was involved in any way in approving as one of nine agencies the sale of the company?

SCHWEIZER: Well, here's what's important to keep in mind: it was one of nine agencies, but any one of those agencies had veto power. So, she could have stopped the deal.

All the money that allegedly flowed to the Clintons to smooth the way for this deal to go through was so that Clinton would not attempt, as the head of one of nine agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, to veto it? When the State Department's review of the deal didn't rise to the level where the secretary would get personally involved? Oh, and by the way, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Canadian government also signed off on the deal, and if the cabinet secretaries on the CFIUS can't agree on whether to approve a deal, it's not a one-secretary veto situation: the president then decides.

So Schweizer's allegation basically boils down to that Hillary Clinton did not intervene in a process that hadn't risen to the level of needing the secretary's attention, and that she did not exercise veto power she didn't really have. Boy, those donors sure bought some extra-special treatment from her.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/4/27/1380600/--Clinton-Cash-author-can-t-even-defend-his-wild-claims-on-Fox-News



5 Points On The Conservative Author Dishing Clinton Dirt To NYT and Fox News

His Institute Is Funded By The Kochs And Company
As Crooks and Liars pointed out, Schweizer's Government Accountability Institute, a 501(c)(3), is funded by three conservative powerhouse donors.

First up would be the infamous Koch brothers, who contribute to most of GAI's funding through the Franklin Center, a "free market" organization dedicated to "democratizing journalism." Also in play is the Koch-run Donors' Trust, a political "slush fund," according to the blog.

From Crooks and Liars:

Of the total $2.2 million received in 2012, $2 million came from the Franklin Center, the Koch-funded "watchdog" organization. Perhaps coincidentally, the Franklin Center also received a $2 million contribution in 2012 from Donors' Capital, the sister organization to Donors' Trust.

Next is the Mercer Family Foundation, headed up by the eponymous hedge fund magnate Robert Mercer. As Crooks and Liars noted, Mercer's main targets are usually congressmen trying to roll back the power of Wall Street. Mother Jones reported that Mercer is currently the top bankroller for Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) presidential campaign.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/peter-schweizer-clinton-cash-5-points



https://americanbridgepac.org/what-you-dont-know-about-the-clinton-cash-author/

gd-p.

I may have to steal this if you don't mind.

Murdoch’s Media Machine Digs Desperately For Anti-Clinton Dirt

They are like Red State for Drudge. A rumor is as good as a fact. I just don't see that from Hillary supporters. I posted a reply in the general discussion forum about Bernie winning an election with the help of an endorsement from the NRA and was accused of rehashing old crap. A few comments down the line another Bernie supporter brought up Whitewater. Of course I had to explain that one happened and the other was a right wing led witch hunt.

The day McCaine’s machine announced the selection of Palin as a running mate I was texted a question regarding my opinion of the selection. It only took a ten minute google search to sarcastically answer “I think that is the best choice McCaine could possible make.”

The ghosts, and I’d bet there is, will come out if Bernie gets real traction.

Wow, this really does feel like deja vu all over again.

about the foreign policy disasters in Libya, Honduras and Syria

for which Ms. Clinton is indeed responsible.

Straw Man Much? Deflect Much?

serious question - how can one tell it is from the "Hillary group"?
I did not see any such label.

I've been an active Dem for half a century, and make it a practice
to challenge all candidates on their records, including Ms. Clinton.

No, I will not delete that post. It raises serious and fair questions about foreign policy,
and does not use personal attacks, distortions, or name calling.

Veterans For Peace

written right above the "Reply title". As are all the various Groups on DU.. that's how you know where you are.

doing it in Hillary's Group.

Great post, it is a continuous cycle of lies and those lies debunked, they don't have anything to offer and because of Hillary's strengths the need to disparage her in any and mostly by lies. It sure does not change my mind about who is the most qualified but tells me they do not have a candidate which can meet her standards.

On this site.