2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe New York Times editorial board called on Clinton to cut ties with the Clinton Foundation
"The New York Times editorial board on Tuesday called on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to cut ties with the Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit corporation established by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, that focuses on fighting childhood obesity, addressing the effects of global climate change and creating economic growth.
Hillary Clintons ties to the foundation have come under increased scrutiny in recent months following allegations of ethical impropriety surrounding her tenure as secretary of state. Recent investigations, for example, found that some of the foundations donors used its channels to seek access to Clinton while she worked at the State Department."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-foundation-ny-times_us_57c58ce4e4b0cdfc5ac925dc?slg3z0k9
The NY Times has been distorting, and misrepresenting Hillary for some time now. When they reported a story claiming a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton for her emails back in July 2015, and then had to retract the story through several rewrites, only highlights to the state of journalism in this country.
There are a whole list of these errors, and it has been happening long before Judith Miller regarding the WMDs
Tom Rinaldo
(22,916 posts)For God's sake, Trump can manipulable foreign policy to enrich himself as President. THAT'S what a call a conflict of interest.
still_one
(92,422 posts)the election. Whether it is a good idea to do so now the campaign will determine that.
What they have setup a damn if you do and damn if you don't situation.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)has already announced she will cut ties if elected. They should say they support her decision.
More than once I've counted the headlines on articles about Hillary to see how many are negative, and it's always been a majority. (This one is nothing compared to the usual I've found.) INSIDE, in the articles, where their reputation requires them to be more honest, the headline distortions are typically filled in to produce a more accurate picture, though still often with a negative twist.
Exactly like this blatant AP lie, the real story only filled in by the article few who saw this read:
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)They should just drop the pretense and endorse Trump.
skylucy
(3,743 posts)has explained why this is taking time. I guess journalists don't care about actual lives saved or lost. And if I hear a pundit say "Transfer it all to the Bill Gates Foundation" one more time I am going to scream! Like Bill Gates is perfect and can do everything just as well as the Clinton Foundation. Wrong!
unblock
(52,332 posts)it's ludicrous to pretend that hillary's relationship to a global charity is somehow worse than the explicit pay-for-access schemes that congresscritters run as a matter of course. and oh by the way the clintons save millions of lives in the process.
how many lives are saved with contributions to a congresscritter's war chest?
still_one
(92,422 posts)tandem5
(2,072 posts)journalists actively pursuing details on Trump's innumerable and breathtakingly questionable practices and connections.