New York Times fears Clinton retribution


WASHINGTON, April 21, 2015 — It will be interesting to see what happens to author Peter Schweizer. The revelations contained in his book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, is already making headlines and stirring a sleepy press to consciousness.

“The book, a copy of which was obtained by the New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high-speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return,” said the Times.

They, “The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book,” said the Times.

Read Also:   Hillary Clinton: Peering from behind the curtain

Just in passing, copy editors at the Times must have consumed fistfuls of nitroglycerin tablets to ease their palpitating hearts on seeing the Gray Lady and Fox News mentioned in a single sentence as co-investigators of Hillary’s “alleged” skullduggery.

The Times noted that Mrs. Clinton’s rapid-response machine (famously called the War Room during her husband’s scandal-plagued tenure as president) is “adept in swatting down critical books as conservative propaganda.”

And Mrs. Clinton has been swatting wildly at these buzzing claims for nearly 20 years. Back in 1998, she insisted independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr was part of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” for seeking evidence of her husband’s perjury before a federal grand jury concerning his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

“I think, as the matter unfolds, the entire country will have more information, but we’re right in the middle of a feeding frenzy right now, and people are putting out rumor and innuendo,” Hillary assured her Today show interviewer, insisting her husband was as faithful as the day was long and that the truth would eventually “come out.”

And Hillary was right.

Bill Clinton was fined $90,000 by Judge Susan Webber Wright three months after she found him in contempt of court for lying under oath. He also paid Paula Jones $850,000 to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against him. And the independent counsel’s office fined him $25,000, requiring him to sign a document admitting perjury to avoid facing criminal charges after he left the presidency.

Read Also:  Clinton Cash said to expose Hillary Clinton’s money making machine

Hillary will have to claim the vast right-wing conspiracy is swinging back into action when she is hammered with pesky questions about how she and Bill got so filthy rich after telling ABC’s Diane Sawyer they were “dead broke” after leaving the White House.

“We had no money… we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy,” said Hillary.

The foundation that bears the family name has assets totaling more than $2 billion. Lucky for the Clintons, Saudi billionaire Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi, who the Asian Wall Street Journal in 2004 said made “an anonymous $300,000 donation to a group called the Islamic Assembly of North America, which federal prosecutors accuse of endorsing acts of terrorism,” is a generous contributor.

Media Matters, the left-wing’s online media information enforcer, is warning publications like the New York Times that they had better “be cautious with Republican activist and strategist Peter Schweizer’s new book.” After all, they say, “Schweizer worked for the Bush White House as a speechwriting consultant from 2008-2009.”

“The Rottweilers will be unleashed,” warned Times’ columnist Maureen Dowd. “Once the Clintons had a War Room. Now they have a Slime Room.”

Read Also:   Hillary Clinton: champion of ‘the little guy’

David Brock, who founded Media Matters in 2004, “has tried to discredit anyone who disagreed with his ideological hits (myself and reporters I know included),” said Dowd, warning that Brock will “ferociously push back against any Hillary coverage that isn’t fawning.”

If the New York Times joins forces with Fox News to investigate Hillary and Bill’s shadowy finances, it will prove that politics does indeed make for strange bedfellows, which—at least for one Clinton in particular—is oddly appropriate.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • ginjit.dw

    I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the nyt to join forces with anyone, after all THEY are all the news that’s fit to misprint. They may throw a story on page 62 so they can point to their “unbiased” reporting, but that is it. They are part of the problem, not the solution….IMO.

  • Tim Kern

    “The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book.” Hmmm… How do TWO news outfits have “exclusives?”

    Next, we’re going to find out who is still alive and in Hillary’s 900 FBI files, as the usual suspects in the press stay quiet or do their best to discredit the author (rather than refute the allegations, a typical Clinton slime-room tactic).

    And is it possible — conceivable — that “exclusives” were set up so that someone can control the investigations? Is it possible — conceivable — that the resultant press wars will cause a bigger flurry than the stories?

    And is it possible — conceivable — that Schweitzer is doing this all to immunize Hillary? One false allegation, and she’s off the hook. The true ones won’t matter.

    Let’s see how this works out, and if Schweitzer makes a comfortable retirement out of it, until he suddenly dies prematurely.