Hillary Clinton

Former New York Times Editor: 'Hillary Clinton Is Fundamentally Honest and Trustworthy'

Reputation-laundering from the elite press almost as nauseating as the candidate's own easily provable lies

|

Looks like "bad Jill" won. ||| Newsweek
Newsweek

"This may shock you," runs the headline on Jill Abramson's debut Guardian piece this week, but: "Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest." No, it's not an April Fool's Day joke.

Op-ed writers often don't write or even approve their own headlines, so I skimmed downward, looking for confirmation that this was just clickbait atop a more nuanced take. After all, Jill Abramson used to be the executive editor of The New York Times. Serious newspaper journalists aren't supposed to be eager to issue any politician—let alone someone who so blatantly lied (including after being mocked by eyewitnesses) about coming "under sniper fire" in Bosnia—a certificate of fundamental honesty

Sure enough, Abramson, oh wait a minute MY GOD SHE ACTUALLY WROTE THESE WORDS:

I would be "dead rich", to adapt an infamous Clinton phrase, if I could bill for all the hours I've spent covering just about every "scandal" that has enveloped the Clintons. As an editor I've launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I'm not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

Bolding mine, because I still can't believe it.

My bad, I meant "fundamentally honest and trustworthy." ||| Reason
Reason

Remember, Abramson is asserting a positive here, not disproving a negative. She needs to affirmatively support the counterintuitive claim that a person who for more than three decades has been involved in high-profile politics—a professional field that, like used-car sales or crisis communications, has a long, incentive-fueled tradition of omitting truth and discoloring facts—is not just some one-eyed queen in the land of the blind, but intrinsically trustworthy compared to you and me. So the evidence better be heavy, right?

Um, well, here is the entirety of Abramson's positive case:

1) "There are no instances I know of where Clinton was doing the bidding of a donor or benefactor."

2) "As for her statements on issues, Politifact, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking organization, gives Clinton the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates."

3) "Still, Clinton has mainly been constant on issues[,] and changing positions over time is not dishonest."

The defense rests!

Let's focus on #2, since it at least links to something, and also because #LOLscience.

Hurts so GOOD, amirite? ||| Reason
Reason

Politifact is a news organization that chooses which political statements it finds worthy of fact-checking, and then assigns a score: True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, False, and Pants on Fire. The website's verifiers do not judge each candidate across the same set of questions, they do not check each factual assertion made in (say) a debate and then assign an overall score, they do not have some kind of automatic and transparent triggering criteria by which they decide whether a candidate statement is worthy of assessing. No, they simply react to and conduct research on comments they find of interest, for their own reasons. Which is totally fine!

It's just that, given the way the material is derived, the compiled "record" of these fact-checks proves close to nothing about the comparative trustworthiness of the various presidential candidates. (Who, again, work in a field well known for dishonesty.) Imagine judging a baseball player's season not on what he did across 600 at bats, but on the 177 times (the number of Hillary Clinton claims Politifact has assessed) that he did something flashy enough to attract the attention of evaluators. Those evaluators, no matter how fair-minded in their own heads, will bring their own individual and institutional biases and mores.

So even using this statistically meaningless metric, does Clinton really have "the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates"? Among current major-party candidates, yes, although Bernie Sanders is not far behind. If you assign a simple value formula of 3/2/1/-1/-2/-3 to the six Politifact categories, here's what you get from Politifact's percentages for Clinton, Sanders, John Kasich, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump:

HC: 24/28/20/14/12/01   107

BS: 15/36/19/15/14/00      93

JK: 25/26/16/15/13/05      62

TC: 06/16/13/29/29/07    -45

DT: 03/06/14/17/42/19   -123

Hillary Clinton being 15 percent more truthful than Bernie Sanders, even if true, does not a fundamentally honest person make. Also, she scores as less honest via this junk stat than departed 2016 presidential candidates Jim Webb and Bobby Jindal (whose sample sizes were just 10 each):

JW: 30/50/10/10/00/00   190

BJ: 10/40/40/00/10/00    130

HC: 24/28/20/14/12/01   107

What about third parties? Green Party perennial Jill Stein is not yet rated, and Libertarian Gary Johnson's eight evaluated claims score out at 75 (00/38/38/13/13/00). In sum, relying on Politifact to prove who has the "best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates" is like outsourcing a DNA test to a sketch artist. There are more rigorous methods.

Whatever, right-wing noise merchants! ||| Reason
Reason

Particularly given Hillary Clinton's rich, documented record of dishonesty. Here's a quick rundown by Peter Suderman earlier this week of some of her dissembling and outright lies just about her private email system as secretary of state. The bold is the bullshit, the underline is the refutation:

When news about her email first broke, Clinton insisted that there was no classified material at all on her private server. But there's no question at this point that an awful lot of classified material passed through her system. More than 2,000 of the emails she eventually handed over to the State Department had some classified information, and 22 of the emails were deemed so sensitive that they weren't released at all, even in redacted form. These were not some run of the mill, low-level classifications. 

Later, a spokesperson for her campaign defended her by saying "she was at worst a passive recipient of unwitting information that subsequently became deemed as classified." But according to a Post analysis, more than 100 of the classified emails on the server were written by Clinton herself. She's hardly a "passive" and "unwitting" recipient.

Nor were the emails marked classified after the fact. After a State Department inspector general report found several classified emails in a small sample, the IG reported that "these emails were not retro­actively classified by the State Department." 

Clinton eventually released about half the emails on her server (the rest, she says, were personal in nature) to the State Department, and she has patted herself on the back for eventually handing over the emails, declaring that she went "above and beyond" and "had no obligation" to turn over her communications. That is not true. As a federal employee, she was supposed to have turned over all her emails before leaving office. She at one point claimed on CNN that she'd never received a subpoena related to the emails. That's also not true. There's a copy of the subpoena online for all to see.

There is nothing "fundamentally honest and trustworthy" about this behavior. How does Abramson egage it? By calling "the idea of her being indicted or going to prison" as "nonsensical," and saying "I can see why so many voters believe Clinton is hiding something because her instinct is to withhold." But it's not just the withholding of information, it's the lying about it, that should matter most in an assessment of a politician's veracity. 

Is it fundamentally honest and trustworthy to characterize the 2011 intervention into Libya "smart power at its best"? Because that's what Hillary Clinton continues to do five years later, after the resulting chaos in Libya has contributed greatly to broader sectarian war and the rise of the Islamic State. Jacob Sullum a month ago aptly assessed the import of this particular lie: "In short, Clinton, who did not publicly regret her vote for the Iraq war until 2014, will not admit that intervening in Libya was a mistake, making it impossible for her to learn from it."

Clinton, who has locked up support from all major teachers unions, is fond of making garbage claims like this about a sector whose inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending is up around threefold since 1970: "A lot of what has happened—and honestly it really pains me—a lot of people have [been] blaming and scapegoating teachers because they don't want to put the money into the school system that deserve the support that comes from the government doing its job." There is something "fundamental" here, but it isn't honesty.

For a quarter century, Hillary Clinton has been leading a speech-restricting crusade against entertainments and communications aimed at and used by minors, on the theory that children "take those messages to heart like…little VCRs, and they play back what they have learned." Along the way she has asserted as scientific fact scores of times sentiments such as, "Whether, and under what circumstances, the violence people see on television and at the movies actually incites violent acts is a question researchers have debated for years. As with smoking and lung cancer, however, we know that there is a connection." We actually "know" no such thing.

This is a small sampling from a large pile of available evidence, which Abramson waves off with passages like these:

For decades she's been portrayed as a Lady Macbeth involved in nefarious plots, branded as "a congenital liar" and accused of covering up her husband's misconduct, from Arkansas to Monica Lewinsky. Some of this is sexist caricature. […]

It's fair to expect more transparency. But it's a double standard to insist on her purity.

In other words, the "vast right-wing conspiracy"–a term, let's remember, that Hillary introduced into the political lexicon in the service of denying accusations against her husband that turned out to be perfectly true–has thrown up so many overheated and probably sexist charges that we don't even need to assess them. Since the most hysterical of the Republican accusations aren't true, the rest are silly. "Working the refs" is more than just a right-wing way to influence the media, turns out.

So does that mean Hillary Clinton is the most dishonest major-party presidential candidate still in the 2016 race? I seriously doubt it; Donald Trump seems to have created brand new categories of WFT fabulism and chatbot-style misdirection. But I wouldn't pretend to disguise my gut observation as anything approaching science, and God knows I wouldn't declare any politician to be anything more than comparatively honest for their tawdry profession. By eagerly issuing honesty badges to Democratic politicians with known records of lying, journalists with pretenses to fairness are demonstrating everything but. 

Advertisement

NEXT: No, Mississippi's new gun bill does not constitute 'nullification.' (It's not even close.)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. THERE ARE NO COMMENTS

    1. Now there is. Vote for pedophilia! Vote for the Old Man With Candy! Pot for every chickenhawk!

      1. When you’re done plating that chicken you should have a conversation with HM about Polari

    2. There are four lights!

      1. Speaking of – can the promotion points be spent to send comments down to the end of the thread too?

        1. I just hope [g]reasonable and friends will add an option to undo this nonsense.

          1. Like!!1!

    3. It was such a good piece I had to read the whole thing.

      The bold is the bullshit

      And I even got a name for my upcoming album out of it. Thanks Matt!

      1. How about the Bold and the Bullshit? (with the bolding on the and).

        1. That sounds like a soap opera.

    4. I am struggling to think of a comment that isn’t vulgar and demeaning to that stupid slut of a NYT editor.

      There is nothing “Honest and Trustworthy” about either of the Clintons. They are evil, corrupt scum.

    5. ????????????? Click this link http://goo.gl/JNLxe5 my best friend’s step-aunt makes $64 /hour on the computer . She has been unemployed for nine months but last month her paycheck was $21229 just working on the computer for a few hours. read this article

  2. “If you’re gonna tell a lie, tell a real whopper. Why do it half-assed?”

    Hitler (paraphrased)

    1. (I think Hitler was projecting this onto his opponents, technically)

    2. Humor aside, I don’t really understand why a “big lie” is more effective than half-truths. I think it would be easier to mislead using the latter.

      1. “All this was inspired by the principle?which is quite true within itself?that in the big lie
        there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

        1. In Hitler’s case, it helped that he had a government to censor non-lying stuff.

          1. And by “censor”, one means “summarily shoot without any due process or ship off to a concentration camp”

            1. Damned effective “censorship” right there.

            2. Sure, he could do that, or he could send “guidance” documents to the press, or slap his opponents around a bit…he could do just about anything, that’s the fun of being an arbitrary ruler with unlimited power.

              1. Sort of like Obama?

        2. It’s “big lie” versus “small lie,” not “big lie” versus “half-truth.”

        3. Why does this make me think of the Affordable Care Act?

        4. “…a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

          Has there ever been a more accurate description of politicians?

      2. I think the theory would be that when you limit yourself to half-truths, you’re conceding the rhetorical playing field to your opponents. When you “Big Lie”, you’re redefining the whole argument on your own terms, and your very brazenness makes it harder for your opponents to argue against you without neglecting the points they actually want to make.

        That said, the “Big Lie” has to be something that a fair amount of people want to believe. Otherwise you’re just a garden variety nutcase.

        1. “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

          “The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.”

          “And we will lower premiums for the typical family by $2,500 a year.”

        2. They were killed because of a video

      3. “A lie, Agent Muldar, is best done between two pieces of truth.”

        Deep Throat, The X-Files

        1. “Marge, it takes two to lie – one to lie and one to listen.”

    3. Uh oh, you just used a swear word. Aren’t you damned to hell now?

      1. Why would you ass-ume we’re that Puritanical? I’d ass you for a a more detailed question, butt it would probably be a waste of time.

        1. Well I don’t know how your belief system works that well. I could have sworn you once said something about swear words being a BAD THING. Not as bad as saying “hi” to a woman that isn’t your wife, but bad nonetheless.

          1. Hmmm…I probably should avoid cursing…there is a hierarchy, though, with actual blasphemy being on the absolute worst end. And calling your brother “fool.”

            So if it provokes that kind of reaction, maybe I shouldn’t do it.

            1. It all starts with cursing. Next thing you know you’ll be smoking and drinking. From there it’s only a short step to whoring it up in the red light district.

              At least that’s what I hear.

              1. Whoring it up in the red light district could lead to dancing.

                1. Seriously!

                  You know why Baptist don’t screw standing up? People might think they’re dancing.

                  1. You know why Baptists don’t screw standing up? People might think they’re dancing.

                    **AHEM**

                    It’s ” ‘Cause it might lead to dancing.”

          2. He did. He also repeatedly told me to go f*ck myself for not agreeing with him on the liberty inherent in the police monitoring naughty language in public.

            BAD, Eddie.

            1. I always think the little typographical sphincter that is the * makes a swear word ever so slightly dirtier, no?

              1. Not everyone has a sphincter fixation, Jesse.

                1. Not everyone has a sphincter fixation

                  I take it you’re not one of the people who found religion while staring into J-Law’s b-hole during The Fappening then?

                  1. I like asses, but I’m not into rear entry. I just like the aesthetics.

                    1. To each his own. The asterisk is still a tiny typographical chocolate starfish.

            2. Huh, I knew he wanted to make adultery a felony but I didn’t know about the language police.

              1. I’ve evolved, now I’d limit adulterers to the tender mercies of the law’s civil side.

                1. exception: I’m not 100% sure what to do with prostitution, but if I go for legalization, it will be for utilitarian reasons, not because I think there’s an inherent natural right to cheat on your spouse with hookers.

                  1. Stop digging!

                    1. This isn’t a popularity contest, I just don’t want you to come back later and say I sugarcoated my views to cater to you.

                  2. What about unmarried people?

            3. I did that? In hindsight, I wish I hadn’t, sorry.

              1. did that = telling Hamster to f*ck himself.

                1. telling Hamster to f*ck himself

                  [Read this in a stage whisper] She’s a herself.

                  1. If you’re that into cisnormativity, I’m sorry I told Hamster to f*ck herself.

      2. I axed my grandma once where cussing was forbidden in the bible. She had no idea. I was 6 and stumped her.

        1. I axed my grandma once

          It only takes one time.

            1. That might be one of the better masturbation euphemisms of late.

            2. After, she’d seen what she had done…! (Although, I don’t think they, actually, determined that it was a certain number of whacks.)

    4. I thought that was his minion, Himmler.

      -jcr

  3. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

    I look forward the email leaks showing when she got her marching orders from the Clinton Machine.

  4. The Hillary Clinton that resides in some alternate Universe somewhere may be fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

    The one that is (unfortunately) taking up space in this Universe isn’t even close on either count.

    1. Which one has the goatee?

      1. That’s a chin lift.

        1. Hillary needs a front end loader to lift all of her chins.

        2. You’ll note that I didn’t specify the goatee was on her face.

          1. One day, it could be on Crusty’s face. God Willing.

            1. Stop it, you’re gonna ruin my chance to be promoted.

    2. In an alternate universe, HRC is a clown made out of candy but I guarantee she still isn’t honest.

  5. After all, Jill Abramson used to be the executive editor of The New York Times.

    None of this bias ever came through while she headed the paper.

    1. Yea, “editor at the NYT” isn’t a good supporting argument for someone having intellectual integrity

      1. Yea, “editor at the NYT” isn’t a good supporting argument for someone having intellectual integrity

        Christ, if I’d been an editor at the NYT, I would’ve told people at parties that I was actually a piano player in a whorehouse. More respectable (both morally and intellectually).

  6. Slipped her mind that #1 is the focus of a major FBI investigation and the motivation behind the entire email server thing.

    1. Vast. Right. Wing. Conspiracy.

      Duh, McFly!

  7. Nothing to see here folks…move along

  8. good god this is retarded.

    I can see why so many voters believe Clinton is hiding something because her instinct is to withhold. As first lady, she refused to turn over Whitewater documents that might have tamped down the controversy. Instead, by not disclosing information, she fueled speculation that she was hiding grave wrongdoing. In his book about his time working in the Clinton White House, All Too Human, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos wrote that failing to convince the first lady to turn over the records of the Arkansas land deal to the Washington Post was his biggest regret.

    This assertion is completely laughable.

    1. The connection between money and action is often fuzzy. Many investigative articles about Clinton end up “raising serious questions” about “potential” conflicts of interest or lapses in her judgment. Of course, she should be held accountable. It was bad judgment, as she has said, to use a private email server. It was colossally stupid to take those hefty speaking fees, but not corrupt. There are no instances I know of where Clinton was doing the bidding of a donor or benefactor.

      I mean the whole reason you don’t know of any instances is due HRC, along with a complicit media, efforts to withhold, seal or delete all the records that show wanton criminality in literally every instance you reference. What a fucktard.

      1. It is awfully easy to say you know of no instances of that when you set the bar of proof that high. Yeah, I don’t know of any instances where Clinton admits she took a bribe in exchange for using her official position for the benefit of the person giving the bribe. That is true. You have to be retarded to think that gets Clinton off the hook, however.

      2. It was bad judgment, as she has said, to use a private email server.

        It was also clearly against the law. It really steams me that the media thinks it’s biased to suggest she broke the law in this instance, when anybody with a clearance will tell you what she did was criminal. What is biased is to even question the assertion that what she did was illegal.

        1. Bad judgement is losing your temper and yelling at a coworker or having one too many drinks and driving home. Bad judgement is just that, a judgement. It is not a series of judgements and calculated actions. To put it in this context, bad judgement is doing some work on your private email because it is convenient. it is not constructing an entire email system for the purpose of evading transparency laws. That is not bad judgement. That is being a pre meditated criminal.

      3. Most people still see political corruption as a case of politicians advancing causes they disagree with, or know are wrong, because they’ve been bribed to do so. I think it’s far more common for them to believe in the righteousness of their benefactors’ cause, or at least that it’s irrelevant to most people, so why not do what will make the lobbyist happy.

        That’s in contrast with the bald-faced lying and outright criminal acts they commit, which are chiefly driven by a belief that the end (keeping power in the hands of the “Good”, and away from the “Evil”) justifies the means.

      4. “There are no instances I know of where Clinton was doing the bidding of a donor or benefactor.”

        Paging Sgt. Schultz….

        I see nothing, I know nothing!

      5. “that I know of” is not quite the same thing as “never happened.” I guess we should ignore hte purely coincidental timing of nasty regimes making donations to the Clinton Foundation and the subsequent ability of those regimes to purchase arms from teh US.

    2. Jim Comey doesn’t think it was simply withholding information or bad judgement:

      Comey’s first brush with them came when Bill Clinton was president. Looking to get back into government after a stint in private practice, Comey signed on as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee. In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement. Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naivet?,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”

    3. I can see why so many voters believe Clinton is hiding something because her instinct is to withhold.

      How can someone who’s “instinct is to withhold” be simultaneously “fundamentally honest and trustworthy”?

      1. It could have something to do with someone (formerly) from the New York Times “impartially” vetting a Democrat.

    4. As first lady, she refused to turn over Whitewater documents that might have tamped down the controversy.

      You know, the same documents later found in the “personal quarters” of the White House.

  9. Sexist Matt Welch writes sexist article because he is a sexist.

  10. Come on, Mister and Missus America; learn to love Big Sister.

  11. Truth is not what is, but what should be.

  12. But, but, she’s a woman… and, and it’s her turn and, and she’s a Clinton and, and she was a Senator and Secretary of State and First Lady and, and she wants to help the poor and, um, WHY DO YOU HATE WOMEN!?!

  13. The media hacks in both parties have been telling the country don’t believe your lying eyes because fuck you that is why for decades. Nick can’t believe this woman said this because he makes the mistake of thinking she believes it. She doesn’t believe it. She is telling everyone else to shut the fuck up and believe it. That is all that is going on here.

    1. Nick can’t believe this woman said this because he makes the mistake of thinking she believes it.

      I think the tone of the article was more along the lines of “This “journalist” is brazenly lying about a brazen liar not being a brazen liar”

    2. This post was written by Welch. Probably because he’s “feeling the Bern”. /sarc

  14. What does this have to do with Trump?

    1. it appears this Hillary person may also be running for president.

  15. Seems Abramson has adopted Trump’s winning formula: lie outrageously and expect the incredulity to carry you.

    1. Hmm, I suspect Abramson truly believes what she wrote. I know a lot of smart people who just know HRC has been completely honest always and that ever accusation against her is a fake scandal.

        1. yes she does. To women like Abramson, Hillary winning the Presidency is a validation of their entire generation and life’s work. They will believe or do anything to make it happen.

      1. I don’t think belief enters into it at all. Truth is whatever influential commentators like Abramson put on paper, almost by definition: she writes for a national publication, her words are read and repeated by millions of people, and so they become truth. Very often those words need to be finessed into the right order to reflect the truth she wants the people to read. Whether or not she believes them herself is trivial, really: she’s in the business of selling politically expedient spin as truth. She’s the media equivalent of a used car salesman.

        If she weren’t among the journolist crowd, she ought to have been.

      2. We may have a difference of opinion on what is meant by “smart people”.

  16. Fundamentally honest and trustworthy = Saying things that Jill Abramson wants to hear

    1. You forgot

      Supports abortion being legal in all circumstances.

  17. My god, the vast right wing conspiracy is even bigger than I had feared!

  18. TL;DR version of the original article:

    Hilary is more honest than Trump… ergo she is fundamentally honest. When I first read the original article, I was pretty stunned. I was looking for a link to the second page of the article where she might actually try to make the point that H is “fundamentally honest”. Nope. No attempt is actually made to demonstrate she’s fundamentally honest; just that she’s not as bad as others.

    Matt did leave out one more argument that Abramson covers (in someone else’s voice); that H is the victim of sexism. That we are bad people who expect purity from women candidates. And that when H behaves like other candidates, it’s seen as dishonest.

    NEW FLASH!!!! When she behaves like other candidates, it is rightfully seen as dishonest. That’s not sexism. That’s the truth. Those other (male) candidates are also dishonest. So, yes, they and her are both seen as dishonest because they are fucking dishonest.

      1. I don’t really see where he hits on the part of the article I was commenting on. But, either way, I was mainly looking at his list of three arguments. But, I guess I note that the list is her positive case. So, I guess the point doesn’t really belong in that list. It’s not an argument that she’s honest, but rather an argument that she’s held to a different standard of honesty. Meh.

  19. The wage gap just has Abramson a little rattled is all.

    1. Are you saying she needs to loosen her corset, or retire to her fainting couch, or that she’s being hysterical? You’re so problematic.

  20. “Fundamentally” honest. And that’s what makes her so trustworthy – you can trust every word she speaks is coming straight out of her fundament.

  21. Now they’re just trolling us and the average person’s sense of decency and ability to detect bull shit.

    Abramson has no integrity it seems. To make such a proclamation is the height of arrogance and ‘fuck youism’ given all that we know about Hillary.

    “Imagine judging a baseball player’s season not on what he did across 600 at bats, but on the 177 times (the number of Hillary Clinton claims Politifact has assessed)”

    Depends the player, Matt. We all know the media plays favorites with ball players too. They even engage in moralizing retardation (see Hall of Fame voting and the bull shit around certain players. And FFS induct Tim Raines already!).

  22. Even if you believe this crap and look at all of this evidence and conclude Hillary is honest and just exhibited bad judgement, over and over again, at what point don’t you have to conclude that Hillary has poor judgement and is thus unfit to be President?

    I am all for honestly in government but I don’t see how having bad judgement isn’t just as bad or probably worse than being dishonest. Who would you rather have as President, someone who lies but at least has good judgement and can do their job or the most honest person on earth who constantly makes bad decisions?

    1. That’s what drives me nuts. The Clintons have been playing that card ever since I can remember, e.g. “it was just a bureaucratic snafu”. And it always works! Some people are so emotional about the Clintons that they really think it’s okay if the Clintons are fuckups and liars.

  23. She did rack up the points with the WDDIMATP remark.

  24. Clearly, to me, this is an effort by a journalist to publicly justify why they are forced to vote for someone they know is going to screw them over. It’s mental dissonance at it’s finest. She believes in the party, but doesn’t believe in the candidate the party puts up, so therefore she supports the candidate but needs to ‘know’ why. In her mind, there must be a reason. The fact she alighted on ‘truthfulness’ with Hillary R. Clinton just shows how great the dissonance really is for the writer.

    That, or she’s a hack. That is probably more likely.

    1. I would love to ask Abramson to name one Progressive Democratic politician she would not consider fundamentally honest and well meaning. I bet she couldn’t name a single one.

      That of course is because as you point out she believes in the party and that politics is the final arbiter of everything. If you believe that, no one who shares your politics can ever be immoral just as long as they don’t change their politics.

      It is a sick way to live.

  25. Politfact methodology:

    Lying and getting away with it is the same as telling the truth, ergo Hillary Clinton is full of truthiness.

    1. Step one, shamelessly lie and deny the truth.
      Step two, accuse anyone who doubts you of sexism and bad faith
      Step three, when it is no longer tenable to deny the truth, dismiss the issue as old news and accuse your critics of being stuck in the past.

      That is to the Clintons what the power sweep was to Lombardy’s Packers.

    2. That’s not truthiness. That’s second hand Anthony Weiner spit.

  26. There are no instances I know of where Clinton was doing the bidding of a donor or benefactor.

    You mean no check has yet surfaced drawn on a corporate account of General Dynamics or Lockheed or Raytheon for ten million dollars, with the notation “For Services Rendered”? That puts the whole schemozzle to rest.

    1. That is exactly what she means. If you set the standard of proof high enough, anyone is innocent.

  27. Jill Abramson: idiot, liar, or both?

    -jcr

  28. ‘Hillary Clinton Is Fundamentally Honest and Trustworthy’

    Translated from lefty-speak:
    “If you really look hard enough, you can find someplace where she hasn’t yet been caught lying.”

    1. “If you really look hard enough, you can find someplace where she hasn’t yet been caught lying.”

      Actually, it’s worse than that. Apparently, the threshold for ‘fundamentally honest’ these days is “she hasn’t been convicted in a court of law”. I know she’s a politician and they all fudge a little when it comes to honesty. But, shouldn’t our politicians be held to a higher standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

    2. Next to Bill?

  29. Hillary Clinton is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

    Jill Abramson

    Has anyone tried asking Abramson if she would like to play some solitaire?

  30. That Professor Goddard, with his “chair” in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action and reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react?to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.

    — The New York Times, “A Severe Strain on Credulity”, 1/13/1920 – an editorial on Robert H. Goddard’s attempts at rocket-based space travel.

  31. Several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.

    — The New York Times, “New Popular Idol Rises in Bavaria”, 11/21/1922 – a profile on Adolph Hitler

    1. keep them aroused

      Huh, so the Germans have gotten *less* kinky over time.

      1. So instead of beating the bishop they beat the rabbi?

    2. Is that you, Tay?

  32. What Abramson is doing is setting up an appeal to authority to allow people who want to engage in doublethink to sweep inconvenient facts under the mental rug, so they can continue believing palpably untrue things without cognitive dissonance.

    “Look, a NYT editor says Hillary is fundamentally honest, and Politifact proves that’s true. So quit questioning her honesty — it’s settled fact!”

    1. Done and done…

      Pegging Clinton as an inauthentic, conniving phony with little concrete evidence to support that characterization is, essentially, calling her an impostor. In a Guardian editorial on Monday, former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson pointed out that Clinton has the best truth-telling record of any candidate in the race, yet even 40 percent of Democrats think she can’t be trusted.

      The entire article is hilarious.

      1. I stopped after the first two words.

        1. * slow clap *

        2. Vomit, then slow clap.

  33. Jill Abramson used to be the executive editor of The New York Times. Serious newspaper journalists aren’t supposed to be eager to issue any politician a certificate of fundamental honesty

    Here’s the thing =

    I would argue that the thing you call “serious newspaper journalism” isn’t real. Its an *idea* that has very little real history.

    Its something invented by the collective public imagination, enabled by hollywood and TV personalities like Walter Cronkite etc…. its a shared illusion. and one that isn’t even very old.

    Irony? = you think the essential mendacious of *politicians* is so well-established and perfectly-understood as to be obvious to anyone…. but that “serious newspaper journalists” are by contrast supposed to be principled figures who value truth above expedience or utility. why? Well, *because*…

    You don’t seem to grasp that, from the point of view of the disinterested audience, there’s hardly any difference between the two. They operate hand-in-glove, after all.

    When newspapers were born in the late 19th/early 20th century, they openly acted as propaganda organs of political interests. Their purpose was to mix political propaganda in with lurid “Clickbait” stories of sex, crime, and scandal.The mandate was simply to sell ad-space, & get “Their Person” elected.

    Now they don’t even sell ad-space so much.

    I would argue that the post WWII era of “serious journalism” is in fact the anomaly

    1. This is true. In the 19th century newspapers were quite open about their affiliations and would name themselves accordingly, e.g. “The Bumfuck Town Democrat”.

      I think it’s better, because it’s more honest. You knew what you were getting when you plunked down your nickel.

    2. to add = I don’t think this is necessarily a good or bad thing. I think the fragmentation of media that the internet has enabled has mostly been to the good.

      I’d also argue it has forced most of the broadsheet papers to drop their ‘non-partisan’ pretensions. They saw the writing on the wall (*pun intended) and realized that they were losing eyeballs to media outlets that took a more-openly TEAM-centric focus. (see: Fox).

      What is maybe a little concerning is that there is an entire generation who has never really shared this illusion of a “objective media”, and places a fairly low value on fact-finding and truth-telling versus being able to create a compelling emotional narrative.

      basically, its more important for “News” to feel right than to be ‘accurate’. Or, its *not enough* to simply tell the facts, you need to ensure the “and here’s how to feel about that“-part is pre-eminent.

      The fact that much of what we call “news” these days is being delivered via “Blogs”, where there is always a personal perspective being injected, is just a sign of this.

    3. I don’t disagree with any of this, and am probably unique in the world in comparing 1946-1990 American newspapering to the Hungarian half of the Austro-Hungarian empire between 1867 and 1910 or so….

      There’s a big implied “according to their own self-conception” there, which I deploy as an annoying shiv to irritate journalistic conscience, since this self-conception is dear to them.

      1. Do you really think they are self-conscious enough to recognize that implication as a dig without it being made explicit?

      2. There’s a big implied “according to their own self-conception” there, which I deploy as an annoying shiv to irritate journalistic conscience, since this self-conception is dear to them.

        understood. I also think there’s a good argument for leaving room for readers to add the extra-dose of cynicism themselves.

  34. Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda. The food shortage, however, which has affected the whole population in the last year and particularly in the grain-producing provinces?the Ukraine, North Caucasus [i.e. Kuban Region], and the Lower Volga?has, however, caused heavy loss of life.

    — The New York Times, 8/23/1933 — Walter Duranty’s report of conditions in Ukraine during the Holodomor

    1. Do you have links to these? I’d like to read the whole articles.

    2. I wonder how that got past the editor…

      famine |?fam?n|
      noun
      extreme scarcity of food: drought could result in famine throughout the region | the famine of 1921?22.
      ? a shortage: the cotton famine of the 1860s.
      ? archaic hunger.
      ORIGIN
      late Middle English: from Old French, from faim ‘hunger,’ from Latin fames.

      We don’t have a drought, it just hasn’t rained enough this year!

  35. Aside from the selection bias, Politifact really doesn’t have any transparent standards by which they judge statements true or false. I’ve seen them actually say that while something is technically true, it gives the wrong impression and is therefore mostly false. So, something that is technically true is mostly false. Huh?

    1. I’ve seen them actually say that while something is technically true, it gives the wrong impression and is therefore mostly false.

      I’m guessing that Shrillary’s claim that she never received anything “marked classified” wasn’t one of those statements.

    2. I’ve seen them actually say that while something is technically true, it gives the wrong impression and is therefore mostly false

      I’ve also seen them say that something was technically false, but was consistent with the “big picture”, so only merited one-Pinocchio or so. Which i think probably covered every single comment re: climate change they’ve ever rated.

    3. There was an image of Politifact fact check claims floating around Facebook a while ago listing Politifact evaluations of different claims. For Democratic claims, Politifact would say something like “this is true because the OMB lists it as their worst case scenario” while for non-Democratic claims, Politifiact would say, “while it is true that the OMB lists it as their worst case scenario, we rate the claim as false because it is a worst case scenario”.

  36. I’m sure someone will be along shortly, if they haven’t already, to explain to us idiots how this is yet another example of Welch “feeling the Bern”. Especially since he had the audacity to criticize Trump’s lack of honesty in the last paragraph but not Sanders, and on top that insult to our collective intelligence had the gall to link to his thinly disguised paean to the commie prick that he wrote yesterday. Fucking COZMO. /sarc

  37. Hillary is so honest and trustworthy that an op-ed to that effect had to be written. Why if there are not reasonable questions about her honesty and trustworthiness? I’m sorry but this is not about judgments or making mistakes; it’s about her decades-long habit of willfully attempting to circumvent systems designed to prevent the appearance of lying or breaking the public’s trust.

    She lies when the truth would better serve and Herself is nowhere near as talented at doing so as her husband. He actually believes his bullshit and puts some conviction into it. She, not so much.

    1. The fact that your allies have to vouch for your honesty is a pretty good indication that you are anything but.

    2. Because the “reasonable questions about her honesty and trustworthiness” are lies promoted by the vast right wing conspiracy that’s been trying to take Clinton down since 1991 just because she’s a woman.

      /Democratic believer

  38. Before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    http://www.JobToday60.com

    1. April Fool’s!

      It was 94.26, not 9426.00. 😀

  39. “If you assign a simple value formula of 3/2/1/-1/-2/-3 to the six Politifact categories”

    This is a weird metric, for so many reasons. If anything, you should appoint points for lies only, and use that to conduct a number representing the amount of lies told. This is because you should NOT judge the amount of truthfulness someone says on the true things they say, nor should you enumerate them based on VOLUME. Under this system, consider the following scenario.

    Person A States:
    “The sky is blue”
    “Water is liquid”
    “Fire is hot”
    “I AM LITERALLY GOD!!”

    Person B States:
    “The sky is blue.”

    Person A has a truth score of 6, Person B has a truth score of 3. Person A said three totally true things (9 points) and one patently false one (-3 Points) and person B said a total of one true thing (3 points). But, assuming these two people have said nothing other than these facts, and assuming Person A is not, in actuality, God, statistically Person B is the most honest, with 100% truth-telling, whereas person A lies 25% of the time.

    That’s not even getting into the quality of the truth or lie. A mundane truth like “the sky is blue” shouldn’t count for as many points positive as a false claim of personal divinity should count as a negative.

  40. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,

    go to tech tab for work detail,,,,, http://www.onlinecash9.com

    1. Why can’t reason block this crap, or at least let us flog it as spam?

  41. They’re not even pretending not to be crazy anymore

  42. Yes, of course. By the way, I’m Napoleon, or so I claim. Think the French army will follow me in an invasion of Russia?

  43. RE: Former New York Times Editor: ‘Hillary Clinton Is Fundamentally Honest and Trustworthy’

    Of course Hitlery is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.
    Just like her husband.

  44. “A lot of what has happened?and honestly it really pains me?a lot of people have [been] blaming and scapegoating teachers because they don’t want to put the money into the school system that deserve the support that comes from the government doing its job.”

    Politico: While it is true that overall and per-pupil public education spending at both the local and federal level is higher than it has ever been and has increased 300% in the past 40 years, many policy experts and educators believe it should actually be much higher in order for American students to compete in a global economy that sees American students underperforming compared to their peers in other developed countries. We rate this claim Mostly True.

  45. NYT?

    Same fishwrap that employed Jayson Blair. They have no credibility so who cares when their former employees say others do?

  46. my friend’s mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours…..

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ???????

    http://www.Reportmax20.com

  47. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  48. my buddy’s step-mother makes $89 /hr on the laptop . She has been fired for seven months but last month her income was $19439 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you could check here

    ? ? ? ? http://www.ReportMax90.com

  49. Fuck this !!! I ain’t paying for no points. =D

  50. 8″Once I saw the draft of 6274 bucks,,, I admit that my friend’s brother was like really generating cash in his free time with his PC. His uncle’s neighbor has done this for only 9 months and by now repaid the loan on their home and bought a new Car …
    JD!67
    ??
    ??? http://www.alpha-careers.com/?…..-in-home-/

  51. before I looked at the receipt of $8884 , I have faith …that…my cousin woz like they say realy receiving money in there spare time at their computer. . there dads buddy haz done this for only about 14 months and just repaid the mortgage on their place and got themselves a Honda . try this…GHT005.

    ==== http://www.alpha-careers.com

  52. Does anyone believe that Jill is fundamentally honest and trustworthy?

    Didn’t think so. Just another propagandist hiding behind progressive legitimacy.

  53. “As for her statements on issues, Politifact, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking organization, gives Clinton the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates.”

    97% of scientists agree!

    The Left is very big on appeals to authority of someone who published something somewhere, but not very interested in appeals to facts. A window into their souls. Basically herd animals who believe whatever the herd seems to believe.

  54. Welcome to America, where every friggin’ day is April Fools.

  55. On the Newsweek cover she looks like an extra from Planet of the Apes.

  56. And they wonder why we don’t trust the mainstream media.

  57. i really like your blog, thanks for share…
    please visit are website..
    http://packersmoversbhopal.in/…..ers-indore
    http://packersmoversbhopal.in/

  58. If I had a subscription to the New York Times I would cancel it

  59. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  60. No one ever accused the NYT as being honest.

  61. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.net-jobs25.com

  62. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://www.net-jobs25.com

  63. We all know the NYT was built on Agenda and money, not reputation, this is just further evidence.

  64. Before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    http://www.JobToday60.com

  65. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  66. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  67. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?

    ???? http://www.selfCash10.com

  68. my step-mum just bought a new cream Toyota Highlander only from working off a pc… browse around this website

    ??????www.paypost50.com

  69. til I saw the draft which was of $6881 , I didnt believe that my mother in law had been realy taking home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has done this 4 only twelve months and at present took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Subaru Impreza . Learn More ….

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  70. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  71. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.