BIAS ALERT: New York Times finds latest Clinton Foundation bombshell unfit to print

Fox News.com ^ | August 24, 2016

[Kaslin]

If you look hard enough, you find there's usually a reason for everything -- even at The New York Times.

But whatever the reason -- maybe it was the story about a parasite jeopardizing fly fishing in Montana, or those Russian hackers who attacked the Gray Lady's Moscow bureau -- the latest Clinton Foundation bombshell couldn't be found among "All the News That's Fit to Print."

The Associated Press scoop Tuesday found that at least 85 of 154 people who got an audience with Hillary Clinton while she led the State Department had donated to her family charity. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million and included private citizens with business before the government. It’s as close to a “pay to play” smoking gun as has emerged to date.

“The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009,” the AP wrote. “But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton.”

[Revel]

The NYT’s should be forced to register as a communist DNC political organization.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Clearly getting her elected means more to them than their own history or reputation.

[WashingtonFire]

Trump needs to mention the Foundation in EVERY speech he makes from now to September.

The amount of evil it has done almost defies belief.

[DoughtyOne]

Look on the bright side.  The New York Times is just practicing for the time a couple of years from now, when they aren't printing anything anymore.


Ramirez's latest political cartoon LARGE VERSION 08/21/2016: LINK  LINK to regular sized version of Ramirez's latest, and an archive of his political cartoons.
In this political cartoon, Ramirez presents, "Obama's Disaster"


If you're not on the automated monthly donation program, please consider joining the One One Done project.  LINK

FReepers, 60.38% of the Third Quarter FReep-a-thon goal has been met.  Please click above and pencil in your donation now.  Please folks, lets end this FReepathon.  Thank you!
...this is a general all-purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

[EinNYC]

Best use for NY Times:

[MNDude]

“But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton.”

Gee... and why would that be?

[sphinx]

“The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009,” the AP wrote.

$156 million in contributions from private individuals with business pending before a federal agency does not violate conflict of interest laws? I would think, at a minimum, that HRC should have recused herself from any dealings with any Clinton Foundation donors, including those from foreign governments as well as the private sector.

I suppose violations of longstanding conflict of interest laws -- which apply to everyone except, apparently HRC -- might be a separate matter from violations of the additional legal agreements HRC and WJC signed before she joined the State Department. But it's hard to believe she didn't violate the latter as well, unless the agreements were crafted from Swiss cheese with most of the cheese trimmed away.

The standard apparently in play here is that nothing will be deemed a violation unless Hillary personally wrote an email saying, "Thank you for your donation of $2 million to the Foundation in return for X,Y and Z. I will see that the USG delivers on our half of the deal immediately. Please keep this confidential because we want to maintain plausible deniabilty in the event that DOJ is unable to squelch any pesky investigators."

Since Hillary probably did not write any such email (such assurances would have been verbal), neither Obama administration sleuths nor the MSM will detect any wrongdoing.

[353FMG]

The Clinton Foundation scandal will not be a deterrent to not vote for Clinton. Those who voted for Obama during the last election will vote for him for a third term(i.e.Hillary)

[Kaslin]

What do you mean from now on to September? Do you realize September is only eight days away?

[Kaslin]

If you want to wipe your behind on that rag.

[Kaslin]

You can say that again, and not only the New York Slimes, but the entire Clinton News Media

[elpadre]

And as NYT goes so goes hundreds of other newspapers who worship the NYT.

[Yaelle]

Clearly getting her elected means more to them than their own history or reputation.

---

And$ don’t$ you$ wonder$ why$ that$ would$ be?$ becau$$$$e I just can’t figure it out.

[rockrr]

One would have been questionable. Two would have been alarming. Ten would have been scandalous. Eighty-five is intolerable! (to normal people but not the MFM).

[kaehurowing]

NYT is very nervous because they are getting hacked by the “Russian hackers.” I am looking forward to seeing the emails regarding how they are instructed what to write by the DNC.

[timestax]

[timestax]

[timestax]

[1Old Pro]

Yep, Bias is what you print and how, and what you don’t print and why.

I couldn’t help but notice Norduh O’Donnell on CBS “This Morning” squirm in her chair as the liberal guest talked about the CLinton problems.