Wednesday, August 24, 2016

The Odor of Mendacity

Sadly, Diane Rehm doesn't do instant transcripts, so you'd have to sit through the hour-long segment, as I did, to appreciate the mendacity participating in it.

Clinton Derangement Syndrom is real.

Although the host acknowledges that most of the e-mails currently being discussed from Hillary Clinton's tenure as SOS were released by Judicial Watch, no one pointed out just how much the narrative of these e-mails is structured around what Judical Watch says the e-mails say.

Which is not what the e-mails say.

So where Drudge ruled our world when Bill was President, now Judicial Watch (who just took the baton from Drudge) rules our world now that Hillary would be President.  Start there, and the rest of this nonsense makes sense.

It was pointed out to the panel of journalists, by both a guest and a listener, that the effort Clinton put into promoting Boeing and GE products overseas was an effort put forth by the Secretaries of Commerce and Transportation (IIRC on the latter), and was the kind of effort to promote American business since there was American business to promote.  But this is different, the journalists insisted, because Boeing and GE gave money to the Clinton Foundation.

Which is a charity; and the only money the Clinton's can be shown to have taken from it is some travel expenses, presumably when they travel on Foundation business (but who knows?!  Check the kerning on the itineraries!).  Donating to charities is a think corporations do, for their public relations gain.  Getting the SOS to promote your goods is a thing corporations do for American jobs (as well as profits).  Actually even meeting with the SOS is a thing donors (like Melinda Gates!  Check her kerning!) do, because a lot of what foundations do is coordinated through the State Department.

And did I mention it's a charity?  And none of the money from the charity goes directly to the Clinton's, because that would involve violations of law that could be investigated?

Do I exaggerate?  No:

No one is alleging that the Clinton Foundation didn’t (and doesn’t) do enormous amounts of good around the world…

To be clear: I have no evidence — none — that Clinton broke any law or did anything intentionally shady…
But the rest of Cilizza's column is about how BAD this looks!  Because if you look at it just the right way, it really, REALLY looks bad.  Besides, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; or something.

Here, put these glasses on, and it will be clear to you that Hillary Clinton is GUILTY OF SOMETHING!

Now, take 'em off; they'll make your eyes go all funny.

Did I mention I'll be retiring to Bedlam?


  1. It's optics, not substance.  Aye, there's the rub.

    Matt Yglesias at Vox sheds light on the substance of the article in the AP on the Clinton Foundation "scandal", and it turns out there's no there there.  Yglesias' article is long, so how many will take the time to read? Lazy jurnalism by the AP, or something else?

    Not that I don't believe you about the hour-long segment, but reading the AP piece was less time-consuming. I'm so jaded about the Clinton email "scandal" that I'm inclined to dismiss on sight any information that claims to be new.

  2. Thanks for the link. I'd rather read, but I had the radio on this morning, and fortunately left the house before I threw a brick (conveniently located in the back yard) at it.

    One of the journalists would NOT let go of the idea that if Judicial Watch alleged there was smoke, THIS TIME there must be fire!

    Where are the Jeff Gerths of yesteryear? Why, they're all Jeff Gerth now.....