It takes 10 paragraphs before NYT mentions its latest Clinton hit-piece is speculation

Daily Kos ?@dailykos 2h2 hours ago
It takes 10 paragraphs before NYT mentions its latest Clinton hit-piece is speculation http://trib.al/0M0fqdE

Today's New York Times has an utterly devastating report on the Clinton State Department signing off on a Russian agency taking control of a Canadian uranium mining company after those sneaky Canucks donated money to the Clinton Foundation and Bill was paid for a speech in Moscow. Quid pro quo! Smoking Gun! Oh, wait ... ten paragraphs in, the New York Times remembers to mention:

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.

... because as it turns out, "multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal." Oh. The smoke from the gun clears. Well, not really, as the article continues for another 60 or so paragraphs and this story will be breathlessly cited across the media universe, so ... mission accomplished!

And let's not overlook the Times explaining the genesis of this story:

Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.”

Really? That's it? Mr. Schweizer is a former fellow at a conservative think tank? Did they forget to mention that he's also a Republican operative whose past claims have been repeatedly debunked, who has ties to Ted Cruz, the Koch brothers and Sarah Palin, to name just a few, not to mention being a contributor at the uber-hacktackular Breitbart website? But apparently that wasn't important because:

Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Their own reporting ... which came down to, "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown." You know, the deal signed off on by "multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government."

Is it legitimate to investigate and delve into the practices of and donations to The Clinton Foundation? Of course. But perhaps the New York Times could wait until they find some actual evidence of a quid pro quo before they roll out their next blockbuster. Or not.


read: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/23/1379692/-It-takes-ten-paragraphs-before-New-York-Times-mentions-its-latest-Clinton-hit-piece-is-speculation?detail=twitter_sf