Archive for Hillary Best Choice 2016

The New York Times Got Caught Red Handed Over Their Sinister Article About Hillary Clinton Criminal Investigation Have Tried To Weasel Their Way Out of Their Egregiousness.

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 28, 2015 by sheriffali

A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next! New York Times For Which I am a Paid Subscriber, I Have Witnessed Over The Past Months, Seems Self Evident Has Become Fox News In Print!

 

 

The New York Times after indulging in nothing short of sinister motives, much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

 

 

[Public Editor’s Journal Margaret Sullivan] The story certainly seemed like a blockbuster: A criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton by the Justice Department was being sought by two federal inspectors general over her email practices while secretary of state.

 

It’s hard to imagine a much more significant political story at this moment, given that she is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.

 

The story – a Times exclusive — appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Friday’s paper. The online headline read “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email,” very similar to the one in print.

 

But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

 

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

 

From Thursday night to Sunday morning – when a final correction appeared in print – the inaccuracies and changes in the story were handled as they came along, with little explanation to readers, other than routine corrections. The first change I mentioned above was written into the story for hours without a correction or any notice of the change, which was substantive.

 

And the evolving story, which began to include a new development, simply replaced the older version. That development was that several instances of classified information had been found in Mrs. Clinton’s personal email – although, in fairness, it’s doubtful whether the information was marked as classified when she sent or received those emails. Eventually, a number of corrections were appended to the online story, before appearing in print in the usual way – in small notices on Page A2.

 

But you can’t put stories like this back in the bottle – they ripple through the entire news system.

 

So it was, to put it mildly, a mess. As a result, I’ve been spending the last couple of days asking how this could happen and how something similar can be prevented in the future. I’ve spoken to the executive editor, Dean Baquet; to a top-ranking editor directly involved with the story, Matt Purdy; and to the two reporters, Matt Apuzzo and Michael S. Schmidt.

 

Meanwhile, I heard from readers, like Maria Cranor who wanted clarification and explanation on The Times’s “recent, and mystifying, coverage of the HRC emails. It appears that your reporters relied on leaks from the Gowdy committee to suggest that Clinton was involved in some kind of criminal malfeasance around the emails. The subsequent walk backs have not been effective, or encouraging. Please help us retain our wavering confidence in the Times’ political coverage!” (Her reference is to the Republican congressman, Trey Gowdy.)

 

Another reader, Paul Kingsley, demanded a refund for his Friday paper. “We all deserve one,” he wrote to me. And, complaining about the lack of transparency and the errors, he added:

 

1) Please repost the original reporting;


2) Provide an explanation as to how it made it to press and what was wrong.


3) What are you going to do to prevent such inaccurate bias in the future?


4) Are you going to minimize using unnamed sources?

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

 

 Open The Link Read The Full Article, You Would Be Amazed How Low Journalism Has Stooped!

 

http://nyti.ms/1JKJgk0

CLINTON CAMPAIGN - NEW YORK TIMES JULY 28 15 CLINTON CAMPAIGN - AMERICA'S NEXT POTUS CLINTON CAMPAIGN - THE ONLY 2016 CHOICE CLINTON CAMPAIGN - NEW YORK TIMES JULY 28 15

Nancy Reagan Endorsement Of Hillary Clinton For President Is Factual. This Was Confirmed By Nancy’s Son Ron Reagan On The History Channel.

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 13, 2015 by sheriffali

Last week, during a promotional press conference for The History Channel’s upcoming series “First Ladies in Their Own Words,” series’ host Ron Reagan shared clips of his interviews with all living former First Ladies of the United States. In a brief video clip with his mother Nancy Reagan, she offered her endorsement of Hillary Clinton as President saying,

 

“The time for a woman to serve as our President has come – really, now is the time – and I think the idea of having a former First Lady as the leader of the free world is really quite a marvelous notion. I want Hillary to win. Even though I admire two of the current potential Republican nominees, I have no interest in seeing either of them lead this country.”

 

“First Ladies in Their Own Words” is the brainchild of Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin and Ron Reagan, son of President Ronald Reagan. Broadcast in chronological order of their husbands’ terms in office, Goodwin and Reagan hope the series will show the importance of our First Ladies as a reflection of the culture of the nation during their years in the White House.

 

Besides interviews about family life in the White House and the First Lady’s social importance in the nation, “First Ladies in Their Own Words” will focus on four particular issues and how each has evolved over the last 40 years. Those issues – Women’s Rights, Healthcare, Education and LGBT Rights – reveal a dynamic shift in what Americans think about what means to be “American.” As Pulitzer Prize-winner Doris Kearns Goodwin notes in the first episode, “The Founding Mothers of this country knew that women in Colonial America would never get to shape the politics of the country at that time, but they did know that had the more important job of shaping the men who shaped the country.”

 

Ron Reagan was in his twenties when his father sat in the Oval Office and was clearly aware of what his mother’s job was as First Lady. “Hopefully, this program can show that no matter how divisive the nation was during the Presidency, the First Ladies of this nation knew their job was to soften the rhetoric by loving all Americans equally – just like a mother would.”

 

Asked about his mother’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton, Reagan thought it showed how little America actually knew about the woman behind the Republican icon. “She wants people to know that the First Ladies are tight. They get together once a year to support each other. In fact, Hillary had no interest in running until both Laura and Barbara Bush cornered her at their get-together in May 2013 and talked her into at least thinking about it! So, in a sense, if Mrs. Clinton does run and win, you can blame the Bush family.”

 

“First Ladies in Their Own Words” is not yet scheduled on The History Channel, but is expected to begin during the fall television season. Check local listings for dates and times.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

http://drudgereport.com.co/nancy-reagan-i-want-hillary-to-win/ 

 HILLARY CLINTON - NANCY - RON REAGAN