Schweizer, Peter

see 2 poster boy for punk nyt wapo, 2x escalator

primary 11/17 on leverage escalator

fronts as presidential historian for RR fluff bks? also another guy in CU?

impeach

2x context see two

mma mg 1 24

After years of convoluted attempts by Republicans and right-wing media to somehow prove that China had compromised President Joe Biden via his son Hunter Biden’s business interests, Democrats revealed on Wednesday that China directed millions of dollars straight to Donald Trump’s businesses while he was serving as president.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee detailed the transactions in an extensive new report titled “White House for Sale: How Princes, Prime Ministers, and Premiers Paid Off President Trump.” Based on records obtained through litigation, the report finds that the government of China and two state-owned entities spent at least $5,572,548 at Trump Tower in New York City and the Trump International Hotels in Washington, D.C., and Las Vegas, Nevada.

The report also finds that “the ability of Trump family businesses to secure trademarks in China improved markedly and rapidly after Trump entered office,” describes these payments and similar ones to Trump-owned businesses from other countries as unconstitutional “foreign emoluments,” and links the payments to how “Mr. Trump inexplicably took positions favorable to specific Chinese interests” as president.

As The New York Times noted in its writeup, “the transactions … offer concrete evidence that the former president engaged in the kind of conduct that House Republicans have labored, so far unsuccessfully, to prove that President Biden did as they work to build an impeachment case against him.”

Indeed, the right has tried to damage Biden’s political standing by suggesting that he had been compromised by foreign payments to his son’s businesses since at least 2018, when conservative activist Peter Schweizer tried to repeat his success in damaging Hillary Clinton’s campaign. While such claims have collapsed time and time again, they’ve nonetheless become the heart of Republicans’ ludicrous push to impeach Joe Biden.

They’ve also led right-wing media figures to offer comments that seem comically detached from reality given the direct payments detailed in the Democratic report. Commentators have cited payments to Hunter Biden’s businesses as evidence of “the real Biden crimes, potentially treasonous corruption charges after years of selling Joe Biden's power all over the world, including places like China,” said that “we have to know why and where is the president compromised” given that “more money is flowing into the Bidens' bank accounts from China than all the other countries,” and argued that if Joe Biden “can be compromised by the likes of China,” that would make “Watergate look like a smash-and-grab.”

The right’s inept efforts to paint Joe Biden as compromised by China

The insinuations in Schweizer’s book spawned major lines of attack from Rudy Giuliani, John Solomon, Sean Hannity, and other Trumpists that revolved around the bogus conspiracy theory that Joe Biden had taken corrupt action in Ukraine when he was vice president due to his son’s position with a Ukrainian company. Trump’s obsession with this falsehood led him to try to leverage U.S. military aid to Ukraine to get that country’s president to announce an investigation into the Bidens, yielding Trump’s first impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in 2019.

The attacks took on new urgency and refocused on Hunter Biden’s business interests in China in the waning days of the 2020 presidential campaign, when Trump and Fox tried to turn disgruntled former Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski into a household name. Bobulinski had alleged that Joe Biden had met with him in 2017 as part of a joint business venture involving Bobulinski, Hunter Biden, and Chinese oil company CEFC China Energy Co.

Right-wing outlets desperately trumpeted the Bobulinski story even as less credulous reporting revealed that the venture reportedly “never received proposed funds from the Chinese company or completed any deals” and corporate records “show no role for Joe Biden,” who denied any role in the business and was in any case neither in public office nor running for one at the time. And Bobulinski himself acknowledged that when they met, Joe Biden did not ask about the proposed deal.

The right’s Hunter Biden push failed to lift Trump to victory in 2020. But they responded with more of the same, spending the first years of Joe Biden’s administration trying to damage his political standing with similar attacks. And when Republicans won the House in 2022, they pledged to follow through with investigations into what Trumpists like Hannity termed the “Biden Crime Family.”

The House Republican investigations produced a series of reports detailing tangential issues to smear Joe Biden that soared on right-wing media outlets and crashed everywhere else.

In one particularly farcical case, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer alleged that a Hunter Biden business entity “made direct monthly payments to Joe Biden” after it “received payments from Chinese-state linked companies & other shady entities,” which purportedly proved that “Joe Biden knew & benefitted from his family's business schemes."

Fox host Jesse Watters, over onscreen text that read “China Paid Hunter’s Company, Who Then Paid Joe,” said this showed that “China, after being threatened by Hunter, wired millions of dollars to him, and then Hunter started sending his dad payments.” For Hannity, Comer had revealed that “not only did Joe Biden discuss his son's business ventures, but he also received direct payments from one of Hunter's corporations.”

In reality, Joe Biden took over many of his son’s expenses during a period when Hunter was in the depths of drug addiction and Joe Biden was out of office. That included buying his son a truck to use. Hunter Biden made three payments, each for $1,380, to repay his father for the initial payments on the truck before taking over future payments directly.

This was happening at the same time the Chinese government was trying to curry favor with Trump — the sitting president — by making payments directly to the companies he owned and that his sons oversaw. And those revelations from the House Democratic report are the tip of the iceberg as far as corruption during Trump’s presidency is concerned.

While Fox shills like Watters have been contorting the facts to declare Joe Biden “a money laundering operation for foreign nationals,” they’ve curiously missed the massive influence peddling that happened right before their eyes. I wouldn’t hold my breath for that to change — as of posting, Fox had not mentioned the Democratic report.

---

Sean Hannity: People would be furious if Trump and the Trump organization were making millions from China | Media Matters for America

SEAN HANNITY (HOST): To be very honest, I think we're making a big mistake if we don't get to the bottom of this. I cannot, for the life of me, you know, imagine what the media and how the country and the left in this country would be reacting if Donald Trump and the Trump Organization or the Trump family were making tens of millions of dollars from our top geopolitical foes like China and Russia. I can't imagine the left in this country not going insane, but lo and behold, here we are.

Meanwhile:

Donald J. Trump’s businesses received at least $7.8 million from 20 foreign governments during his presidency, according to new documents released by House Democrats on Thursday that show how much he received from overseas transactions while he was in the White House, most of it from China.

...

Using documents produced through a court fight, the report describes how foreign governments and their controlled entities, including a top U.S. adversary, interacted with Trump businesses while he was president. They paid millions to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.; Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas; Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York; and Trump World Tower at 845 United Nations Plaza in New York.

...

“By elevating his personal financial interests and the policy priorities of corrupt foreign powers over the American public interest, former President Trump violated both the clear commands of the Constitution and the careful precedent set and observed by every previous commander in chief,” Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, wrote in a foreword to the report.

Among the countries patronizing Mr. Trump’s properties, China made the largest total payment — $5.5 million — to his business interests, the report found. Those payments included millions of dollars from China’s Embassy in the United States, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and the Hainan Airlines Holding Company.

---

warren hit bk

Harper Collins, a publishing company owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Fox TV

Bannon & Breitbart, aka the Three Men and A Baby ghost

Around that same time in 2011, the 42yo Breitbart suffered a heart attack. Within a year, he collapsed on an L.A. street and died on 1 March 2012, with his autopsy blaming another massive heart attack due to an enlarged heart. Later that very same day, Bannon has said he met with New York investors to plan the future of Breitbart News, and he would quickly be named Executive Chairman on 19 March.

This was a crucial time period for all of these players. In February2012, Bannon founded the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) with $2m in seed funding from the Mercers. Rebekah Mercer became Chairwoman, and Bannon installed Peter Schweizer — author of Reagan’s War, the book adapted into Bannon’s first “documentary” — as president of GAI. Like Bossie and Mercer, Schweizer is yet another Clinton-hating, Reagan-adoring, tax reform & financial deregulation advocate and conspiracy theorist.

A couple of the first ‘reports’ out of the gate for GAI: a treatise attesting to the horrors of food stamps, as well as another which itemized every instance of President Barack Obama’s attendance at his daily briefings. Breitbart predictably publishes multiple stories each time GAI puts out a press release, but both of those early missives were picked up for publication and discussion in major media outlets, such as ABC News, Washington Times, National Review, and Washington Post.

Peter Schweizer on Russia Today

raw story

ref 4 digby

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/09/new-york-times-battered-on-msnbc-for-pushing-smear-of-hunter-biden-in-order-to-maintain-access-to-trump/

An “AM Joy” panel jumped all over the New York Times for pushing a widely debunked smear of Hunter Biden promoted by Donald Trump, saying the newspaper is more interested in maintaining their access to the Oval Office than debunking the lie.

Speaking with host Joy Reid — who noted that her producers asked for comment from the Times but were rebuffed — MSNBC regular Maria Teresa Kumar scorched the Times, as well as reporter Ken Vogel, for the uncritical parroting of the president’s smear.

Pointing to Vogel’s story and noting his source was a Breitbart writer, Kumar explained, “The biggest challenge, Ken Vogel does not declare the source , that Peter Schweizer, is underwritten by the Mercer family — the Mercer family is a neo-facist family that underwrites Steve Bannon and the Breitbart Report so it is not credible.”

“What they had done so stealthily, so well, is that they know that if they can have any type of story in an established newspaper, as is the New York Times, that it any breeds a sense of legitimacy,” she continued. “Fox News takes it and Breitbart takes it, all the ultra-rightwings take it and say, ‘Look, the New York Times is saying it, so it must be true.’ That’s a lack of due diligence.”

“It’s disappointing in the New York Times, quite frankly,” she further explained. “When they try to equate something with Biden and Trump, they’re trying to make sure they continue having access to the president and that’s not the way to do it.”

With host Reid noting Vogel’s desire to not appear on her show, AM Joy regular Eric Boehlert called the Times reporting, including previous stories about Democrats and Hillary Clinton, “Timidity access journalism.”

Watch

// pod save 9/23/19

https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/its-clinton-cash-all-over-again-as-the-media-blow-the-trump-whistleblower-story/

...no lnx

another edition of What Fresh Hell?, Raw Story’s roundup of news items that might have become controversies under another regime, but got buried – or were at least under-appreciated – due to the daily firehose of political pratfalls, unhinged tweet storms and other sundry embarrassments coming out of the current White House.

We would praise the reporters who revealed the content of a whistle-blower’s complaint that the Trump regime has refused to turn over to Congress as the law requires. But it appears that the outlines of the story were already known in DC political circles. Two weeks before the whistleblower story broke, The Washington Post ran an editorial noting that Donald Trump was withholding $250 million in military aid to Ukraine, and that while “some suspect Mr. Trump is once again catering to Mr. Putin, who is dedicated to undermining Ukrainian democracy and independence,… the president has a second and more venal agenda: He is attempting to force [Ukrainian president Volodymyr] Zelensky to intervene in the 2020 U.S. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden.” The authors added, “Mr. Trump is not just soliciting Ukraine’s help with his presidential campaign; he is using U.S. military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it.”

But we’re conflicted about crediting WaPo’s editorial board for breaking that news. They, like so many neutral outlets this week, described the goal of Trump’s extortion as forcing Ukraine to “launch an investigation” of Biden. That is flatly false, as there is no serious allegation of wrongdoing against the former Vice President. So Trump didn’t press Zelensky to investigate Biden–he used the power of his office to extort the newly elected Ukrainian leader to fabricate a controversy about a domestic political opponent.

Every headline suggesting that Trump (or Rudy Giuliani) simply pressed for an “investigation” adds credence to Trump’s defense.

This is not the first time the press has assisted Trump in his effort to smear Biden. In May, The New York Times helped mainstream Trump’s baseless allegation in a story titled, “Biden Faces Conflict of Interest Questions That Are Being Promoted by Trump and Allies.” Although the piece acknowledged that Biden’s effort to pressure the Ukrainian government to oust former prosecutor Viktor Shokin was based on the view of the entire US government that Shokin had consistently turned a blind eye to corruption within Ukraine’s elites, and that Shokin had “long [been] a target of criticism from other Western nations and international lenders,” it nonetheless insinuated that something was amiss because Biden’s son, Hunter, had been connected to a firm that Shokin may have been investigating.

The story was widely panned for being misleading. CNN noted that “it wasn’t until the 19th paragraph that The Times noted that there was no evidence to support the claim that Biden intentionally tried to aide his son by working to oust the prosecutor. Bloomberg also reported on May 16 that the Ukrainian prosecutor general said he had no evidence of misconduct against Biden.”

The piece was co-authored by Kenneth Vogel and Iuliia Mendel. One month later, Mendel took a job as Volodymyr Zelensky’s spokesperson. Vogel remains with The Times.

Here’s @kenvogel of the New York Times saying on MSNBC that he views Joe Biden son’s work in Ukraine as “a significant liability for Joe Biden.”

“There is a story here,” Vogel adds, saying “we’re going to continue to, sort of, pull that back.” (I’m sure Trump is very grateful!) pic.twitter.com/HSl90pk6Zn

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 20, 2019

It’s hard not to see echoes of how The New York Times—followed by CNN and The Washington Post—helped move the Uranium One nontroversy from the fever swamps of the right into the mainstream political dialogue in 2015. That contrived scandal, like this one, had absolutely no basis in fact. It had been pushed relentless by conservative outlets for months without getting much traction, until former Breitbart editor-at-large Peter Schweizer snookered The Times into laundering the allegations in a now-infamous piece titled, “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.” After that, every ostensibly neutral outlet ran with it, and although the story was easily and repeatedly debunked, it, along with EmailGhazi, became the basis for Trump’s claims that Hillary Clinton was hopelessly corrupt and should be locked up. (Peter Schweizer, having failed so far to get traction with a different Biden “scandal” having to do with China, is now pushing hard on the Biden-Ukraine story.)

...

619 funny wihnow the other day

(poster of mercer at LA? moive gig px

https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/inoculation-as-a-form-of-propaganda

np lnx

Inoculation as a form of propaganda

written by Nancy LeTourneau / Washington Monthly June 12, 2019

Meeting charges with countercharges brings a disease into the body politic that's a prophylactic against accountability.

With so much focus on Fox News providing a propaganda platform for Donald Trump, national news outlets haven’t been paying as much attention to theSinclair Broadcasting Group — which has been trying to take over local broadcast news.

It is worth remembering that a 2018 report from Emory University found that “when Sinclair buys a local station, its news program begin to cover more national and less local politics, the coverage becomes more conservative, and viewership actually falls — suggesting that the rightward tilt isn’t enacted as a strategy to win more viewers but as part of a persuasion effort.” In other words, Sinclair has become the local right-wing propaganda network.

True to form, Eric Bolling’s show on Sinclair recently featured an interview with Peter Schweizer. You might remember him as Steve Bannon’s partnerwho authored the book Clinton Cash, which was weaponized by the Trump campaign in 2016. More recently, Schweizer wrote Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends. His discussion with Bolling represents a form of propaganda we’re seeing quite often these days.

“The problem is the corruption is being globalized,” Schweizer said. “What that means is thatforeign governments and foreign oligarchs are looking to recruit the family members of politiciansbecause they believe by striking commercial bargains with them—helping politician families become rich—that they’re going to get favorable treatment.”[CHAO MCCONNELL?!]

“And Joe Biden has been a major recipient of that kind of largesse from them,” Schweizer added.

As he did with Clinton Cash, Schweizer backs up his allegations of corruption with inferences and innuendo, but zero actual evidence. What struck me most was the fact that stories about “globalized corruption” in the form of allegations about countries like Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia have been rampant when it comes to Donald Trump and his family. As a matter of fact, this story broke at about the same time as Schweizer’s interview.

A real estate company part-owned by Jared Kushner has received $90m in foreign funding from an opaque offshore vehicle since he entered the White House as a senior adviser to his father-in-law Donald Trump.

Investment has flowed from overseas to the company, Cadre, while Kushner works as an international envoy for the US, according to corporate filings and interviews. The money came through a vehicle run by Goldman Sachs in the Cayman Islands, a tax haven that guarantees corporate secrecy.

Kushner, who is married to Trump’s elder daughter Ivanka, kept a stake in Cadre after joining the administration, while selling other assets. His holding is now valued at up to $50m, according to his financial disclosure documents.

When right-winger’s like Schweizer level these kind of charges about the Bidens, they are obviously forms of hypocrisy and projection. But it’s also a type of propaganda that we could call “inoculation,” because they introduce the disease into the body politic as a prophylactic against accountability. To mitigate charges of corruption against Trump and his family, similar charges are leveled against their opponents. As we’re seeing now with Attorney General William Barr’s investigation of the investigators, that ultimately leads to charges being met with countercharges in an attempt to confuse the public and ward off accountability.

The reason that kind of propaganda works for Republicans is because low-information voters — spurred by a media obsessed with bothsiderism — tend to respond by saying “they all do it,” which promotes cynicism and a disengagement from the political process. As Barack Obama once wrote:

A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.

As with all forms of propaganda, this one is not easy to combat. But the first step is to recognize what’s going on. From there, taking personal responsibility for staying grounded in facts and evidence, no matter where they lead, is the only possible antidote.

bs wnd

House hearing to shine spotlight on Clinton Foundation

Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 11/22/2018 @ 3:45 pm In APP Frontpage,Politics,U.S. | No Comments

Hillary Clinton at the American Federation of Teachers Union on July 13, 2018 (Video screenshot)

As they prepare to hand over the leadership of committees to the Democrats, House Republicans will hold a hearing into the Justice Department’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

Rep. Mark**Meadows,**R-N.C., told Hill.TV on Wednesday that U.S. Attorney John Huber, who has been working with the DOJ and the FBI on the the probe, will testify before the House Oversight Committee Dec. 5,the Daily Caller reported.

Meadows said Huber was tasked in part with investigating possible “improper activity” by the Clinton Foundation.

The allegations center on “pay for play” donations to the charity while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

Critics, including investigative journalistPeter Schweizer, have presented evidence Clintons exchanged political favors for donations and pushed favorable policies to receive donations.

The New York Times reported Trump told his White House counsel earlier this year he wanted the DOJ to prosecute Clinton.

In March, Attorney General Jeff Sessions decided a special prosecutor was not needed to investigate Hillary Clinton regarding allegations the sale of Uranium One to a Russian state-owned company while she was secretary of state was related to donations made to the Clinton Foundation.

Sessions said Huber also was reviewing the allegations of Republican lawmakers that the FBI used the unsubstantiated anti-Trump dossier to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign in 2016.

Meadows said in a Twitter message at the time that Sessions’ decision not to appoint a special counsel was “disappointing.”

“So the Obama DOJ can open a legally questionable investigation into the Trump campaign — allegedly based on a campaign volunteer mouthing off at a London bar — but this DOJ can’t appoint a second special counsel after all the troubling documents we’ve seen? Disappointing,” he wrote.

Schweizer, the author of “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” was the first to report nine foreign investors in the Uranium One deal gave $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. The N**ew York Times confirmed**in an April 2015 story Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. The Times found that the Clintons, however, did not publicly disclose the contributions, despite an agreement Hillary Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.

In addition,Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank tied to the Kremlin in 2010, when Hillary Clinton opposed sanctions on Moscow. She reversed her position the following year.

Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2018/11/house-hearing-to-shine-spotlight-on-clinton-foundation/

11/18 where are they now/ pension plan check-in premature apparently:

Scam Exposed: Donations To Clinton Foundation Plummeted After ...

Investor's Business Daily-Nov 23, 2018

Controversy over the foundation erupted after Peter Schweizer's 2015 book — "Clinton Cash" — suggested that the foundation served as a way ...

How Fracking Turned OPEC Into The Walking Dead

Investor's Business Daily-22 hours ago

Controversy over the foundation erupted after Peter Schweizer's 2015 book — "Clinton Cash" — suggested that the foundation served as a way ...

Story image for peter schweizer hillary foundation from WND.com

House hearing to shine spotlight on Clinton Foundation

WND.com-Nov 22, 2018

Critics, includinginvestigative journalist Peter Schweizer, have presented evidence Clintons exchanged political favors for donations and ...

Story image for peter schweizer hillary foundation from Weekly Blitz

House Republicans to hear the Clinton Foundation scam

Weekly Blitz-Nov 23, 2018

Critics, including investigative journalist Peter Schweizer, have presented evidence Clintons exchanged political favors for donations and ...

Story image for peter schweizer hillary foundation from Newsweek

John Kelly Accused Fox News Commentator Jeanine Pirro of ...

Newsweek-Nov 21, 2018

Donations to The Clinton Foundation by wealthy investors in Uranium One were later surfaced by the Breitbart News editor Peter Schweizer in ...

Story image for peter schweizer hillary foundation from Fox News

Is migrant caravan a humanitarian crisis?

Fox News-58 minutes ago

Hillary Clinton ran on continuing high immigration into the U.S. But in ..... (ph) exposed the Clinton Foundation's pay-for-play relationship with ...CARLSON: Peter Schweizer is one of the people behind this new documentary.

Story image for peter schweizer hillary foundation from Fox News

Clinton Foundation revving back up despite ethical cloud

Fox News-May 1, 2018

The Clinton Foundation, after seeing a drop in donations amid ... the foundation were first reported by author Peter Schweizer in his 2015 book ...

Story image for peter schweizer hillary foundation from Breitbart News

Peter Schweizer: Serious Investigation of Clinton Foundation and ...

Breitbart News-Jan 5, 2018

Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer talked to Breitbart News Daily on Friday about the renewed investigations into Hillary ...

Amid Calls from Trump, FBI RenewsQuestions Over Clinton Foundation

Highly Cited-New York Times-Jan 5, 2018

View all

Story image for peter schweizer hillary foundation from Breitbart News

Peter Schweizer: Convene a Grand Jury in Little Rock to Address the ...

Breitbart News-Feb 6, 2018

A grand jury should be convened in Little Rock, Arkansas, to examine potential criminality related to the Clinton Foundation, said Peter ...

Story image for peter schweizer hillary foundation from Washington Examiner

The Trump family better be prepared for the Peter Schweizer treatment ...

Washington Examiner-Mar 13, 2018

The Trump family better be prepared for the Peter Schweizer treatment ... racket that defined the FBI's investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

fox tucker c

PETER FRANZ SCHWEIZER, AMERICAN INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, NOVELIST, AUTHOR, POLITICAL CONSULTANT, THE CREEPY LINE PRODUCER:It's what Google and Facebook are doing on regular basis by suppressing stories like steering us towards other stories rather than the stories we're actually seeking.

ROBERT EPSTEIN, SENIOR RESEARCH PSYCHOLOGIST, AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY: It will always favor one online music service over another and one candidate over another.

Google crosses the creepy line every day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON: Peter Schweizer is one of the people behind this new documentary. It's called Creepy - The Creepy Line, and it premiered this week. He joins us on set. Peter, thank you very much--

SCHWEIZER: Great to be here.

CARLSON: --for coming on. So, why should we care what Google, a private company, is doing?

SCHWEIZER: Because they have an amazing amount of influence on the consumption of information and news in this country. 80 to 90 percent of searches are done through Google.

And Google not only collects information on us, which threatens our privacy, but they use that information to manipulate us, to steer us in directions we don't want to go. It's affecting the voting that's taking place in this country. And some people are arguing it's determining the outcome of elections.[no mention of cambr anal nb]

CARLSON: Well, so, how could you have a meaningful democracy where the people rule in the face of corporate power this concentrated?

SCHWEIZER: Well, look, the ma - mantra has always been you've got to have an informed electorate, right?

CARLSON: Right.

SCHWEIZER: The electorate needs to--

CARLSON: Exactly.

SCHWEIZER: --know what's going on.

Well, the problem is, if you have voters, who are not high information voters, but they - they want to vote, and they're going to go to Google to guide them in the week before an election, and those results are skewed.

And there's overwhelming academic evidence that they manipulate search results. You're going to have an electorate that is strongly influenced by the result. That undermines democracy.

The fundamental problem is - is that people don't recognize that. They don't understand they're being manipulated. And unless something is done about it, the future of the Republic is - is under threat.

CARLSON: Yes. You can't have a democracy under those circumstances.

SCHWEIZER: Yes.

CARLSON: But just to back up, you said there's overwhelming academic evidence that Google--

SCHWEIZER: Yes.

CARLSON: --manipulates its search results. They deny that.

SCHWEIZER: Yes. They do. And here's the interesting thing, Tucker. They've denied this before.

You remember 10 years ago or so, Yelp and some of these other companies, TripAdvisors were accusing Google of manipulating the algorithm to suppress them in search results and who push Google-related companies. And Google said, "Absolutely not. These results are organic."

We now know the Federal Trade Commission, the European Union, and Academics at Harvard said, "That's wrong. You were manipulating the algorithm."

Their defense now is the same when it comes to political speech. The problem is that there's been numerous peer-reviewed studies done by Robert Epstein and others that clearly demonstrates they are suppressing news stories.

And, in fact, in the 2016 election, they found in all 10 search results from one through 10, Google was suppressing negative stories about Hillary Clinton and pushing positive stories about and - and - and pushing negative stories about Donald Trump.

This, by a researcher, by the way, who was a Hillary Clinton supporter, not a Trump supporter.

CARLSON: This seems like the story of the century.

SCHWEIZER: Yes. Huge story. Huge story. And overlooked, because it's confusing, it's difficult to understand, and it's happening behind the curtain. It's the Wizard of Oz behind the iron curtain. We were used to thinking about, you know,Dan Rather, media bias.

He makes a snarky comment. He makes a comment about George Bush. That's visible for everyone to see. This kind of bias is hidden. We don't know what we don't know, and that's what makes it so frightening.

CARLSON: It's a remarkable story and a remarkable documentary. Thank you, Peter Schweizer. I appreciate it.

2018 book

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/03/22/this-time-peter-schweizer-went-too-far-even-for-the-new-york-times/

at a moment when the current President of the United States is up to his eyeballs in scandals related to sex, his finances and a possible conspiracy with Russians to influence the 2016 election—not to mention his obvious mental unfitness for office—it is nothing short of absurd that right-winger Peter Schweizer is out with a book about political corruption that ignores all of that.

Let’s remind ourselves of Schweizer’s most recent history. He co-founded the Government Accountability Institute with Steve Bannonand financing from Robert Mercer. His last book, Clinton Cash, was weaponized (with a huge assist from the New York Times) to lay the foundation for Trump’s “crooked Hillary” meme and the media’s obsession with the Clinton Foundation.

On the cover of Schweizers latest book, Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, we see the faces of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Mitch McConnell and Jared Kushner. During a recent interview with Sean Hannity,Schweizer claims that the inclusion of Kushner was more of a warning than an allegation of corruption. But it is worth noting that Schweitzer’s partner, Steve Bannon, has been pretty open about the fact that he considers the president’s son-in-law to be an enemy, along with Majority Leader McConnell.

The attacks on Biden and Kerry are apparently based on Schweizer’s assertion that, while in their roles as Vice President and Secretary of State, they went easy on China and their sons benefited in their business dealings as a result. Once again, he’s playing the “merchant of doubt” with no actual evidence of corruption. All he has is a factless assertion that these two politicians gave China a break and that their sons were rewarded.

Right-wingers are positively salivating over the inclusion of Barack Obama in all of this. Take a look at how the writers at Investor’s Business Daily open their report.

Former President Obama and his political supporters have repeatedly stated that his administration was scandal-free, unlike administrations before and after. “We’re probably the first administration in modern history that hasn’t had a major scandal in the White House,” Obama himself said…

But now comes Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Secret Empires: How Our Politicians Hide Corruption and Enrich Their Families and Friends,” which shows that the Obama administration and its cronies were up to their necks in questionable business deals and may even have intentionally distorted public policy to accommodate their own profit-making.

They are mad as hell that none of their pseudo-scandals—from Benghazi to Fast and Furious—ever materialized into anything other than fantasies in their fevered imaginations. But now…they’ve finally got something on Obama. He and his cronies may have even “intentionally distorted public policy to accommodate their own profit-making.” It’s just that somehow, over the course of eight years, we all missed what was going on and Schweizer has finally broken the code.

Katelyn Caralle, writing in the Washington Examiner, summarized how this supposedly worked.

The book, released Tuesday, said Obama and his administration would deem industries either destructive to the environment or exploitative for the financial and professional gain of his friends, including industries such as coal mining, offshore drilling, cash advance companies, and for-profit colleges.

In other words, Obama didn’t really have an issue with polluters contributing to climate change or the way that payday lenders and for-profit colleges ripped people off. What was behind his executive actions was really a scheme about lowering the value of those companies so that his friends could swoop in a make a quick buck off of them.

It’s hard to miss the projection going on here. When conservatives suggest that they support coal miners, it’s really about lining the pockets of people like Don Blankenship. When they promote tax cuts for the middle class, it turns out that they’re really boosting the shareholder profits of major corporations. Given that, you can see why they might not understand that someone like Barack Obama really cares about the crisis of climate change or how various businesses set out to exploit people of modest means. There must be nefarious motives—like the enrichment of his friends.

Peter Schweizer knows better. This is nothing short of an attempt to distract us all from how Donald Trump and Republicans continue to exploit the working people of this country for their own political and financial gain. He and his pal Steve Bannon assume that this will give fuel to the mainstream media’s love affair with both siderism.

So far, it’s not working. Schweizer’s book is literally lighting up right-wing news sites. But this time, even the New York Times doesn’t seem to be buying it. His claims are so absurd that perhaps people are finally beginning to see him for the propagandist he’s always been.

guard uk sez clinton cash early and critical moment that set up narrative crooked hillary?

injected escalator into mainstreaM PRESS

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/11/8/billionaire_gop_backer_robert_mercer_used

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Cash

Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich is a 2015 *New York Times* bestsellingbook by Peter Schweizer in which he investigates donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities, paid speeches made by Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the state of the Clintons' finances since leaving the White House in 2001. It was published by Broadside Books, a division of HarperCollins. Research for the book was conducted by the Government Accountability Institute,^[1] a conservative nonprofit investigative research organization founded by Peter Schweizer and Steve Bannon. It has been adapted into both a film and a graphic novel.

Synopsis

The book argues that the Clinton family accepted lavish donations and speaking fees from foreign donors at times when the State Department was considering whether to award large contracts to groups and people affiliated with those donors.}:^[4] One of those donors include Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi.Clinton Cash is an investigation of the foreign benefactors of Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.^[2] It investigates alleged connections between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department.^[3]

The book has eleven chapters. Some chapters focus on particular transactions or deals, such as the creation of UrAsia Energy and Uranium One in Kazakhstan, and the connection shareholders had and have to the Clintons. Other chapters focus on a broader set of relationships, particularly with regard to Bill Clinton’s paid speeches during the years Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, and whether those paying for his speeches had significant business before the State Department.^[4] Schweizer dubs the Clintons' blend of government service and private remuneration the “Clinton blur.” ^[5]

Publication

The New York Times, The Washington Post and Fox News were granted exclusive agreements with the book's author to pursue the story lines found in the book.^[6] The Times faced considerable criticism for this arrangement from both its readers and from other media outlets.^[6] The paper's own public editor, Margaret Sullivan, said the arrangement was "troubling" and lacked transparency.^[6] Salon wrote that Schweizer was not a responsible journalist and that the arrangement showed that right-wing forces were luring the mainstream press into giving attention to gossip and innuendo much as they had during various supposed Clinton controversies of the 1990s.^[7] In addition, Media Matters criticized these two newspapers for failing to report in a timely fashion on inaccuracies that had been discovered in the book.^[8]

Clinton campaign reaction

The day the book was published, Hillary Clinton's campaign set up a portal called "The Briefing" on its official website. The Briefing is designed to rebut the allegations made in Schweizer's book. Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta, wrote: "The book has zero evidence to back up its outlandish claims... While we will not be consumed by these kinds of attacks, we will also not let them go unchallenged."^[9] Various spokespeople for Hillary and Bill Clinton disputed the book's allegations,^[10] e.g. concerning the charges that Clinton was paid for speeches by Irish billionaire Denis O'Brien of Digicel in exchange for help in securing telecommunications contracts in Haiti in 2010.^[11]

Commercial reception

Clinton Cash debuted at number two on the *New York Times* Best Seller list. In its first week it sold 31,000 copies and was also second on the Nielsen BookScan ranking for adult nonfiction.^[12] The book stayed on the New York Times Best Seller list for hardcover non-fiction for five weeks.^[13]

A paperback edition of the book released in 2016 made the relevant Times best seller list as well.^[14] According to Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, the book sold approximately 200,000 copies, in hardcover and paperback as of July 2016.^[15]

Critical reaction and actions taken

Writing for The Washington Post, academic and political activist (and briefLY 2016 U.S. Democratic presidential primary opponent of Hillary Clinton) **Lawrence Lessig** wrote "On any fair reading, the pattern of behavior that Schweizer has charged is corruption."^[16] James Freeman reviewed the book for The Wall Street Journal, writing that "Almost every page of the fascinating Clinton Cash... will be excruciating reading for partisans on both sides of the aisle".^[17]

Ed Pilkington, writing for The Guardian,reported that it was factually correct that "large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One,Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion dollar sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors."^[18] Following publication and in reaction to areas where it said improvements were warranted, the Clinton Foundation said it would put into place some new procedures for better financial reporting and that it would limit some kinds of foreign donations. Pilkington assessed those claims made by the Clinton Foundation as unlikely to put the matter to rest: "But with Bill refusing doggedly to give up his speaker engagements – “I gotta pay our bills” – and foreign corporations and super-rich individuals still able to donate to the family charity, it looks like this controversy may run and run."^[18]

Pilkington also described the book as "an unrestrained attack on the former president and first lady." Pilkington notes that several of the claims in the book have been proven factually false. According to Pilkington, Schweizer does not prove corruption on the part of the Clintons, but "one of his main contentions – that the former president’s rates skyrocketed after his wife became secretary of state – is correct... pointing to several glaring conflicts of interest."^[18]

Several weeks after the book's initial publication, HarperCollins and the author made several corrections to the Kindle edition of the book. Schweizer corrected "seven or eight" passages that were revealed to be inaccurate after the book was released.^[3] FactCheck.org found Schweizer's assertion that Clinton, as Secretary of State, could have stopped Russia from buying a company with extensive uranium mining operations in the U.S. to be false.^[19] PolitiFact found the assertion that Clinton changed her views on a nuclear deal with India in response to donations to her family's foundation to be false.^[20]

Film adaptation

In May 2016, a film adaptation of the book, funded by co-founder of Government Accountability Institute and Breitbart News executive chairman Stephen Bannon (CEO of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016), was screened at the Cannes Film Festival.^[21][22]

***Time* magazine** reported that conservatives were not the intended audience for the film adaptation of the book: "Environmentalists. Anti-nuke activists. Gay-rights advocates. Good-government folks. They’re all going to find themselves increasingly uncomfortable over claims that the likely Democratic nominee, in the film’s words, takes cash from the “darkest, worst corners of the world.”^[23]

The film's U.S. premiere was scheduled for July 24, 2016 in Philadelphia (prior to the 2016 Democratic National Convention there) and the film had a limited release in four other major U.S. cities in early August.^[21][22]The release has not gained enough attention from professional reviewers to gain scores on either the Rotten Tomatoes or MetaCritic websites.On that same day, Breitbart News uploaded the filmonto YouTube.^[24]

Graphic novel adaptation

A graphic novel adaptation of the book, written by Chuck Dixon and illustrated by Brett R. Smith, was released by Regnery Publishing on August 8, 2016.^[25][26]

In late summer 2016 this graphic adaptation placed itself atop the Times best seller list for the Hardcover Graphic format.^[27]

References

:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "This Man Is the Most Dangerous Political Operative in America". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2017-02-05.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Becker, Jo; McIntire, Mike (April 23, 2015). "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Cash#cite_ref-politico_3-1) Karni, Annie (May 14, 2015). ":{':(style="padding-left:0.2em"):}:Clinton Cash' publisher corrects '7 or 8' inaccurate passages". Politico. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Cash#cite_ref-Newsweek0501_4-1) Wofford, Taylor (May 1, 2015). "Everything You Need to Know About 'Clinton Cash:{':(style="padding-right:0.2em"):}:". Newsweek. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Green, Joshua; Epstein, Jennifer (April 25, 2015). "Author Alleges Bill Clinton Just Quit Education Company Because of 'Clinton Cash:{':(style="padding-right:0.2em"):}:". Bloomberg. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Cash#cite_ref-public_6-1) ^c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Cash#cite_ref-public_6-2) Sullivan, Margaret (April 23, 2015). "An ‘Exclusive’ Arrangement on a Clinton Book, and Many Questions". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "The right’s new Clinton obsession just went mainstream: How a sketchy Hillary “exposé” hooked the New York Times". Salon. April 21, 2015.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/05/01/after-forming-clinton-cash-exclusives-ny-times/203492
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Haberman, Maggie. "Clinton Team Bolsters Its Defense Ahead of Negative Book’s Release", The New York Times, May 4, 2015. Accessed: May 6, 2015.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Stanton, John (April 28, 2015). "Spokesman Disputes Book: Bill Clinton Not Paid For Series Of Speeches". buzzfeed.com. Retrieved 1 April 2016.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ ":{':(style="padding-left:0.2em"):}:Spokesman Disputes Book: Bill Clinton Not Paid For Series Of Speeches". buzzfeed.com. April 28, 2015.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Milliot, Jim (2015-05-15). ":{':(style="padding-left:0.2em"):}:Clinton Cash,' 'Selfish' Hit the List". Publishersweekly.com. Retrieved 2016-09-11.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Paul, Pamela (21 June 2015). "Hardcover Nonfiction Books - Best Sellers - June 21, 2015 - The New York Times". The New York Times Book Review. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 7 October2016. 5 WEEKS ON THE LIST: CLINTON CASH by Peter Schweizer. Harper/HarperCollins. An examination of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2016-06-14. Retrieved 2016-06-14.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ "Hillary and Bill Clinton's Story of Money-Grubbing and Sleaze". 21 July 2016.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Lessig, Lawrence (May 8, 2015). "Democrats embrace the logic of 'Citizens United:{':(style="padding-right:0.2em"):}:". The Washington Post. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Freeman, James (May 6, 2015). "There’s Money to Be Made". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Cash#cite_ref-guardian_18-1) ^c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Cash#cite_ref-guardian_18-2) Pilkington, Ed (May 5, 2015). "Clinton Cash: errors dog Bill and Hillary exposé – but is there any 'there' there?". The Guardian. Retrieved 28 August 2015.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Kiely, Eugene (April 28, 2015). ":{':(style="padding-left:0.2em"):}:No ‘Veto Power’ for Clinton on Uranium Deal". FactCheck.org. Retrieved 1 April 2016.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Carroll, Lauren (May 6, 2015). ":{':(style="padding-left:0.2em"):}:Clinton Cash' author: Hillary Clinton changed positions on India nuclear deal". PunditFact. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved 1 April 2016.
^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Cash#cite_ref-GreenFilm_21-1) Joshua Green, 'Clinton Cash' Has Been Made Into a Movie, Bloomberg Politics (April 28, 2016).
^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a ^b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Cash#cite_ref-GuardianFilmAdaptation_22-1) Clinton Cash film aims to cause likely Democratic nominee maximum damage, The Guardian (May 12, 2016).
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Elliott, Philip (12 May 2016). "Clinton Cash: A Scathing Film Aimed at Persuading Liberals". TIME.com. New York: Time Magazine. Retrieved 7 October 2016.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Hudson, Jerome (25 July 2016). ":{':(style="padding-left:0.2em"):}:Clinton Cash’ Movie Surpasses 500,000 Views in 48 Hours". Retrieved 25 July 2016.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ Harper, Jennifer (24 July 2016). "Bill and Hillary: The graphic novel". The Washington Times. Retrieved 5 August 2016.
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ ISBN 978-1-62157-545-0
:{Jump up:(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^ [[1]](https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/hardcover-graphic-books/?_r=0)^[dead ^link]

Categories:

mirror/ cover for collusion?

In an Oct. 19 story for Breitbart, Stone said Podesta’s business ties to Russia were the motivation for the tweet.

nb wsj art'l on podesta ussr is peter schweitzer

https://www.wsj.com/articles/john-podesta-and-the-russians-1477262565

http://mediamatters.org/tags/peter-schweizer

no link img

Echoing Trump, Fox Casts Doubt On FBI's Probe Into Clinton's Emails

Research ››› November 7, 2016 11:18 AM EST ››› JULIE ALDERMAN

Fox News personalities are echoing Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign, which claimed that the FBI would not have been able to “review 650,000 emails in eight days” to cast doubt on the bureau’s probe into Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. However, experts point out that the FBI is able to do so using technology such as “automated search and filtering tools.”

The FBI Was Basing A Potential Clinton Foundation Case On This Garbage Right-Wing Book

Blog ››› November 2, 2016 10:01 AM EDT ››› MATT GERTZ

The FBI was reportedly trying to build an investigation into the Clinton Foundation around claims made in a right-wing book riddled with errors written by a Republican activist with a history of bogus reporting. The author’s organization is headed by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign chief executive and is funded by one of Trump’s top campaign supporters.

The FBI in August was considering whether to expand investigations into both Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s “secretive business dealings in Ukraine”and Democratic presidential nominee “Hillary Clinton’s relationships with donors to her family foundation,” but, following longstanding precedent, decided not to proceed for fear of impacting the election, according to The New York Times. The paper further reported that the Clinton Foundation inquiry “had not developed much evidence and was based mostly on information that had surfaced in news stories and the book ‘Clinton Cash,’ according to several law enforcement officials briefed on the case.”

Clinton Cash: The Untold Story Of How And Why Foreign Governments And Businesses Helped Make Bill And Hillary Rich is a 2015 book authored by Peter Schweizer, a Republican activist and consultant who has worked for Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and Breitbart News.

Schweizer has a disreputable history of reporting marked by errors and retractions, with numerous reporters excoriating him for facts that "do not check out," sources that "do not exist," and a basic failure to practice "Journalism 101." Clinton Cash is similarly a trainwreck of bogus research that included more than 20 errors, fabrications, and distortions, according to a Media Matters review. On the campaign trail, Trump has pushed conspiracy theories from the book, leading reporters to note that the book has been “discredited” and features “lies” and claims that “fell apart under scrutiny.”

Schweizer is also the president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), a right-wing group that purports to investigate “government corruption.” Stephen Bannon, who is taking a leave of absence from his role as chief executive of Breitbart News to serve the same role with the Trump campaign, is also the executive chairman and co-founder of GAI. The group has been heavily funded by the Mercer Family Foundation, which is run by Rebekah Mercer.

Mercer’s father, the hedge fund magnate Robert Mercer, is one of the nation’s largest Republican donors and a major investor in Breitbart News, and the father and daughter were reportedly key to Bannon’s ascension to a leading role in the Trump campaign. Robert Mercer has also donated millions to a pro-Trump super PAC that Rebekah Mercer controls.

UPDATE: Schweizer disclosed during an August Fox News appearance that "earlier this year at [theFBI's] request," he had met with "two people from the bureau to talk about some things related to the Clinton Foundation, specifically things that were in Clinton Cash." From the August 24 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:

Mike Pence Runs With Conservative Media Lie About Clinton Foundation’s Charitable Spending

Blog ››› October 4, 2016 11:59 PM EDT ››› ERIC HANANOK

Republican vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence ran with the lie that the Clinton Foundation has only devoted 10 percent of its funds to charitable causes. Pence’s figure, which has been frequently used by conservative media figures throughout the campaign, is wildly inaccurate: fact-checkers have concluded that the charity devotes 80-90 percent of money to charitable causes, and charity watchdogs have given the foundation high ratings.

During the October 4 debate, Pence claimed twice that “less than 10 cents on the dollar in the Clinton Foundation has gone to charitable causes.” Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine responded, “90 percent.” Debate moderator Elaine Quijano did not respond to the exchange.

Pence’s statistic is false.

PolitiFact wrote that the “Clinton Foundation spends between 80-90 percent on program services, which experts say is the standard in the industry to define charitable works. It spends the majority of its money directly on projects rather than through third-party grants.”

FactCheck.org similarly found that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only spends a small portion of its money on charitable works is “simply wrong.” It wrote that “One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.”

Pence’s 10 percent statistic was popularized by author Peter Schweizer, who wrote the error-riddled book Clinton Cash. Trump and his campaign have repeatedly touted Schweizer’s work.

Claims that the Clinton Foundation gave a small percentage of its funds to charitable works have been echoed throughout the conservative media. For instance:

Rush Limbaugh claimed that "85 percent of every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up either with the Clintons or with their staff to pay for travel, salaries, and benefits. Fifteen cents of every dollar actually went to some charitable beneficiary."

Fox Business host Gerri Willis claimed only 6 percent of the foundation's 2013 revenue "went to help people."

Fox News co-host Eric Bolling said that "only 10 cents on the dollar went to charitable uses, causes."

Fox News host Jeanine Pirrosaid of the Clinton Foundation: “It is not a charitable foundation. No charitable foundation has only 10 percent that goes to a charity.”

Further undermining Pence’s claims, two leading foundation watchdogs -- Charity Navigator and CharityWatch -- have given the Clinton Foundation high marks.

CharityWatch President Daniel Borochoff told CNN of the Clinton Foundation: “They have good governance and accountability. They have great financial efficiency. They have valuable, important programs that help a lot of people in the world. Pull the politics out. Regardless of what you think about Hillary, the Clinton Foundation is an excellent charity.”

Clinton-Obsessed Judicial Watch Hosts Discredited Conspiracy Theorists To Push New Misinformation

Research ››› September 22, 2016 7:37 PM EDT ››› BOBBY LEWIs

Conservative anti-Clinton group Judicial Watch announced a “special panel presentation” promising a “scandal update” on the Clinton Foundation and the emails of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Judicial Watch, itself a hub for baseless smears against the Clintons, invited to the panel two discredited Clinton conspiracy theorists known for making claims based on “bogus” data.

Days After Breitbart Exec. Becomes Head Of His Campaign, Trump Calls For Clinton Foundation Special Prosecutor

Trump’s Call For Special Prosecutor Premised On Baseless Lies Promoted By Breitbart’s Stephen Bannon...

conspiracy theorists known for making claims based on “bogus” data.

Days After Breitbart Exec. Becomes Head Of His Campaign, Trump Calls For Clinton Foundation Special Prosecutor

Trump’s Call For Special Prosecutor Premised On Baseless Lies Promoted By Breitbart’s Stephen Bannon

Blog ››› August 22, 2016 10:05 PM EDT ››› TYLER CHERRY

Donald Trump called for a special prosecutor to conduct an “expedited investigation” into the Clinton Foundation, just days after former Breitbart News chairman Stephen Bannon was named chief executive of Trump’s campaign. Bannon helped spread the baseless smears hyped in the discredited Clinton Cash book that Trump is now lifting his attacks from.

Trump said during an August 22 campaign rally that “an expedited investigation by a Special Prosecutor” into the Clinton Foundation -- specifically into claims of “coordination between the pay-for-play State Department and the corrupt Clinton Foundation” -- is required because the FBI and Department of Justice “certainly cannot be trusted to quickly or impartially investigate Hillary Clinton’s crimes.”

Trump’s demand for a special prosecutor comes less than a week after Trump hired former Breitbart News executive chairman Stephen Bannon as the campaign’s chief executive. Bannon -- who ran Breitbart as a propaganda arm of the Trump campaign -- has long led a smear campaign against Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation with discredited and false attacks.

After Breitbart editor-at-large Peter Schweizer wrote the error-filled Clinton Cash-- which made a series of baseless allegations of corruption and quid pro quo by the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton -- Bannon wrote and produced the accompanying documentary film. Bannon is also the executive chairman and co-founder of the Government Accountability Institute, which Schweizer is president of.

Among the discredited attacks that Trump has adopted from Bannon and Schweizer’s smear campaign include claims that Clinton “signed off” on a Russian uranium deal that led to “millions of dollars in donations” to the Clinton Foundation. That conspiracy has been widely discredited, and Schweizer himself admitted he had no "direct evidence" proving Clinton intervened on the issue.

Trump also echoed Bannon and Schweizer’s evidence-free claim that an Iranian telecommunications company escaped sanctions from Clinton while secretary of state because it paid Bill Clinton for a speech.

It is no surprise that Trump is infusing Bannon’s shoddy anti-Clinton attacks with his own campaign, given the close-knit relationship Trump has had with Breitbart during his campaign.

Hannity Hosts Discredited Anti-Clinton Shills Dinesh D'Souza And Peter SchweizerFollowing First Night Of DNC

Video ››› July 26, 2016 12:39 AM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

GOP Lawmakers Latch Onto Fox’s Unsubstantiated Claims About A Clinton Foundation Investigation

Research ››› July 19, 2016 6:58 PM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

GOP lawmakers reportedly circulated a letter requesting several federal agencies investigate the Clinton Foundation, parroting “unresolved media reports” to allege that the nonprofit was a “lawless ‘pay to play’ enterprise.” This latest move echoes months of unsubstantiated assertions from Fox News that the foundation was already under investigation for supposed abuses during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

Hannity Says Clinton Cash Book "Was Never Debunked," One Day After His Fox Colleague Debunked It

Video ››› June 23, 2016 5:36 PM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

O'Reilly: "Fox News Cannot Confirm The Data" Behind Discredited Book Trump Used To Smear Hillary Clinton

Video ››› June 22, 2016 8:27 PM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

Reporters React To Trump’s Clinton Cash Citations By Noting "Widely Discredited" Book's Factual Problems

Research ››› June 22, 2016 4:43 PM EDT ››› ERIC HANANOKI

Donald Trump forwarded conspiracies from the book Clinton Cash during his June 22 speech attacking Hillary Clinton. Numerous reporters correctly noted that the book suffers from serious factual problems; as CNN analyst David Gergennoted, “that book has been basically discredited.”

The Discredited Books At The Heart Of Trump's Speech

Research ››› June 22, 2016 1:04 PM EDT ››› ERIC HANANOKI

Donald Trump cited claims from two discredited anti-Clinton books -- Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash and Gary Byrne’s Crisis of Character -- in his June 22 speech attacking Hillary Clinton. Clinton Cash is filled with errors and sloppy research, while Crisis of Character has been strongly denounced by Secret Service veterans as implausible.

On Smerconish, David Brock Says Major Media Outlets Concluded “There’s No There, There” From Clinton Cash

Video ››› June 12, 2016 9:48 AM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

Peter Schweizer Teams Up With Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones To Promote Clinton Cash Movie

Video ››› June 3, 2016 4:28 PM EDT ›››

Fox Hosts Author Of Error-Filled Book Clinton Cash To Recycle Debunked Smears About Hillary Clinton

Video ››› May 23, 2016 10:30 AM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

The Breitbart Team Turned An Anti-Clinton Smear Book Into A Terrible Documentary

Blog ››› May 13, 2016 5:17 PM EDT ››› JOE STRUPP

The upcoming anti-Clinton documentary Clinton Cash largely rehashes the shoddily-researched conspiracies from the 2015 book on which it’s based.

Media Matters attended a screening of the film Thursday in New York City ahead of its release. Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart News executive chairman Steve Bannon – who co-wrote and co-produced the film -- were on hand to promote it to an audience that included Fox News personalities Bill Hemmer and Brian Kilmeade.

When the book -- which largely pushes the evidence-free claim that while serving as secretary of state, Clinton did favors for foreign entities that donated to the Clinton Foundation -- was published last year, Schweizer, a Republican activist with a history of factual problems, was criticized by Media Matters and other outlets for a series of sloppy errors. Some of the errors were later corrected in the Kindle version of the book.

Clinton Cash also heavily relied on innuendo in the absence of solid proof for its central allegation that the Clintons have traded favors for money. As Slate writer Jamelle Bouie put it, “Peter Schweizer’s attack on the Clintons leads with his conclusions and never connects the dots.”

The film has many of the same factual problems. For example, a key accusation lobbed at the Clinton Foundation in the film in order to undermine the idea that it does important charitable work is the claim that only “10 percent” of its donations actually go to charity.

Schweizer repeatedly relied on this talking point while on the Clinton Cash book tour last year, claiming that other than the 10 percent the Clinton Foundation gives to “other charitable organizations, the rest they keep for themselves.”

But the “10 percent” statistic is deceptive -- even Fox News labeled it “incredibly misleading.” Network correspondent Eric Shawn explained in a report last year that the Clinton Foundation doesn’t “give grants to other charities. They do most of it themselves." He also cited IRS figures indicating the foundation has a "rate of spending of about 80 percent" and "experts for charity say that's very good.”

The film uses big headlines and grainy news clips to paint the Clintons as being in the pocket of anyone who pays for a speech or donates to the Clinton Foundation, but still fails to connect the dots with substantial evidence.

“You have money coming at certain times and then you have policy decisions that are made that affect the people that sent the money, then people are left to the question: is this all coincidence or is this a case of follow the money,” Schweizer told Media Matters after the screening. “I just don’t believe it’s coincidence.”

The film doesn't feature interviews with sources or people with direct knowledge of the events that Clinton Cash claims prove a quid pro quo arrangement.

“That was intentional,” Schweizer said about the missing outside voices. “We simply wanted to narrate the stories as they came through and explain to people how it rolled out. We didn’t want it to be talking head.”

Following the screening, Bannon said the film is going to premiere at the Cannes Film Festivalon Monday, and that the producers are “in discussions with people approaching us to get this out before the [Democratic] convention.” DID IT? RECEPTION?

Bannon added, “We may cut a TV deal with a broadcast or a cable network like Yahoo or Netflix, we are in discussion with people to get this out to a broader audience.” He later joked, “We’re open for bids right after this.”

He said the movie “cost a couple million bucks” to make, but did not elaborate on the funding sources.

Schweizer claimed the documentary is not designed to just throw “red meat” out to a conservative audience, instead suggesting the filmmakers are trying to dissuade people outside the Republican party from supporting Hillary Clinton.

“This is really designed to appeal to people in general, who may not know much about how the Clintons have operated,” Schweizer said. ”You can have a business model that says ‘let’s throw red meat out there that make a lot of money,’ or you can create a documentary film that’s designed to inform people who may not necessarily agree with your point of view and get that information out.”

When Bannon was asked by an audience member about the reaction to the book, he turned defensive, claiming the mainstream media was ignoring the findings. He also criticized the Democratic primary debate panelists for not raising any of the issues in the debates.

“12 to 14 debates, 35 to 40 hours of prime time debates, not one question about anything in this film,” Bannon said. “That’s an indictment on the mainstream media and that’s an indictment of everybody who had a debate.”

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has recently indicated that he plans to use the claims from Clinton Cash in a likely general election matchup with Clinton. In an interview with Breitbart News this week – where Schweizer also serves as senior editor-at-large – Trump called the Clinton Cash book “amazing” and said he is sure the movie “will be good” because of Bannon’s involvement.

Breitbart News has faced widespread criticism over the past year for its Trump cheerleading. Last year, Buzzfeed reporter McKay Coppins reported that “many” people inside Breitbart “believe Trump has provided undisclosed financial backing to the outlet in exchange for glowing coverage.” (Bannon called the allegation “a lie.”)

After the screening, Schweizer said Trump and his campaign had “zero” involvement with the film, and said that because of his role as president of the non-profit Government Accountability Institute, “we are not allowed to do that.”

When asked what he thought of the reaction the book got and if he was disappointed with all of the criticism, Schweizer said, “I think we got good media coverage. Some people in your organization have disagreements on some of these matters, the interpretations."

Media Matters’ fact check of Schweizer’s book can be read here.

http://216.92.66.74/index.php/Test_nik not officil?

State Department Approval of Uranium One Deal

In April 2015, the New York Times ran a controversial story linking Clinton Foundation donations to a controversial mining deal. The Times reported that from 2009 to 2013, the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, acquired Uranium One, a Canadian uranium company which gave the Russians control of one fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Because the deal involved acquisition of uranium in the United States, a strategic asset, a number of US government agencies had to approve of the deal, including the State Department during the tenure of Secretary Hillary Clinton. An April 23, 2015 New York Times’ investigation showed that during this period, several Uranium One executives and employees, including the chairman Ian Telfer, made numerous donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling several million dollars. ^[24]

The Times reporting stirred controversy also because a primary source was Peter Schweizer, a right-wing political operative. The Times did disclose in the article that: "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.’ 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." But this did not satisfy critics who wrote to the Times ombudsman asking for further disclosure. ^[25]

The story also reported that before the Rosatom acquisition, Bill Clinton had helped Frank Guistra acquire large stakes in uranium mines located in Kazakhstan. Guistra had also been a large Clinton Foundation donor, giving a total of $31.1 million. Uranium One later acquired Guistra’s stakes in the Kazakhstan mines. ^[24] ^[26]

The State Department denied that the donations had anything to do with approval for the Rosatom acquisition of Uranium One. Foreign investment transactions which involve strategic assets must be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS), of which the State Department is one member along with several other agencies. Jose Hernandez, the official who was the State Department’s representative on CFIUS at the time, told Time magazine that Clinton did not participate in the evaluation of this deal, stating “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.” ^[27] Additionally, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, exclaimed “to suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless.” ^[24]

Further complicating the matter for the Clintons is the fact that they failed to properly disclose the donations to their foundation. $2.35 million donated by Telfer was not publically disclosed, despite an agreement Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. ^[28] The incident caused Clinton to admit “mistakes” in accounting and promise greater openness and transparency regarding foreign donors. ^[29]

Rebranding Steve Bannon: Inside the PR Campaign to Rehab Trump Adviser’s Image

How a cagey publicist is trying to fight the bad press about the president-elect’s new chief adviser

Tim Molloy | November 16, 2016 @ 3:23 PM

If you see any stories in the next few days about how Steve Bannon was a great boss at Breitbart News and excelled during his time in the U.S. Navy, you’ll know that publicist Maria Sliwa is thriving in her job.

On Sunday, Trump named Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart and CEO of his presidential campaign, as his chief adviser. Since then, Bannon has gotten lots of bad press, some of it accusing him of racism, sexism and anti-Semitism. (A New York Times news story said critics see him as a “voice of racism.” An opinion piece in the Washington Post called him a “dead lizard wrapped in the Confederate flag.”)

So someone decided to take the initiative and get Bannon some good PR. The question is who.

On Wednesday, Sliwa sent out two emails to reporters offering interviews with two men available to talk about Bannon: U.S. Navy Seal (Ret.) Carl Higbie, and Breitbart Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein.

But Sliwa insisted on Wednesday that she isn’t working for Bannon.

Also Read:

Steve Bannon Illegally Paid Via Movie Company, Watchdog Group Says

“I’m not working for Bannon,” she told TheWrap in a brief interview. “I have a client who is.”

In two brief talks with a Wrap reporter, Sliwa wouldn’t say who actually hired her. When the reporter noted that she has worked for Breitbart in the past (see press release, below) she replied, “Oh God, please no,” and hung up.

She also asked why it was necessary to ask about the publicist behind a story.

The answer, in this case, is that it illustrates how people push Bannon’s agenda in ways that leave no sign of his involvement.

Also Read:

Cory Booker Blasts Trump Appointment Steve Bannon: He 'Won't Build Bridges, He Will Burn Them'

It is not unusual for prominent people to hire publicists, or to seek positive stories. But it is unusual for publicists to refuse to say who they work for. (The Public Relations Society of America’s code of ethics says publicists should “reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented.”)

Higbie and Klein were only part of the effort to rebrand Bannon in a more positive light. The Huffington Post noted that Trump spokesman Jason Miller cast Bannon on Wednesday as someone who has “embraced diversity.”

Sliwa’s emails to reporters on Wednesday were not the first time she has been involved in advancing Bannon’s agenda. She has promoted the work of a group Bannon helped establish in 2012, a nonprofit called the Government Accountability Institute. According to Bloomberg, it “partners with mainstream media outlets conservatives typically despise to disseminate those findings to the broadest audience.”

Also Read:

Even Glenn Beck Is Terrified of Steve Bannon's Alt-Right Movement (Video)

Sliwa also helped promote “Clinton Cash: A Graphic Novel,” based on the book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.” (The press release is below.) The New York Times cited some of the book’s findings in an April 2015 story.

The book was written by GAI president Peter Schweitzer. Bannon became GAI’s founding chairman in 2012, Bloomberg reports. Schweizer’s e-book, “Bush Bucks: How Public Service and Corporations Helped Make Jeb Rich,” was published during the Republican primaries.

Both books cast an unfavorable light on political rivals of Trump’s as he sought to win the Republican nomination and then the presidency.

Sliwa’s bio notes that she is the president of Freedom Now Communications, Inc. and M. Sliwa Public Relations, as well as the press agent for the Sudan Campaign, and has “played a major role in publicizing the genocide, slavery and rape of civilians in Sudan and Darfur.” It says she is also part of the adjunct faculty at Columbia University and a former New York City undercover police officer. And she is the sister of Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa.

Also Read:

How Steve Bannon Made a Fortune Off of 'Seinfeld'

Sliwa’s press release about Higbie on Wednesday quotes him saying that Bannon “has excelled in every single role he has held dating back to his service in the US Navy. I cannot imagine a better person to be advising an already successful businessman taking on the biggest business in the world, the US Government.”

On Wednesday night, hours after this story was initially published, Higbie got into a PR crisis of his own: Fox News’ Megyn Kelly gave him an on-air scolding after he said that the Japanese internment camps of World War II helped establish a precent for a national registry of Muslims.

Here are screen grabs of the two press releases from Sliwa:

clinton graphic novel

ktm

Chapter 9 No Good Deed Goes Unpunished p. 178

Clinton fdn: laura B, colin powell and murdoch have attended events; chris ruddy newsmax gave 7 figs (million?) 181

HC made deal when SoS that she cd recuse from matters that involve CFdn

fdn discloses all names, even tho does not have to

algeria gave 1/2 mill for haiti earthquake, but HC tough on them after

peter schweizer clinton cash bk: HC did favor for (foreign?) funders

long history of error eg accused dem sen of inside trading 188 publ by harpercollins , murdoch

NYT did fluff/hype on book v(worth 1 mil$?), had an exclusive deal (tho Fox also did?) mention gov't accountability Initiative but did not say gop oppo. proved nothing, fell back on just asking question 198 chronology off; on russia uranium BC fdn disclosed/ but cda affil could not cda law? 199 but fox still does 1 hr special; NYT stood by peter s; Romney claimed HC bribed on the basis. 201

NYT is best place to spread disinfo bc of its (no longer deserved if it ever was, paper of record and all cf chomsky?]

in 90's NYT Gerth got whitewater going

later cnn analysis found 19 errors of fact ) 192

2 yrs later Tyson story belated correction

late 90'd Wen Ho Lee alamos story blockbuster but petered out/discounted but not before another GOP attack 193

Safire (nixon) ~ David Halberstam

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/23/abc-news-finds-more-errors-in-schweizers-clinto/203390

ABC Newsreported that it "uncovered errors" in Peter Schweizer's upcoming anti-Clinton book, Clinton Cash.Schweizer has a long history of sloppy research and reporting -- earlier this week, ThinkProgress revealedthat the conservative author cites a hoax press release in the book.

On April 23, ABC News explained that their independent review of the source material used for Clinton Cash"uncovered errors in the book, including an instance where paid and unpaid speaking appearances were conflated." The book purports to reveal connections between Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state, donations to the Clinton Foundation, and paid speeches given by the Clintons, but Schweizer reportedly admitsin the book he cannot prove his allegations.

According to ABC, Schweizer "said the errors would be corrected." The book is due for release on May 5; it is unclear whether the errors will be corrected before the first publication.

Media Mattersidentified ten previous instances in which Schweizer made serious factual errors, issued retractions, or relied on questionable sourcing.

INDEX:

Serial Misinformer Peter Schweizer Is Releasing A New Anti-Clinton Book

Schweizer Is A Republican Activist And Consultant

Schweizer Retracted "Incorrect" Report About Sen. Whitehouse

*USA Today* Corrected Schweizer's False Reporting About Gore

*Wash. Post*: Schweizer's Group Launched "Bogus" Attack On Obama's Security Briefings

"A Fatal Shortcoming In Journalism 101": Reporters Debunked Schweizer's Obama-Sebelius Reporting

Fact Checker: Schweizer Couldn't Back Up Energy Reporting When Called Out For Errors

Fact Checker On Schweizer's Reporting About Pelosi: "The Facts Don't Fit Schweizer's Claim"

*Seattle Times*: Schweizer Flubbed Reporting About Rep. McDermott

Investigation: Schweizer's Facts "Do Not Check Out," And Sources "Do Not Exist"

Veteran Journalist Found Schweizer Book Practiced "Neither Journalism Nor History"

Schweizer "Tacitly Conced[ed] He Was Wrong" About Al Franken's Hiring Of Minorities

Serial Misinformer Peter Schweizer Is Releasing A New Anti-Clinton Book

Peter Schweizer Is Releasing Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. On May 5, HarperCollins Publishers will release Clinton Cash. A publisher's description claims of the book: "Meticulously researched and scrupulously sourced, filled with headline-making revelations, Clinton Cashraises serious questions of judgment, of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests, and ultimately, of fitness for high public office." HarperCollins is owned by NewsCorp, which is headed by Rupert Murdoch :{and is the sister company of Fox News parent 21st Century Fox. HarperCollins.com, accessed :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:[4/9/15:{]}:

Potential Clinton Opponent Rand Paul Is Touting Clinton Cash And Suggested He Has Access ToTheBook.During a CNN interview, Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul touted Clinton Cash as supposedly revealing "unseemly" and "troubling revelations." Paul said he's "aware of a book that will be coming out in the next couple weeks that will make" accusations about Clinton, but he's not "at liberty to say" more. Paul added that he could not "prove the veracity" of the book's claims, but "there should be a lot of questions asked" about Clinton based on the book's reporting. CNN, *The Situation Room*, [4/8/15]

NY Times: "Conservative 'Super PACs' Plan To Seize On 'Clinton Cash.'" In an April 19 article previewing Clinton Cash, the New York Timesreported that "its contents have already made their way into several of the Republican presidential candidates' campaigns," and that conservative super PACs are planning to "seize on" the book:

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which includes Mr. Paul and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, have been briefed on the book's findings, and its contents have already made their way into several of the Republican presidential candidates' campaigns.

Conservative "super PACs" plan to seize on "Clinton Cash," and a pro-Democrat super PAC has already assembled a dossier on Mr. Schweizer, a speechwriting consultant to former President George W. Bush:{ and a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution who has contributed to the conservative website Breitbart.com, to make the case that he has a bias against Mrs. Clinton. :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:*New York Times,*[4/19/15:{]}:

Cause For Concern: 10 Incidents Of Significant Errors, Retractions, Or Questionable Sourcing By Schweizer. Reporters and fact checkers have excoriated Schweizer for massive factual problems over the years. A Media Mattersanalysis found at least 10 separate incidents in which the media called out Schweizer for botching his reporting.

The following is how reporters have described Schweizer's work: "Incorrect," "inaccurate," "bogus," "a fatal shortcoming in Journalism 101," "the facts didn't stand up," "unfair and inaccurate," "specious argument," "there was nothing there," "suspicious," "the facts don't fit," facts "do not check out," sources "do not exist or cannot be tracked down," "confusion and contradiction," "discrepancies," "admitted a mistake," "neither journalism nor history," "a polemic so unchecked ... that we can't tell the fact from the fiction," sources "have clearly used him," and "tacitly conced[ed] he was wrong."

Schweizer Is A Republican Activist And Consultant

Schweizer Worked For The Bush White House As A Speechwriting Consultant From 2008-2009.PeterSchweizer.com, accessed [3/26/15]

Sarah Palin Hired Schweizer To Advise Her On Foreign Policy.:{ Schweizer received $106,250 from Palin's Sarah PAC in 2011-2012, according to Federal Election Commission records. :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:*New York Times*:{, :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:[5/25/11:{; FEC.gov, accessed }:3/27/15:{] }:

Schweizer Helped Write Bobby Jindal's Autobiography. Jindal wrote on the acknowledgements page of his 2010 book that Schweizer was "crucial to this book." Jindal is a potential Clinton opponent as he is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination. *Times-Picayune*, [2/17/10; Leadership and Crisis, 2010;Politico, 3/24/15]

Schweizer Has Worked For Breitbart.com And The Conservative Hoover Institution.Breitbart.com states that Schweizer is a Breitbart News senior editor-at-large. He "was the William J. Casey Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution." *Media Matters*, [11/13/11; Breitbart.com, 3/20/15; Hoover.org, accessed 4/9/15]

Schweizer Heads The Government Accountability Institute (GAI), A "Free Markets" Organization.Guidestar.org, accessed [3/26/15]

Schweizer Heads Oval Office Writers LLC With Former Bush Aide Marc Thiessen.The firm states it helps prepare speechwriting, keynotes, congressional testimony, and fundraising help, among other services. OvalOfficeWriters.com, accessed [4/10/15; accessed 4/10/15]

Schweizer Headlined Republican Party Fundraisers.According to event notices, Schweizer headlined 2012 Republican fundraisers for the Wakulla Republican Committee in Florida and the Republicans of Hoboken in New Jersey. WakullaCountyChamber.com, accessed [3/25/15; The Jersey Journal, 3/28/12]

Schweizer Regularly Speaks To Conservative Groups And Conferences. He has spoken to conservative groups and conferences such as the Charles Koch Institute, the 2012 National Conservative Student Conference, 2015 Conservative Leadership Conference, and Young America's Foundation's 2011 West Coast Leadership Conference. YouTube,[ 2/10/14 ; CSPAN, 8/3/12; Sched.org, accessed 3/26/15; YAF.org, 11/3/11]

Schweizer Was A Contributor To A Glenn Beck Book.Schweizer is listed as a contributor to former Fox News host Glenn Beck's book Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure (Threshold Editions:{, October 2010). Amazon.com, accessed :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:[3/26/15:{]}:

Schweizer's Books Attack Liberal Ideology.His books include Architects of Ruin: How Big Government Liberals Wrecked The Global Economy --And How They Will Do It Again If No One Stops Them; Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic And Envious, Whine Less...And Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals;and Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy. Amazon.com, accessed [3/26/15]

Schweizer Donated To Republican Adam Hasner's 2012 U.S. Senate Campaign. FEC.gov, accessed [3/26/15]

Schweizer Retracted "Incorrect" Report About Sen. Whitehouse

Schweizer SuggestedSen.Whitehouse Committed Insider Trading. As The Providence Journal noted, Schweizer alleged in his 2011 book Throw Them All Out that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) benefited from a stock sale because of his position in the U.S. Senate:

Schweizer's overall case is that members of Congress enjoy deep access to valuable inside business information that they, unlike other citizens, can legally exploit for personal benefit, such as well-timed stock transactions.

One episode in the book concerns a large volume of stock sales made by legislators in mid-September 2008, just after a private session in which top executive branch officials briefed congressional leaders on details of the unfolding financial crisis. The book notes that Whitehouse sold holdings in a financial stock at that time. That trade came amid the senator's largest volume of trading for that year.

[...]

Schweizer's other brief mention of Whitehouse concerned a regulatory agency's announcement on May 15, 2007, that Medicare reimbursements would be curtailed for Amgen's highly profitable drug Aranesp. Schweizer writes correctly that Whitehouse sold between $15,000 and $50,000 worth of Amgen stock on May 9 and asks whether he "knew anything" about the adverse regulatory action to come a week later.

"We cannot be sure," Schweizer writes in part. "But the timing seems too good to be true" because Amgen stock prices fell quickly. *Providence Journal*, 11/19/11, via NewsLibrary.com; Google Books, accessed [3/30/15]

Journal: Schweizer's Reporting Was Wrong. The Journal noted numerous factual problems with Schweizer's allegations, including that Whitehouse wasn't a member of the committee in question at the time:

Whitehouse rebutted with three points. First, he said he didn't know about the trades because his financial adviser was empowered to make them unilaterally. Second, he wasn't present at the leadership meeting and he said he had no inside information to act on. Third, he suggested that defensive sales were the obvious strategy for a trader at that moment in 2008 because of such public crises as the fall of the Lehman Brothers securities firm.

[...]

But Schweizer writes incorrectly that Whitehouse sat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and hints that membership could have conferred access to information about the coming Medicare decision on Amgen's drug.

Whitehouse was not a member of the health committee in 2007, although he joined it later.

[...]

Schweizer's account omits many months of very public findings and questions on Aranesp and another Amgen anemia drug which, according to independent biotech industry analysts, might have prompted investors to sell shares in the company at any number of points. Contemporaneous stock tips, agency statements and news accounts seem to establish, moreover, that it would not have required insider information to surmise that adverse regulatory action on Amgen's products was possible, if not probable. [Providence Journal, 11/19/11, via NewsLibrary.com]

Schweizer Retracted His Allegation Against Whitehouse. The author was forced to retract his attack against Whitehouse:

Whitehouse was not a member of the health committee in 2007, although he joined it later. If Schweizer had realized that, he was asked in an interview, would he have included Whitehouse in this passage of his book?

"No, I probably would not have mentioned him," the author replied. Schweizer said he would correct the mistake. [Providence Journal, 11/19/11, via NewsLibrary.com]

USA TodayCorrected Schweizer's False Reporting About Gore

Schweizer Claimed Al Gore "Receives $20,000 A Year In Royalties"FromAZinc Mine.In an August 10, 2006, USA Today op-ed, Schweizer attacked Al Gore for "hypocrisy" and a lack of "credibility," writing: "Humanity might be 'sitting on a ticking time bomb,' but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River." *USA Today*, [8/10/06]

USA TodayCorrection: Schweizer's Reporting Was "Inaccurate." USA Today subsequently attached a correction to Schweizer's piece, writing: "Correction: In this column that appeared Aug. 10 on the Forum Page, writer Peter Schweizer inaccurately stated that former vice president Al Gore receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property in Tennessee despite his environmental advocacy. He no longer does, as the mine was closed in 2003.:{" :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:*USA Today*:{, :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:[8/17/06:{]}:

Wash. Post: Schweizer's Group Launched "Bogus" Attack On Obama's Security Briefings

Schweizer's GAI Released Data Claiming Obama Skipped More Than Half Of His Presidential Daily Briefings.The Washington Post wrote in 2012 of research by Schweizer's Government Accountability Institute:

The notion that Obama has skipped his intelligence briefings was promoted by a right-leaning research group called the Government Accountability Institute, which published a report detailing that the president's daily calendar shows Obama receiving an in-person briefing on the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) 43.8 percent of his time in office. (The percentage dropped from a high of 48.8 percent in 2010 to 38.2 percent through May of 2012.) WashingtonPost.com, [9/24/12]

Wash. Post: GAI's Data Is "Bogus."The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog examined a political ad that used GAI's report and strongly criticized GAI's data, awarding the briefings claim "Three Pinocchios" and concluding:

Clearly, different presidents have structured their daily briefing from the CIA to fit their unique personal styles. Many did not have an oral briefing, while three -- two of whom are named Bush -- preferred to deal directly with a CIA official. Obama appears to have opted for a melding of the two approaches, in which he receives oral briefings, but not as frequently as his predecessor.

Ultimately, what matters is what a president does with the information he receives from the CIA. Republican critics may find fault with Obama's handling of foreign policy. But this attack ad turns a question of process -- how does the president handle his intelligence brief? -- into a misguided attack because Obama has chosen to receive his information in a different manner than his predecessor. WashingtonPost.com, [9/24/12]

Wash. Post: By This Standard, Reagan Missed 99 Percent Of His Briefings.The Post wrote: "As it turns out, no president does it the exact same way. Under the standards of this ad, Republican icon Ronald Reagan skipped his intelligence briefings 99 percent of the time." *Washington Post*, [9/24/12]

ABC News: The Report "Appears To Be More A Matter Of Semantics Than Hard Fact."ABC News wrote that the GAI report "appears to be more a matter of semantics than hard fact" and quoted White House officials stating that "Obama has never 'skipped' a Presidential Daily Briefing, aides say, even if an in-person briefing isn't listed on his schedule." ABCNews.com, [9/14/12]

"A Fatal Shortcoming In Journalism 101": Reporters Debunked Schweizer's Obama-Sebelius Reporting

Schweizer Claimed Obama AndHealth And Human Services SecretaryHad "Just One" Meeting Together In Three-And-A-Half Years.Schweizer wrote a Politico Magazine piece -- headlined, "When Barry Met Kathy: Almost never, it turns out" -- claiming his organization could only find one instance where the president and the former Health and Human Services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, met:

A new Government Accountability Institute (GAI) analysis finds that from July 12, 2010, to Nov. 30, 2013, the president's public schedule records zero one-on-one meetings between Obama and Sebelius. Equally shocking, over the same period, the president's calendar lists 277 private meetings with his other Cabinet secretaries (excluding full Cabinet meetings).

Given these startling findings, and the fact that the White House calendar did not reflect meetings prior to July 12, 2010, GAI researchers then performed a second analysis using another respected recorder of presidential activity, the POLITICO presidential calendar. The results: Just one April 21, 2010 entry was found listing a White House meeting between Obama and Sebelius--and even that was a joint meeting with then Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. *Politico Magazine*, [12/5/13]

TIMEFact Check: "The Problem? Sebelius And The President Did Meet-- A Lot." Reporter Kate Pickert documented problems with Schweizer's reporting:

The problem? Sebelius and the President did meet-- a lot. "She is frequently at the White House for meetings related to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, including dozens with the President in the last year alone," says Joanne Peters, a spokeswoman for HHS. "In fact, she met with the President just yesterday."

The problem with Schweizer's analysis is his data set: Cabinet Secretaries who regularly come to the White House are not always recorded in the White House visitors log or listed on the president's public schedule. But Schweizer, a former foreign policy adviser to Sarah Palin and a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank, based the column on an analysis of the official presidential schedule and a presidential calendar published by Politico. Time.com, [12/6/13]

The Hill: "Sebelius Was In Frequent Contact With President Obama And Senior White House Aides."The Hill filed a Freedom of Information Act request and found:

The documents reveal that Sebelius met with or attended calls and events with Obama at least 18 times between Oct. 27, 2012, and Oct. 6, 2013, including at least seven instances in which the two were scheduled to discuss the new healthcare law, according to the secretary's draft schedules. *The Hill*, [2/13/14]

Washington Post's Wemple: Schweizer Story "Bears A Fatal Shortcoming In Journalism 101."Post opinion writer Erik Wemple wrote that Schweizer's "story bears a fatal shortcoming in Journalism 101. Judging from the text, Schweizer never approached the White House or HHS for comment on his research. The White House confirms that it was never asked about it, and HHS declined to comment.":{ :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:*Washington Post*:{, :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:[12/9/13:{]}:

Presidential Records Expert Said Schweizer's Analysis Was Flawed. Towson University Professor Martha Joynt Kumar, who studies presidential records, told the Washington Post:

Martha Joynt Kumar offers a different perspective on things. She's the Towson University professor who spends her time poring over presidential records in a much-cited and ongoing effort to document the media's access to presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. If there's one thing Kumar knows, it's the comprehensiveness of advance presidential schedules. Or non-comprehensiveness. "Presidents have never released the full accounting of what a president was going to be doing that day," Kumar says. "There are a lot of meetings that wouldn't appear."

Advance public schedules for any given president, Kumar says, are commonly just a page in length; the diary of what actually happened that day may stretch to five pages. Such is the chasm between what's planned and what happens. It's in that space, HHS appears to be saying, that the president and Sebelius have matched wits in recent years. The retrospective diaries of actual presidential meetings generally aren't released until 12 years after a president leaves office, Kumar says. *Washington Post*, [12/9/13]

Fact Checker: Schweizer Couldn't Back Up Energy Reporting When Called Out For Errors

Schweizer Claimed 80 Percent Of A Department Of Energy Loan Program Went To Companies Run Or Owned By "Obama Financial Backers." Schweizer wrote that "In the 1705 government-backed loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers." *Throw Them All Out*, pg. [79-80, 2011, via *Media Matters*]

17 Of The 25 Companies That Schweizer Identifies Did Not Receive 1705 Loan Guarantees. Among several problems, Media Matters found that only 8 of the 25 "politically connected" companies Schweizer listed actually received loan guarantees through the 1705 program. *Media Matters*, [11/18/11]

Many Of The Alleged Obama Cronies Listed By Schweizer Also Supported Republicans.:{ :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:*Media Matters*:{, :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:[11/18/11:{]}:

FactCheck.org: Schweizer's Reporting Suffers From Numerous "Problems."A February 2012 FactCheck.org article heavily criticized Schweizer's reporting, writing that his data had numerous "problems" and explaining that he couldn't back up his assertions when asked:

In checking Schweizer's $16.4 billion claim, we found it to be too high by nearly $6 billion. In his book, Schweizer lists 25 companies he says were headed by "Obama bundlers, large donors and supporters" who he said received a total of $16.4 billion in loan guarantees.

Schweizer says in his book that all of that came from the Department of Energy's 1705 program (which awarded stimulus dollars for renewable energy systems, electric power transmission systems and leading-edge biofuels projects). But by our count, only seven of the 25 companies on Schweizer's list got 1705 loan guarantees. And they totaled about $3.7 billion, not $16.4 billion.

We did find that some companies on Schweizer's list got aid from other federal clean-energy programs, but not enough to total $16.4 billion. For example, two firms got DOE loan guarantees through the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program. But those companies -- Fisker Automotive and Tesla Motors -- secured less than $1 billion.

In all, the Department of Energy reported clean energy loans of only about $4.7 billion to firms on Schweizer's list. Some others on the list got loans or grants through other programs with the Department of Agriculture and Treasury Department.

There are other problems as well. Four of the companies on Schweizer's list received conditional commitments for loan guarantees but never ultimately got the money (either because they were unable to provide necessary documentation in time to meet application deadlines, or because they decided to seek private, commercial financing). Schweizer told us he included them because "that doesn't undermine the point that political connections helped at the federal level." That may be, but the ad claims the companies received the money, and they did not. Schweizer also claimed Summit Texas Clean Energy got $1.5 billion in federal aid, which isn't so. In fact, the Department of Energy provided the company $450 million in grants, for a $1.7 billion project financed mostly by industry. Together, those factors inflated Schweizer's figure by nearly $6 billion.

We asked Schweizer about the problems with his figures. He responded via email: "There are other companies besides those mentioned in the book that got money. It's not presented as a complete list." But he did not supply the "complete list" for us to validate. FactCheck.org, [2/9/12]

Fact Checker On Schweizer's Reporting About Pelosi: "The Facts Don't Fit Schweizer's Claim"

Schweizer Attacked Pelosi For Hiring Non-Union Labor For Work On Vineyard. In his book Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, Schweizer attacked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):

Apparently, however, these fundamental rights do not apply to families that may be picking grapes in Pelosi's own vineyards. Congresswoman Pelosi and her husband own a vineyard in the Napa Valley, on Zinfandel Lane in St. Helena, worth almost $25 million. [Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, 2005]

ThePelosis Paid Workers Higher Wages Than Unions.San Francisco's ABC affiliate investigated Schweizer's research and found "the facts don't fit Schweizer's claim. For starters, the Pelosis pay more than union workers are paid in the same valley -- that from the pastor at St. Helena's Catholic Church, a well known advocate for farm workers who's involved in labor negotiations with the same labor manager the Pelosis use ... Of the more than 300 vineyards, fewer than four are union, and most of the farm workers in the Napa Valley get paid better:{." KGO, 11/28/06, via :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:[Internet Archive:{]}:

KGO: If "Pelosi Wanted To Have Union Workers She Could Not Ask The Union For A Contract. It's Illegal."KGO reported that Schweizer's claim was bunk because Pelosi couldn't legally unionize her workers. When pressed about this detail, Schweizer dodged accountability:

But all of that aside, if Nancy Pelosi wanted to have union workers she could not ask the union for a contract. It's illegal and has been since 1975.

A spokesman for the United Farm Workers Union explains.

Marc Grossman, United Farm Workers Union: "It is patently illegal for any grower to even discuss a union contract, which is the only way you can supply union workers, without the workers first having voted in a state conducted secret ballot election."

I asked Peter Schweizer, the Hoover Research fellow, if he had researched those facts before he called Pelosi a hypocrite.

Peter Schweizer: "It's really for her to explain why there is this inconsistency. It's not my responsibility to go and find out how every single particular circumstance is handled on the Pelosi vineyard.:{" KGO, 11/28/06, via :(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:[Internet Archive:{]}:

Seattle Times: Schweizer Flubbed Reporting About Rep. McDermott

Schweizer: McDermott Committed Insider Trading Related To Bioterrorism Bill.In his book Throw Them All Out, Schweizer wrote of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA):

*Throw Them All Out*, [p. 22, 2011]

Seattle Times: Schweizer's Reporting Was Wrong. While Schweizer claimed that "With the passage of Project Bioshield, ID Biomedical would secure $8 million from Washington to develop a plague vaccine," then-Seattle Times reporter Kyung M. Song found that his reporting was wrong:

The book, by Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University, said McDermott "bet big" by buying 2,000 shares in ID Biomedical of Quebec for $10 apiece in June 2004. That was six weeks before the House of Representatives passed the $5.6 billion bill dubbed Project Bioshield.

It turns out, however, that an $8 million grant for ID Biomedical's Bothell subsidiary a grant that Schweizer said resulted from the legislation's passage actually was funded by a separate competition launched a year before by the National Institutes of Health.

And McDermott says he didn't pick the stock. Instead, he said, the purchase was initiated by his financial consultant at the time at Wells Fargo, Jane Suzick, and he merely gave consent.

"I never make suggestions about what to invest in and I don't suggest when to buy or sell anything. I just take advice from my financial consultant and approve what she suggests," McDermott said through his spokesman, Kinsey Kiriakos. "Alas, I'm no richer than I was years ago."

Suzick, now with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney's Seattle office, declined to comment.

[...]

Yet even if ID Biomedical were to have benefited directly from the passage of Project Bioshield, the fate of the legislation was no secret.

It passed the Senate unanimously, 99-0, on May 19, 2004, and the House approved it 414-2 on July 15, 2004. McDermott bought his shares two weeks after the Senate vote and six weeks before the House vote. *Seattle Times*, [12/10/11]

Former Seattle Times Reporter: Schweizer Lacks "Credibility" And His Reporting "Was Unfair And Inaccurate." Media Matters investigative reporter Joe Strupp spoke with Kyung M. Song, the Seattle Timesreporter who covered Schweizer's book. She told Media Mattersof Schweizer and his reporting: "I don't think he has much credibility as an author. I just felt that it didn't stand up, the facts didn't stand up. It was really sensational. It was unfair and inaccurate."

Song, who left the Times earlier this year after 15 years and now works as associate managing editor forAerospace America magazine, said Schweizer attacked McDermott unfairly.

"Clearly he was making a specious argument specifically with regard to McDermott," she said. "The allegation against Jim McDermott was that you had this congressman profiting from insider trading, but insider trading requires a position of privileged information, meaning non-public information and you act on that information to your advantage and that certainly wasn't the case with Jim McDermott."

She later added, "the allegation looked sensational, but when you got into the details, there was nothing there. He was clearly building a case against Jim McDermott and other people. He was trying to spin something with bits and pieces of information that didn't amount to anything really. I didn't think that he had a case and he spun it out of nothing." [Media Matters interview, 4/8/15]

Investigation: Schweizer's Facts "Do Not Check Out," And Sources "Do Not Exist"

Sunday TimesReporters Found Enormous Problems With Schweizer's Reporting;Schweizer Was Forced To Admit Severe Errors. Sunday Times (UK) reporters David Leppard and Nick Rufford investigated Schweizer's book Friendly Spies and concluded: "Facts that are checkable do not check out. Individuals credited for supplying information do not exist or cannot be tracked down. Requests to the author for help and clarification result in further confusion and contradiction."

The Sunday Times was trying to confirm Schweizer's reporting that, as the Times summarized, a "British Foreign Office diplomat, close to former prime minister Margaret Thatcher, had been recruited by the French secret service. During clandestine meetings at the plush Paris Sheraton, the diplomat had betrayed sensitive details of the UK's proposed negotiating position at European Community (EC) summits."

After questioning, Schweizer admitted some fault in his reporting and retracted one detail: "Through his publisher and an attorney, Schweizer has told us he now accepts that the original names and address he gave us for his sources were incorrect. He also admitted a mistake over the Sheraton hotel. But he says he did not fabricate the story."

The reporters documented how their "extensive efforts" to verify Schweizer's reporting "left us suspicious" in a nearly 2,000-word Washington Post piece on April 11, 1993. From the article, which is not available online:

It was a story we naturally wanted to report in our paper, so we went to great lengths to check it out. Yet our extensive efforts have left us suspicious. Facts that are checkable do not check out. Individuals credited for supplying information do not exist or cannot be tracked down. Requests to the author for help and clarification result in further confusion and contradiction.

[...]

Schweizer told the Sunday Times that two retired directors of the French foreign intelligence service, the DGSE, would confirm his story. He also provided the names of two French agents who he said were directly involved in the operation. He would not give us their telephone numbers but faxed us copies of letters he said he had sent them on our behalf, requesting that they cooperate with us. Last month two reporters from the Sunday Times' investigative unit flew to Paris to begin background inquiries.

Schweizer had assured the Sunday Times that Adm. Pierre Lacoste, a retired intelligence expert who was the DGSE's director from 1982 to 1985, knew of the French espionage story. But when we spoke to Lacoste, he insisted he knew nothing about the Sheraton hotel operation.

Sunday Times reporters showed Lacoste page 117 of Schweizer's book, where he states: "In [March] 1984, at the suggestion of President Mitterand [sic], DGSE director Pierre Lacoste issued an order to Service 7 to implement a program of intelligence collection within the European communities."

Lacoste recalled giving an interview to Schweizer in his Paris apartment. But he insisted that no such order had been received or issued, from Mitterrand or anyone else. He said that Service 7, the special operations directorate of the DGSE that Schweizer said had been told to carry out the order, did not exist in 1984.

Asked whether the DGSE had ever had a spy in the British Foreign Office, Lacoste replied, "During my term, definitely not."

Schweizer expressed surprise that Lacoste did not confirm his story.

Sunday Times reporters then met with Lacoste's predecessor, Pierre Marion, who lives in retirement in the village of La Celle-St-Cloud. This time we were acting on Schweizer's assurances that Marion had given him the names of the two DGSE agents who became sources for his book -- agents named Pascal Fasquelle and Francois Lorot.

Like Lacoste, Marion confirmed he had granted an interview to Schweizer. He was also frank about several sensitive intelligence operations not included in Schweizer's account. But the retired spymaster insisted he knew nothing of the Sheraton operation. Moreover, he categorically denied giving Schweizer the names Fasquelle or Lorot. He said he had never heard of Schweizer's two sources.

Why would Schweizer lead us to his sources if they could not confirm the story? Perhaps the French spy chiefs had told Schweizer too much and were now covering up. Or maybe Schweizer doubted that the Sunday Times would go to Paris to interview his sources. In search of an explanation, we began to hunt in earnest for Pascal Fasquelle, the retired DGSE agent who Schweizer insisted had handled the Sheraton espionage operation.

In a previous telephone conversation, Schweizer had declined to give Fasquelle's full address, saying only that he lived in Vanves, a seedy suburb in west Paris. So the newspaper employed a professional tracing agent while reporters checked the local electoral register and telephone directories. We spoke to local postmen to see if they had ever delivered mail to a Pascal Fasquelle. There was no trace.

In growing frustration, we rang Schweizer and told him we were beginning to wonder if Pascal Fasquelle existed. Schweizer assured us he did. To prove it, he described the apartment block in Rue Auguste Comte where he claimed he had visited Fasquelle at home. Schweizer would not give us the apartment number, he said, out of loyalty to his source.

Eventually, we found the shabby 12-story building on the outskirts of Vanves, but none of the many residents interviewed there had heard of Pascal Fasquelle. No Fasquelle was listed in the resident's directory. A concierge said she did not recognize the name.

However, a post box did show the name Pascal Lorot -- the same forename as Fasquelle and the same surname as the second DGSE agent Schweizer claimed was involved in the spying operation, Francois Lorot. Had Schweizer accidentally mixed up the two names?

In a telephone conversation later that day, Schweizer insisted he had not confused his two French agents. He expressed surprise that there was a Lorot living in Vanves and said he was sure there had been no mistake. "I know the address, I remember the area and I know the address checks out perfectly," he insisted, referring to a notebook.

Explaining the apparent coincidence that a Lorot lived at Fasquelle's address, Schweizer said: "Lorot is a common name in France." In fact, Lorot is a name from the Burgundy region and is almost unknown in Paris. No Lorots are listed in the Paris telephone directory.

Mystified, we remembered that in an earlier telephone conversation, Schweizer had told us that a Wall Street Journal reporter had also checked the French espionage story, interviewing the two DGSE sources. But now Schweizer could not recall the reporter's name. "It was something Jewish," he said.

The next day the Sunday Times visited Pascal Lorot at 18 Rue Auguste Comte. To our astonishment Lorot confirmed that he knew Schweizer very well.

But Lorot, who is 32, said he was not a retired DGSE agent. He is in fact an economist at the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development in London, where he lives for part of the week. He told us Schweizer was an old friend he first met in 1985 during a seminar at George Mason University in Virginia. In fact, Lorot had invited Schweizer to stay at his Vanves apartment while the American was researching "Friendly Spies."

We explained the remarkable set of coincidences that had led us to Lorot's door. We also uncovered another coincidence. The letter Schweizer claims he sent to Pascal Fasquelle urging his cooperation with the Times ends: "Send my love to Katarine." The real Pascal Lorot had a wife called Catherine, pronounced "Katarine."

"This is terrible," the real Pascal Lorot told us. "I had trusted Peter as a friend. But I cannot understand this. I think my trust has been maybe misplaced."

Our doubts about Schweizer's French espionage story were heightened by further, smaller discrepancies, like his claim that the secret agents had met repeatedly at the Paris Sheraton. According to ITT-Sheraton in Boston, there was no Sheraton hotel in Paris between 1982 and 1992 -- in other words, during the entire time of the meetings described by Schweizer. But when we queried Schweizer for an explanation, his answer was tantalizingly incomplete. "They [Sheraton] didn't own anything?" he said. "That's very unusual."

Meanwhile, we contacted Jacques Delors, the president of the EC, about another detail in Schweizer's account: that Delors posed for a photo with the information-trading British diplomat shortly before the Brussels summit. Delors said through a spokesman that he had no recollection of posing with any British diplomat at that time. Further, Delors' office in Brussels pointed out that he has never had a private office in Paris, where Schweizer claims the photograph was taken.

We have been unable to talk directly to Schweizer since telling him we had found Pascal Lorot. Through his publisher and an attorney, Schweizer has told us he now accepts that the original names and address he gave us for his sources were incorrect. He also admitted a mistake over the Sheraton hotel. But he says he did not fabricate the story.

Since Schweizer is now unreachable -- Atlantic Monthly Press chairman Morgan Entrekin informs us he is holidaying in a camper somewhere in the Midwest -- the Sunday Times has enlisted the publisher's assistance in proving Schweizer's claims. We have asked to hear the taped interview with Lacoste, the DGSE chief, which Schweizer said he made. We have asked again for the name of the Wall Street Journal reporter who interviewed Schweizer's sources. We have asked Schweizer to call Pierre Marion and ask him to confirm on tape the names of the DGSE agents that Schweizer said Marion gave him. And of course we would be convinced if Schweizer could put us in touch with the two agents themselves. So far, none of that information has been forthcoming. [Washington Post, 4/11/93, via Nexis]

Veteran Journalist Found Schweizer Book Practiced "Neither Journalism Nor History"

LA TimesReview: Schweizer Book "Neither Journalism Nor History." The late veteran journalist Jonathan Kwitny documented numerous problems with Schweizer's book Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy that Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union in a 1994 Los Angeles Times review. Kwitny, who worked for PBS and The Wall Street Journal, wrote that Schweizer practiced "neither journalism nor history" and argued "he evidently doesn't believe in picking up a phone to check" his sources' assertions. From the review:

Considering that the 1980s saw the most dramatic shift in international politics of our lifetime, maybe of any decade in history, Schweizer had a unique opportunity to produce a journalistic and historical landmark. Sadly, this book is neither journalism nor history. Its many valuable revelations and insights have been spun into a polemic so unchecked and, for the reader, often un-checkable, that we can't tell the fact from the fiction.

The book yields no indication that Schweizer accepted his new data as leads and went back to where the action happened--Afghanistan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Central Russia and elsewhere--to talk to the people involved. Such reporting might have humbled, at least a bit, his thesis. He says a handful of people in Washington by their mere resolve and willingness to work long hours and spend tax money unflinchingly were able to turn Communist success into the destruction of Communism around the world. He knows this because they told him.

[...]

Though Schweizer's source list includes some honorable men, some others have clearly used him to skewer their enemies and embellish their own spots in history. He includes occasional footnotes, but mostly doesn't say who told him what. And he evidently doesn't believe in picking up a phone to check their various assertions.

[...]

The point is that to judge what is right in these weighty and controversial matters, a reader needs from an author a candid accounting of the various possibilities. Readers are not well served by the unsupported boasts of former officials who would like to take credit for a famous victory, and certainly not by the unsubstantiated purported thoughts of long-dead CIA directors.

On the other hand, if Schweizer was much of a digger, maybe he wouldn't have been given all these interviews and documents in the first place. *Los Angeles Times*, [6/12/94; New York Times, 11/28/98]

Schweizer "Tacitly Conced[ed] He Was Wrong" About Al Franken's Hiring Of Minorities

Schweizer Claimed Al Franken Spurned Minority Hiring, Employing "Only One" Black Individual Out Of 112 People.In his 2005 book Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy,Schweizer accused Al Franken of a "lack of diversity among [his] own employees," claiming he had hired "only one" African-American throughout his career (emphasis original):

....much more

solyndra era: Last week found the right wing echo chamber, from Fox News to the New York Post, and the conservative blogosphere in an anti-green frenzy based on faux facts from a new book, Throw Them All Out. The author of this far-fetched screed is Peter Schweizer, Sarah Palin's foreign policy guru, currently employed by the Hoover Institution, a think tank funded largely by oil interests (e.g., Exxon, ARCO, Transamerica, and Richard Mellon Scaife's oil and banking fortune) to craft the philosophical underpinnings for unregulated pollution, unrestricted corporate profit taking, and massive corporate welfare for the carbon/nuke incumbents.

wikifluff

Peter Schweizer (born 1964) is a conservative author and a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

Schweizer's book Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy received praise from conservative political pundits including Bill O'Reilly. Schweizer's book Reagan's War was the basis of the documentary film In the Face of Evil. The book recounts Ronald Reagan's multi-decade struggle against Communism and credits him with winning the Cold War.

Schweizer is the editor-in-chief of Bigpeace.com

In March 2009, Schweizer and Marc Thiessen opened Oval Office Writers LLC.^[1]

In March 2010, Schweizer joined the Research Advisory Council of the James Madison Institute.

On May 3, 2011, Schweizer was hired as a foreign policy adviser to former Republican Governor of Alaska and Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.^[2]

Works

Architects of Ruin: How a Gang of Radical Activists and Liberal Politicians Destroyed Trillions of Dollars in Wealth in the Pursuit of Social Justice, 2009 (ISBN 0-061-95334-2)
Makers and Takers: Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less … and even hug their children more than liberals, 2008 (ISBN 0-385-51350-X)
Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, 2005 (ISBN 0-385-51349-6)
The Bushes : portrait of a dynasty, 2004, co-authored with Rochelle Schweizer (ISBN 0-385-49863-2)
Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism, 2002 (ISBN 0-385-50471-3)
Disney the Mouse Betrayed, 1998 (ISBN 0-89526-387-4)
Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union, 1994 (ISBN 0-87113-567-1)
Friendly Spies: How America's Allies Are Using Economic Espionage to Steal Our Secrets, 1992 (ISBN 0-87113-497-7)

[edit] References

^ Alexovich, Ariel; Klingebiel, Jacqueline (March 25, 2009). "Suite Talk March 25, 2009: Speechwriters Open New Outlet". The Politico.
^ http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/05/sarahpac-hires-a-new-foreign-policy-adviser.html

[edit] External links

Peter Schweizer official website
BigPeace.com at Andrew Breitbart Websites
Profile at the Hoover Institution
Profile at the James Madison Institute
Schweizer's Bio at Oval Office Writers LLC
Appearances on C-SPAN
Peter Schweizer at the Internet Movie Database
Works by or about Peter Schweizer in libraries (WorldCat catalog)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schweizer

solyndra st'l/book on crony capitalism http://thevictorychronicles.com/2011/11/12/how-obamas-alternative-energy-programs-became-green-graft/#.Tr7PXbN09sM.facebook

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe

Updated 12/7/20065:45 PM ET labelled editrial/opinion

By Peter Schweizer

Correction: In this column that appeared Aug. 10 on the Forum Page, writer Peter Schweizer inaccurately stated that former vice president Al Gore receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property in Tennessee despite his environmental advocacy. He no longer does, as the mine was closed in 2003.

Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author ofDo As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.

Marc Thiessen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marc A. Thiessen (born 1967) is an American author, columnist and political commentator, who served as a speechwriter for United States President George W. Bush (2004–2009) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (2001–2004). He wrote the 2010 New York Times bestselling book, Courting Disaster, in which he argues that the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA, which the Obama administration has characterized as torture,^[1] are not torture by any reasonable legal or moral standard^[2] and "were not only effective, but lawful and morally just".^[3]

Thiessen's articles have appeared in the Los Angeles Times, National Review, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Weekly Standard, USA Today and other publications. He has also appeared on Fox News, CNN, NPR, and other media outlets. In its January 11, 2010 issue, The Daily Telegraph named Thiessen number 97 of the "100 Most Influential Conservatives in America".

Contents [hide]

[edit] Personal life

Thiessen grew up in Upper East Side in Manhattan, where both his parents were "liberal Democrat" doctors.^[4] His mother grew up in Poland and fought as a teenager in the Warsaw Uprising, a military struggle in which his grandfather died.^[4]

Thiessen is a graduate of the Taft School (1985), a private prep school in Connecticut. He graduated from Vassar College (BA in 1989) and completed post-graduate studies at the Naval War College.

He lives in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife Pamela, who is currently the Staff Director of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, and their four children.^[5]

[edit] Career

Thiessen has worked in Washington for many years, starting with five years at Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly. He spent six years (1995–2001) on Capitol Hill as spokesman and senior policy advisor to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-NC).^[6] He joined the Bush administration as Chief Speechwriter for Donald Rumsfeld in 2001, then moved to Bush's speechwriting team in 2004.^[6] In February 2008, he became chief speechwriter when William McGurn resigned. ^[7]

In March 2009, Thiessen and Peter Schweizer opened Oval Office Writers LLC.^[8]

Thiessen is currently a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is also a columnist for The Washington Post, starting March 2010.

[edit] Book

Thiessen's first book, Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack (ISBN 1596986034), was published by Regnery Publishing in January 2010. The book is endorsed by the former Vice President Dick Cheney,^[9] former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,^[2] and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey.^[10][11] It reached the No. 9 spot on the New York Times Best Sellers list for hardcover nonfiction in February 2010.^[12]

Jane Mayer, author of *The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals*, a book which Thiessen says has fundamental errors of fact,^[13] heavily criticised Courting Disaster in a book review, claiming it is "based on a series of slipshod premises."^[14] In a long response, Thiessen defended the accuracy of his book and said Mayer's review contained many factual errors and omissions. For example, Mayer quoted the head of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism branch in 2006 as saying that Thiessen's account of the Heathrow plot is "completely and utterly wrong";^[14] in reply Thiessen quoted a former senior CIA official as saying that the CIA liaises only with MI6 and MI5, so the Scotland Yard official "would have no way of knowing what intelligence the CIA shared with MI6 or MI5, much less the ultimate source of that intelligence". Thiessen added, "The week her article appeared in The New Yorker, former CIA director Mike Hayden handed it out in his class at George Mason University's School of Public Policy as an example of all that is wrong with intelligence journalism today."^[15] (Hayden had earlier written a positive review of Thiessen's book for The Daily Caller.^[16])

Matthew Alexander, a former military interrogator and author of How to Break a Terrorist, characterises Thiessen's book as 'a literary defense of war criminals'.^[17]

Thiessen's promotional tour for Courting Disaster included confrontational interviews with CNN's Christiane Amanpour and MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, and an interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, an uncut version of which was posted online.^[18]

[edit] References

^ MSNBC Report of Obama speech describing techniques used at Guantanamo as torture MSNBC 1/9/2009; Stout, David, Holder Tells Senators Waterboarding is Torture New York Times January 15, 2009.
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Thiessen#cite_ref-Amazon_1-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Thiessen#cite_ref-Amazon_1-1) Courting Disaster, Amazon.com page.
^ "Book details: Courting Disaster". Regnery.
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Thiessen#cite_ref-Taft2005_3-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Thiessen#cite_ref-Taft2005_3-1) "Heard But Not Seen" by Tom Frank, Taft School Bulletin, Summer 2005, pp22-25
^ "Marc Thiessen Biography". MarcThiessen.com.
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Thiessen#cite_ref-OOW-MT_5-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Thiessen#cite_ref-OOW-MT_5-1) "Marc A. Thiessen". Oval Office Writers, LLC.
^ "President Bush Thanks Bill McGurn, Announces Marc Thiessen as New Assistant to the President for Speechwriting". Press Release. George W. Bush White House. December 14, 2007.
^ Alexovich, Ariel; Klingebiel, Jacqueline (March 25, 2009). "Suite Talk March 25, 2009: Speechwriters Open New Outlet". The Politico.
^ Courting Disaster: One of the most important books of the year, by Michelle Malkin, January 18, 2010
^ Ralph Peters, Michael Mukasey, Andy McCarthy, January 19, 2010.
^ Marc Thiessen, Mukasey Calls Courting Disaster 'Absolutely Superb', National Review, January 20, 2010.
^ Web page titled "Best Sellers / Hardcover Nonfiction", February 5, 2010, New York Times website, retrieved April 20, 2010
^ Courting Disaster, chapter 2
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Thiessen#cite_ref-jmach_13-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Thiessen#cite_ref-jmach_13-1) Mayer, Jane (March 29, 2010). "A curious history of the C.I.A.". The New Yorker.
^ Thiessen, Marc, "Jane Mayer's Disaster", National Review Online, April 14, 2010, retrieved April 20, 2010
^ Hayden, Michael (February 15, 2010). "Former CIA Director Hayden: Thiessen's 'Courting Disaster' a must-read". Book Review. The Daily Caller. Retrieved April 20, 2010.
^ Alexander, Matthew (February 27, 2010). "Courting Fear". Slate.
^ http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-9-2010/exclusive---marc-thiessen-extended-interview-pt--1

[edit] External links

Thiessen's personal website (also his website for Courting Disaster)
Thiessen's blog
Thiessen's op-eds for The Washington Post
Thiessen's blog posts at The Washington Post's website

Schweizer, Peter

The right’s inept efforts to paint Joe Biden as compromised by China

House hearing to shine spotlight on Clinton Foundation

Synopsis

Publication

Clinton campaign reaction

Commercial reception

Critical reaction and actions taken

Film adaptation

Graphic novel adaptation

See also

References

State Department Approval of Uranium One Deal

Serial Misinformer Peter Schweizer Is Releasing A New Anti-Clinton Book

Schweizer Is A Republican Activist And Consultant

Schweizer Retracted "Incorrect" Report About Sen. Whitehouse

USA TodayCorrected Schweizer's False Reporting About Gore

Wash. Post: Schweizer's Group Launched "Bogus" Attack On Obama's Security Briefings

"A Fatal Shortcoming In Journalism 101": Reporters Debunked Schweizer's Obama-Sebelius Reporting

Fact Checker: Schweizer Couldn't Back Up Energy Reporting When Called Out For Errors

Fact Checker On Schweizer's Reporting About Pelosi: "The Facts Don't Fit Schweizer's Claim"

Seattle Times: Schweizer Flubbed Reporting About Rep. McDermott

Investigation: Schweizer's Facts "Do Not Check Out," And Sources "Do Not Exist"

Veteran Journalist Found Schweizer Book Practiced "Neither Journalism Nor History"

Schweizer "Tacitly Conced[ed] He Was Wrong" About Al Franken's Hiring Of Minorities

Works

[edit] References

[edit] External links

Marc Thiessen

[edit] Personal life

[edit] Career

[edit] Book

[edit] References

[edit] External links