Requesting thread edit (On Hillary and Huma Amedin)

[twii]

A thread titled "NYT: Hillary Clinton Personally Signed Off on Job Change for Huma Abedin" was posted 5 days ago. I request that the good and respectable DUer portlander23 delete or edit the thread, since the claim made therein has been debunked.

hhttp://correctrecord.org/when-it-comes-to-right-wing-anti-clinton-leaks-some-in-the-media-report-first-ask-questions-later-if-at-all/

Please change the title or issue an update reflecting the fact that the NYT once again made stuff up about Clinton.

[mcar]

1. K&R

Thank you.

[Raine1967]

2. I hope this isn't a call out of another DU member.

It's really in bad taste and cakes across as Disruptive Meta:

DISRUPTIVE META-DISCUSSION
Positive threads about Democratic Underground or its members are are permitted.

Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted.

This is a guideline for all of the big forums per Skinner. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=7494

[FarPoint]

4. Meta Team knows how to do their job....

Are you or have you ever been part of the Mets Team or an Administer? If not, then chill.

[magical thyme]

9. The OP has 39 posts, so is a newcomer. Not likely on the Mets Team or an Administer.

This post appears to be directed to the OPer, not to anybody on the Mets Team or an Administer (sic).

[mopinko]

21. what is the mets team?

assume you mean mirt. poster has over 400 posts, so is not subject to mirt removal.
nor is the op here.

if people want to alert on it as meta, it can be hidden. if poster has other hidden posts, admin will take a look at them.

[twii]

5. No. The member is good and respectable

He is an admirable DUer who certainly did not know the NYT makes stuff up. It was an unforced error.

[McCamy Taylor]

39. It is a call out of bad reporting and fake news.

[Luminous Animal]

3. Portlander already posted a new OP pointing reporting the retraction.

[twii]

6. Excellent. Please link to the apology/update

I will kick and recommend. Portlander23 showed class by correcting the erroneous headline (in a separate thread). Kudos.

[Doctor_J]

25. so you should probably delete this op

Since the apology has already been issued

[still_one]

7. This isn't the first time that the NY Times had to retract a story based on shoddy reporting

[magical thyme]

8. Still waiting for a poster who deliberately used a misleading headline against Bernie and

was requested repeatedly within that thread to correct the title...and he refused because he had corrected in in post #325 and at one point claimed it would confuse readers (apparently it was too difficult or challenging to add an explanation of the change within the OP).

Let it go. If somebody knowingly and deliberately used wrong info and was requested while the thread was still active and refused, then why should somebody change a 5 day old thread that used the NYT article title as their thread topic?

Besides, the debunking updated info has its own thread(s).

[artislife]

14. Staten Island or something of the sort...nt

[Fawke Em]

29. Someplace where a tree grows.

[jkbRN]

10. People know how to read,

Stop making a mountain out of a molehill.

Ps, nice source-- Brock's HRC superPAC, I'm just waiting for the next citation, media matters.

[twii]

33. People know how to read falsehoods

What's your point? I don't want falsehoods to be read by anyone.

[jkbRN]

38. My point is that if one reads, then they will be able to decipher the truth

I didn't know I had to explain my point, I thought I made it pretty clear in the first post.

[twii]

41. Let's spare people some deciphering time

And let's just delete falsehoods. I thought you would be able to decipher that.

[tularetom]

11. You do understand that "correcttherecord.org" is a Clinton superpac, right?

And the mere fact that something is denied there doesn't mean it has been "debunked".

[twii]

18. Do you understand that the NYT updated the story?

What does the update say?

[portlander23]

12. I've got class! :D

Who knew the best way to make friends online was to be wrong about stuff.

Let's not throw the meta-book at twii. It's a totally fair request. I've updated the first post with a link to the second post.

Second, "retraction" was my word, not the NYT. They still had this kicker in there:

Mrs. Clinton’s aides have defended Ms. Abedin’s employment arrangement in the past as appropriate and have said that she complied with State Department rules. But they have declined to say what role Mrs. Clinton may have played in authorizing Ms. Abedin’s multiple roles.

Their position is the signature was redacted and they have an assurance from an "anonymous Clinton aide" that it was Cheryl Mills' signature. And it seems according to this post that Mrs. Clinton's Super PAC is saying the same thing. My reading of the quote above is that the Times is still holding onto the idea that Mrs. Clinton might have had some unseemly involvement.

I personally used the word "retraction" because I find it very unlikely someone from the Clinton campaign would tell a reporter something on background that was false.

In defense of the Times, the signature was redacted, it was labeled with Mrs. Clinton's name, and her campaign explicitly declined to offer any comment before the Times ran with the story. It was only after the story ran that the aide shared information. I don't think there's any malice here. That said, the followup piece was a touch snarky at the end.

So, it appeared that Mrs. Clinton had said something on the record that was patently untrue. And then it turns out that the original report was wrong. So, I posted an update.

Let's all cool off and be decent to each other

[sabrina 1]

13. That source you're using has completely discredited itself. Has Brock issued an apology after being

caught LYING about Bernie Sanders? The very nerve of that site to talk about 'reporting first then asking questions later'.

We're still waiting for Brock to crawl out of his hiding place and own up to what he did.

Find a better source.

And when all the incorrect trash posted here about Sanders is apologized for and corrected, then these Meta threads calling out good DUers, who did correct this story btw, far more than Brock and his 'media matters' site, which apparently means 'it only matters when someone else is doing what I got caught doing' will have some credibility.

[twii]

17. Did you read the update in the NYT?

Doesnt it confirm that Hllary did not sign off on the job change?

[HooptieWagon]

15. Correcttherecord is Clinton's Swiftboat group.

They have no credibility whatsoever.

[twii]

16. So Hillary personally sign off on the job change?

Did you read the NYT update? If you think the NYT is credible, do you believe their update?

[HooptieWagon]

19. I'm saying...

...that correct the record is a Super PAC run by Slimeball David Brock, and coordinates with Clinton's campaign. They have no credibility whatsoever.

[twii]

20. But you refuse to admit that the NYT confirmed what correct the record said

Why do you run away from the NYT update?

[HooptieWagon]

22. I simply ignore correct the record.

They are a Swiftboat-style smear group connected with Hillarys campaign. How can I comment on a statement from an uncredible group I ignore? I don't pay attention to FOX News either. Same lack of credibility.

[twii]

30. I asked you to content on the NYT update

And you refuse. Why?

[HooptieWagon]

32. The denial is from correct the record. It's worthless.

It's the same as Bill saying "I did not have sex with that woman".

[snooper2]

51. because nobody gives a fuck LOL

next!

[Snap the Turtle]

23. If NYT corrects the record based on Correct the Record's information

then NYT has lost all credibility.

[sabrina 1]

36. Did you read about CorrectTheRecord, ironic title, isn't it, exposure when Brocck who runs that site

you posted a link to, outright LIED about Bernie Sanders. I would READ about the Correction of that despicable smear, but I don't see one anywhere.

Maybe you can point to MediaMatters correcting the record on Brock's smear, or is it in the NYT?

[Motown_Johnny]

24. It seems like a distinction without a difference.

Yes, they were wrong about the signature. That should be corrected and I agree with you on that.

It was her Chief of Staff who signed off on it.

We are now left with only 2 possibilities.

1) Hillary approved of this so the fact that her signature is not on the piece of paper is meaningless. This still came from her.

2) Her top people are doing things she does not approve of so she can't be trusted to hire competent people.

[Fumesucker]

26. There's a third possibility

She had no idea what the hell was going on...

[Motown_Johnny]

27. IMO that falls under option #2

Either she approves of that move or she doesn't. Her name was typed on the form but her Chief of Staff signed it.

If she approved of it then it is option #1

If not it is option #2


Even if she didn't know, one of those must be true. Maybe not in real time, but at some point she must have known.


Unless you are implying that she is so horribly incompetent herself that her staff is running everything and she is just a figure head. I don't consider that a real possibility. By all accounts, she is a control freak who would know things like this. I doubt very much if she is out of the loop completely. I don't consider her total incompetence as a viable option.

[840high]

40. ...+1

[karynnj]

52. Beautifully, concisely laid out

I think the reason her team is fighting this as strongly as they are is that HRC is on record, on tape with Andrea Mitchell saying she was not involved.

But step back and look at what it actually was. Her right hand person, shifting to a special status to continue working for the SD while she works at the CLINTON foundation, a CLINTON aligned private company, and for CLINTON herself. (It looks to me like a way to pay Abedin more - maybe because her husband losing his Congressional job made that important. Someone with Abedin's skills and connections would make more in the private world than the State Department - and Clinton wanted to keep a trusted aide. )

[ColesCountyDem]

28. This is borderline calling out another DU-er.

As a newbie, you probably think that stating downthread that the person you're calling out is a 'good and honorable DU-er' is good enough. It isn't, so it might be a good idea to delete your OP, or change the title.

[twii]

31. Alert it

Let's see.

[ColesCountyDem]

34. I won't bother.

People who ignore good advice tend to not last long here, any way, so there's really not any point in doing so.

[twii]

43. That's not why you won't alert

You know your alert would have failed. Let's be honest.

[morningfog]

45. Welcome back, by the way.

[ColesCountyDem]

46. I am being honest.

You're not a mind reader.

[twii]

48. No

You are not.

[ColesCountyDem]

49. Yes I am.

As I've correctly noted, you're not a mind reader.

[portlander23]

35. Hey

Let's stop arguing about this. The Times got the story wrong. I already posted a correction. Twii asked for the stories to be linked, and you know what? Totally cool. Updated. If asking for that in this fashion is against the rules, then lesson learned for all of us. Twii, message me next time. It's all good.

People are arguing about arguing at this point. Let's all hang out and be cool to each other instead

[ColesCountyDem]

37. "...Twii, message me next time....."

Excellent advice, but I seriously doubt it will be followed.

[twii]

42. Better message: be cautious of what the new York times claims

I don't know how many decades it will take for people to realize they suck.
They invent whitewater, smear Gore, Spread Iraq War lies, and we still sealed their BS..

[Motown_Johnny]

44. I guess you only see what you want to see.

This was done long before you asked for the edit.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=628285



portlander23 (439 posts) Sun Sep 27, 2015, 05:43 PM

Retraction: Hillary Clinton did NOT sign off on Huma Abedin job change


NYT: Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff Authorized Job Change for Huma Abedin

A document certifying a new employment position for one of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s senior aides at the State Department was signed by Mrs. Clinton’s then chief of staff, Cheryl D. Mills, according to a copy of the document provided to The New York Times on Sunday.

Last week, The Times and other news outlets reported that the document was signed by Mrs. Clinton personally, based on a copy that was obtained by a conservative watchdog group. On the document, Mrs. Clinton’s name was printed above the signature in a box intended for the aide’s supervisor, but the signature itself was redacted by the State Department, according to the group, Judicial Watch.

The document was part of a process undertaken in 2012 by which Mrs. Clinton’s then deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, began working simultaneously for the State Department, the Clinton family’s foundation, and the consulting firm Teneo. A Clinton aide on Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that the signature was that of Ms. Mills, and said that it was within Ms. Mills’ duties to sign such documents on behalf of Mrs. Clinton.

[ColesCountyDem]

47. He couldn't possibly be wrong.

Just ask him.

[Fearless]

50. Correct the record? Isn't that the group trying to dig up shit on Bernie Sanders?

[Todays_Illusion]

53. Dear OP twii this site has long been taken over by lefty libertarians, they aim to do to

the Democratic Party what they have done to the Republican party, take it over.