The Hill writer apologizes for lying about Hillary Clinton

[antiimperialist]

Turns out that a writer from The Hill said Hillary Clinton skipped an event in which she was present yesterday.
I do not know what this guy Bolton was smoking, but I'm glad he's now discredited. He the other day hyped allegations by GOP'ers that Hillary Clinton used to spy on opponents' phone calls, a 15 year old allegation without base by misinformers Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.

Details about his lie are here and his correction here

[babylonsister]

1. He's now discredited because he apologized?

:crazy: God forbid someone makes a mistake and apologizes. Come on!

[antiimperialist]

3. No. He's discredited because his mistakes were humongous and because he offered no explanations.

How hard is it to check whether a candidate was present at a certain event?
Alexander Bolton is now discredited.

Media Matters even cited a list of questions that the correction raises.

* Why did Bolton assert that Clinton "was nowhere to be seen at Wednesday's hearing," as though he attended the hearing, when, had he done so, he would presumably have known that Clinton was there?
* Why did Bolton not indicate in the article whether he attended the hearing?
* Why did Bolton assert as fact that Clinton "skipped" the hearing apparently based solely on a charge he apparently thought had been leveled in a press release issued by a member of the opposition party? Why didn't Bolton indicate in his article that his statement of fact was apparently based on a Republican press release?
* Why did the article contain no indication as to whether Bolton had made any effort to confirm Clinton's purported absence from the hearing beyond his reported attempt to contact Clinton's Senate spokesman?
* The Hill's correction is vague about the press release in question, obscuring the fact that it was a release from Inhofe and avoiding the question of who is to blame for The Hill's reliance on an "out of date release": Did Inhofe's staff attempt to pass off an old release as new, or did Bolton err in reporting its contents as new?

[babylonsister]

5. It's late and I'm not going to check now. But okay, you backed it up. nt

[antiimperialist]

4. And it wasn't "a mistake". It was three. He managed to lie about Inhofe twice as well

Bolton said Inhofe rebuked Clinton yesterday, when in fact, Inhofe rebuked her on July 24th, for a reason different than the one cited by Bolton.

Inhofe himself blogged about Bolton's mistakes

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fcdd50cf-802a-23ad-4f51-af630705477f&Issue_id=

[EFerrari]

2. I saw a similar smear today that was disgusting on the CSPAN scroll.

It was: "Clinton campaign tries to use rival campaign's hit as an opportunity to raise funds."

Slimebuckets. They could have said, "Clinton answers rival campaign in email to supporters" or any number of things. I am not a fan of the Senator but this was an obvious attempt to make her look weak, grasping and opportunistic.

[babylonsister]

6. That happens to be true...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3670073&mesg_id=3670073

[EFerrari]

7. I've already said I won't vote for her if someone sets me on fire.

And I won't, even if I have to not vote in that race.

But, the scroll didn't say she needed money to fight back. It very carefully said, she was TRYING to USE the attack to raise money. It was the framing, not the fact, that was dirty, imho. "Clinton appeals to supporters to fund defense" -- there were so many ways this could have been reported that didn't amount to yet another hatchet job on her campaign. Maybe it's just to be expected from CSPAN.

[babylonsister]

8. I agree. That's where the current 'word' came from that she was

cashing in on her femininity to gain votes. I heard it and tried to find a link, but no love. I guess the msm is fueling this fire. I don't care for Clinton, but I don't like the faux arguments.

[William769]

9. "but I don't like the faux arguments".

:rofl: Pretty much says it all about you.

[EFerrari]

10. Pssssssssst, William --

babylonsister and I were recognizing that your candidate was being treated unfairly. Did you notice that?