Discussion
  • Read More
    GartrelleGordonJeff Gerth and Sam Biddle
    3/27/15 4:56pm

    The entirely discredited Jeff Gerth surfaces yet again. Doesn't Gawker know that Gerth got fired by the New York Times because of his laughable, widely ridiculed, chasing-a-hardon "reporting"? And where's his buddy-in-shame, Don van Natta? Where you at, Don!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Creative DestructionGartrelleGordon
      3/27/15 5:13pm

      A couple of things. I can't find anywhere that says Gerth was "fired" from the New York Times. Moreover, he's got the weight of ProPublica behind him in this report, which is a highly regarded investigative journalism organization. You're going to have to do better than whining about Gerth's previous pieces of Clinton. Why don't you actually get at the reporting?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      GartrelleGordonCreative Destruction
      3/27/15 10:19pm

      Got time for the world's longest apology? Then feast your peepers on the New York Times's extended apology for — no, not Gerth's entirely ruined "reporting" on Whitewater, which the paper'd already apologized for. No. It's his and Jimmy Risen's entirely debunked, xenophobic crusade on "shifty, slant-eyed Chinese spies running amok in our national labs!" http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/26/nyr…

      I respect the hell out of ProPublica's newer investigative reporting. The washed up hack thing, though, is, frankly, sad. Sad for Biddle, too, whose SV stuff is great.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    panhandlinpaulJeff Gerth and Sam Biddle
    3/27/15 3:55pm

    So, what's the takeaway here... is this illegal?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Graby Saucepanhandlinpaul
      3/27/15 3:57pm

      No.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      J.panhandlinpaul
      3/27/15 3:57pm

      The takeaway is that the Clinton is shady.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    UngratefulDeadJeff Gerth and Sam Biddle
    3/27/15 3:59pm

    So, like, what's the "good" side of these private intelligence firms? I mean, how are they pitched in a way that's not terrifying and dystopic? What advantage are they supposed to provide other than lack of accountability to the citizens of the governments employing them? What is the world coming to when I'm longing for the relative transparency of national intelligence agencies?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      JuniperAndSageUngratefulDead
      3/27/15 4:04pm

      What accountability would you want? Just so we're clear, we're talking about washed up lawyers, embassy staff, NGO workers, expats, and such gossiping about what they see and hear is going on in some other country. This is the reality of "spying", not some crazy James Bond shit.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      PeteRRUngratefulDead
      3/27/15 4:08pm

      The only other one that comes to mind? Churchill was the recipient of tons of defense and foreign office info in the '30s while he was persona non grata in his own party, the Tories. He used it to track the rise of Hitler and to expose the perfidy of the appeasers in the UK government.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    iismart4meJeff Gerth and Sam Biddle
    3/27/15 4:32pm

    This seems like a broadside hit piece with all smoke and no cannon. Nothing is alleged, it's just "hey look, Clinton blah blah blah... emails... transparency? Ha!" Read this whole post and find not one shred of anything tangibly wrong.

    An intelligence official should use every legal avenue in their disposal to gather Intel on dangerous situations, private or public. This blog post will be linked to a million times over by Right-wing ideologues trying to prove that this means anything from Benghazi to the... moon landing... oh... oh...I get it, it's a blatant click-bait grab. Clever, nice move Sam, very smart! Someones gotta make the sausage eh?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Alex Belliismart4me
      3/27/15 5:31pm

      Exactly how legal do you think it is to conduct private intelligent operations in a foreign country, esp. those that likely deal with monetary exchange to militia leaders?

      If it's officially sanctioned, sure, then the most likely scenario is that she was just good at her job. But since she didn't use her govt. email there's not even the expectation of oversight.

      Of course, she still might have been good at her job...just also possibly technically criminal. Sometimes international politics isn't clean.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Password is TacoAlex Bell
      3/27/15 6:42pm

      ALL politics are unclean.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    SteveShartsJeff Gerth and Sam Biddle
    3/27/15 3:56pm

    AOL mail? People still use that?

    GIF
    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      RobNYCSteveSharts
      3/27/15 4:20pm

      "Welcome"

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      PatrickSteveSharts
      3/27/15 4:23pm

      There was a story in Politico or WaPo or something last year about how it's actually become a bit of a status symbol in the political world — it indicates that you've been around and important for a long time.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Class_WarfareJeff Gerth and Sam Biddle
    3/27/15 4:07pm

    There's a lot of exciting stuff in this article, no doubt about it. But once you hit this sentence, subtly slipped in like a single blade of grass in a green field, it all becomes rather suspect. "There's no indication in Blumenthal's emails whether Clinton read or replied to them before she left State on February 1, 2013."

    Are there any actual facts involving Hillary Clinton involved in this titillating bit of breathless 'journalism'?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Orlandu7Class_Warfare
      3/27/15 4:32pm

      Press coverage on the Clintons has for 25 years now followed a very notable pattern: stories are always breathless and full of innuendo and speculation, but when you read closely there's always significant doubt about whether there's actually anything remotely illegal at all, and the coverage never really addresses that but neatly sidesteps by simply talking in terms of "questions that have been raised" and other weaselly passive-voice constructs. Then you find out months down the line that, once again, there was nothing remotely illegal at all, reported with about 1% of the fervor and interest as the initial allegations.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Sam BiddleClass_Warfare
      3/27/15 4:38pm

      How many people do you think Clinton gave out her HDR22 email address to?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    KittensAndUnicorns_v2_The UprisingJeff Gerth and Sam Biddle
    3/27/15 4:21pm

    test post.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      BaggyTrousers3KittensAndUnicorns_v2_The Uprising
      3/27/15 4:39pm

      Hey, I see the checkmark I gave you! Is your old account back?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      KittensAndUnicorns_v2_The UprisingBaggyTrousers3
      3/27/15 4:40pm

      YES! i'm no longer banned, just grey on the mainpage.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Jeff Gerth? Seriously?Jeff Gerth and Sam Biddle
    3/27/15 4:06pm

    If you want to report on Hillary Clinton and have your readers trust you, you're going to have to get someone else to do it for you. Jeff Gerth comes pre-discredited for the reader's convenience from his absurd and heavily slanted reporting on Whitewater and otherwise during Bill Clinton's presidency. This story sounds moderately interesting - though, frankly, not all that much so; there's no apparent reason to think anything illegal or even unethical occurred - but pigs will fly before I extend any credibility to Gerth on Clinton.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      abyssgazerJeff Gerth? Seriously?
      3/27/15 4:35pm

      Gerth was as gullible as they came in those days—and I'm being charitable by suggesting that he didn't completely fabricate his reporting.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    CaptainClarenceOveurJeff Gerth and Sam Biddle
    3/27/15 4:09pm

    I think this mostly illustrates the Mrs Clinton has becoming almost too powerful to be President. The amount of government and extra-government activities which she presides over are surely beginning to frighten much of her own party. Perhaps they will act, perhaps not. Sort of Julius Caesar kind of situation.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Orlandu7CaptainClarenceOveur
      3/27/15 4:27pm

      "The amount of government and extra-government activities which she presides over are surely beginning to frighten much of her own party."

      Meanwhile, here in the land of reality, every poll has her still enjoying 80%+ approval among Democrats, 50+ point primary leads, and double-digit leads on every Republican candidate. I'm sure there will be a lot of wishful thinking to the contrary, but only among people who made up their mind not to vote for her a long time ago.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      iismart4meCaptainClarenceOveur
      3/27/15 4:35pm

      "...Sort of Julius Caesar kind of situation."

      So... you... want to stab presidential candidates? Are you alright bro?

      Anyone running for office will be given tremendous power, not certain where you're head is at here.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    CalRaiderJeff Gerth and Sam Biddle
    3/27/15 6:35pm

    WOW!! A US Secretary of State used every fucking resourse to find out shit including back channels, ex-CIA peeps, and old friends (who had worked for a Former US President and knew a bunch of stuff)..... I say good for her.

    Reply
    <