House Democrats mistakenly release transcript confirming big payout to Clinton friend
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by NancyBlueINOklahoma (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: Los Angeles Times
But the redaction marks are easily erased by anyone able to use a computers cut-and-paste function. Once the marks are lifted, the transcript portion reveals some unflattering things for any partisans on the committee, Republican or Democrat. It shows that Republicans did, indeed, leverage their subpoena of Blumenthal for political gain, digging into his financial contracts with David Brock and forcing him to reveal the details of a lucrative financial arrangement that congressional sources would ultimately leak to Fox News.
And for Democrats, the exchange exposes once again the absurd amounts of money people in the orbit of the Clintons sometimes seem to rake in just for, well, being in the orbit of the Clintons. Id say its about $200,000 a year, Blumenthal said when asked by a committee member how much the part-time work offering up advice and ideas was worth.
And how did Blumenthal get such a contract? I have had a very long friendship with the chairman of Media Matters, whose name is David Brock, from before he founded this organization, and I have sustained that friendship. And he asked me to help provide ideas and advice to him and his organizations, Blumenthal said.
Actually, the two got to know each other during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, during Brocks former incarnation as a right-wing hit man journalist. He was starting to undergo his political conversion and in the process was feeding then-White House aide Blumenthal intelligence about what the right was plotting against Bill Clinton. Both men wrote about it in their books.
Read more: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-benghazi-democrats-20160627-snap-story.html
Link contains text of the full transcript excerpt that Democrats intended not to publish.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)phazed0
(745 posts)Among other obvious things.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)But I'm not advocating them.. simply stating that it feels like we're losing a lot of support when stuff like this hits.
And yes, if you "redact" something you must do something more than change the text background to that of the text. That shows a lack of understanding technology, hence the article.
BlueCaliDem
(15,444 posts)phazed0
(745 posts)It was not meant to advocate for, but can certainly see how that would be taken - poor choice of wording.
byronius
(8,023 posts)Head on out to somewhere you can bash Dems to your heart's content.
Me, I'll stick to the TOS.
phazed0
(745 posts)I don't even have to bash, "we're" doing it all by ourselves.
Keep pushing long-time D's out of the tent... You're a real problem solver!
nest
(23 posts)Qutzupalotl
(15,860 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)OKNancy
(41,832 posts)The Statement of Purpose for posts in Latest Breaking News
Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only.
No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours.
Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.
Article is 24 hours old at time of posting