Clintons Kill Critical Magazine Article

Clintons Kill Critical Magazine Article

www.foxnews.com

GQ magazine agreed to kill a critical piece about fighting within the Hillary Clinton campaign team — in exchange for access to Bill Clinton for another story. FOX's Carl Cameron has confirmed the publication struck a deal to spike the story — in order to secure Bill Clinton's cooperation in a cover piece planned for December.

The Politico newspaper says GQ confirmed that the Clinton article had been killed, but would not say why. The Clinton team isn't talking either.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.foxnews.com

So a quid-pro-quo from the Clintons to the press. Kill a negative story about Hillary and you can have full access to Bill for a front page story.

I'm afraid we're going to see much more of these strongarm tactics coming from them. Already there's another story that they've demanded a restaurant take down a picture of Chelsea.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is outrageous! Nevermind....it's the Clinton's....move along...nothing to see here...have a nice day!

The Clinton War Room is in full force!

Really this only seems to be news worthy because it involves Hillary . I'm sure that this would happen all the time on both sides of the political fence. If the media ran a story about the number of breaths per minute Hillary takes Republicans would launch an automatic partisan attack on the article. Since Bill really isnt that news worthy any more I doubt that the story that they failed to print was of any important significance.

Originally posted by xpert11
Really this only seems to be news worthy because it involves Hillary . I'm sure that this would happen all the time on both sides of the political fence. If the media ran a story about the number of breaths per minute Hillary takes Republicans would launch an automatic partisan attack on the article. Since Bill really isnt that news worthy any more I doubt that the story that they failed to print was of any important significance.

Illegal fund raising...no big deal

Intimidating a restaurant owner...no big deal

Intimidating a magazine....no big deal

Socializing healthcare....no big deal

Calling a General a liar.... no big deal

Voting for troop withdrawals, then saying if she is elected she wouldn't pull troops out.... no big deal

I could go on for days...but hopefully someone will get the point!

The Clinton's Kill......... ......Critical Magazine Article.....

I thought I was about to see truth about Clinton Killings, now that's a magazine article to die for.

Originally posted by RRconservative
Illegal fund raising...no big deal

Huh ?
Are you referring to the campaign contribution from Hong Kong ?
Was it proven that any illegal activity took place ?
Corruption no political boundaries.

Intimidating a magazine....no big deal

That hardly seems to be the case. It would appear that the magazine choose the story that would sell the best .

Socializing healthcare....no big deal

As Iraq as shown bad policy as consequences but it isnt illegal.
What does troop withdrawals and calling a general a liar have to do with the topic ?

I'm sure that this would happen all the time on both sides of the political fence.

Do you have any proof of this?

I have looked and can not find any similar references in regards to any other candidate


Semper

I was able to find this however

The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt, they were the cause of corruption in others. Yet seldom in America have so many come to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as during the Clinton years. Here are some of the facts that have been buried.

RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Legacy

Now THAT is certainly an interesting legacy, to say the least..

I am a HUGE proponent of "Two wrongs do not make a Right" so if you can find some factual evidence of any other candidate doing something similar, I would love to see it...

Semper

Semperfortis I was just offering my opinion on the matter and if it did or has happened with another candidate I think that it would go unreported expect for maybe if Obama was involved. I'm no huge fan of Hillary but the situation just doesn't bother me.

Edit: What does the above post have to do with the topic ?
If you have to stray off topic into to have a go at Hillary then there is clearly no malice involved with this matter.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by xpert11]

God help us if this lady wins in 2008, she will make Bush look like a saint compared to her.

Oh wait, Bush IS a saint compared to Slick Willy .... Slick Willy just covered things up better then Bush and Co.

What does the above post have to do with the topic ?

Everything

Now follow the line of thinking, it is pretty clear and straight..

Title of the Thread

"Clintons Kill Critical Magazine Article"

Subject,

"The credibility of the Clinton's, specifically Hillary"

My posts?

Spot on

Semper

The problem is that the list of firsts for and other information you posted as nothing to do with the topic what so ever. But that just my opinion I'm an open minded kind of guy if somebody can make a reasonable case that malice was involved without going off topic I am all ears.

Not Malice so much Xpert...

More forcible manipulation

The list that I posted clearly shows a pattern of just that, forcible manipulation to obtain political goals

Their past is full of actions like this

If we are going to discuss ANYONES character, in regards to their ACTIONS, their past performance comes into play, this is true here as well as any thread

Just because they are the Clinton's they don't get a pass

Simple and straightforward

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
More forcible manipulation

Personally I think that is a bit of a strength.

The list that I posted clearly shows a pattern of just that, forcible manipulation to obtain political goals

Bill had a lot of political baggage when he came to the White house and most of his political problems in his second term were his own doing. Nothing is above politics in the US including politically motivated prosecutions. I don't want to go off topic so that is all I am going to say on the matter.

If we are going to discuss ANYONES character, in regards to their ACTIONS, their past performance comes into play, this is true here as well as any thread

That is true but you actually have to think about the matter at hand.
In this for example I don't see how Bill personal flaws influence the situation and as for the likes of the number of " I don't recalls " well that is fairly standard in politics across the board. I'm not defending Bill here Instead I am saying that what is made out to be expectational bad is the norm.

Just because they are the Clinton's they don't get a pass

Well I don't give any political leaders a free pass.
I find it hard to asses Bill presidency . Bill is public enemy number one in Republican eyes and a great president in the eyes of the American left. Usually I just split the difference.

Simple and straightforward

You should know that nothing simple and straightforward in politics.

If you'd like another example of the Clinton Campaign starting their "Censorship" even before she's in office, see this thread too:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Bill does this type of stuff all the time. Not only GQ, but I think I heard something about Rolling Stone Magazine a few years ago. The Clinton's have so many ground rules for interviews, public appearances, and publishing ANYTHING about them they make it not worth the while.

.....Unless of course, you are willing to depart with a large sum of "donated" cash wired directly into the Clintons' private account (not Hillary's campaign fund, that just wouldn't work because they'd have to report it to the Elections Board!)