DailyCaller and Others Misrepresent Clinton Fundraising Email

Sadly, a propaganda piece from Daily Caller is probably on the front page of ATS already. The same disinformation has already been posted to a dozens of other far-right propaganda repeaters.

Let's start with what the Daily Caller said:

Hillary Campaign Vows To Destroy Opposition Website

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign has sent out a fundraising email arguing the website Breitbart News has no “right to exist,” and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

I really needn't post much more than the title and first sentence to expose this piece for what it is because I handily tracked down a copy of the email — something that the Daily Caller couldn't provide without then being unable to lie about its contents. What's really concerning is how willing a number of people were to go off half-cocked without even pausing for a moment to wonder why it was that DC didn't link to a PDF of the email or embed it or simply quote it in its entirety.

Let's look at the claims contained in the title and opening sentence:

1. Hillary Campaign Vows To Destroy Opposition Website
2. [the campaign argues that] the website Breitbart News has no "right to exist"
3. [the email] suggests that if [Hillary is] elected, the website will be shut down entirely

Here's the email as pasted on Reddit. Please excuse the lack of formatting, that's how I found it.

Donald Trump just hired Breitbart's executive director to be his new campaign CEO.

[NAME] --

Whenever you hear about a right-wing conspiracy theory somehow making its way into the mainstream of political dialogue, there's a good chance that Breitbart News had something to do with it. Never heard of Breitbart News? It's a fringe website where there's no opinion too ugly, too divisive, or too outright crazy to be worth breathless promotion. The one about President Obama being a secret Muslim born in Kenya? Breitbart was all over that "story." Or maybe you heard about the time they attacked an opponent -- a conservative Republican, no less -- by calling him a "renegade Jew." Why does this matter? Donald Trump just hired Breitbart's executive director to be his new campaign CEO. Now, we've had a conservative media in this country for a while. I don't always like what they have to say, but I respect their role and their right to exist. Breitbart is something different. They make Fox News look like a Democratic Party pamphlet. They're a different breed altogether -- not just conservative but radical, bigoted, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic conspiracy peddlers who never have been and never should be anywhere near the levers of power in this country. But Donald Trump just gave them a broad new mandate to shape his campaign, his message, the future of the Republican Party, and quite possibly the country. It goes without saying that we have to beat these people. But I want to beat them so decisively that their kind never rises again. Doing that is going to take hard work, moral clarity, unshakeable determination, and enough resources to make sure that every last voter in America hears from us every single day about the choice in this election. We'll never face a challenge more important than this. Please, chip in to stand on the right side of history and help us send Donald Trump and Steve Bannon back to the fringes where they belong. When you do, we’ll send you a free sticker as a thank you for your support:

So where is this vow to destory the website? Where does the email sugggest that if she's elected, Hillary Clinton will "shut down" the Breitbart News website "entirely?" And where exatly is there a line that says "Breitbart News has no right to exist" or even a sentence that could be paraphrased as such?

Well folks, they're nowhere to be found because they don't exist and that is why in the "article" (for lack of a better term that wasn't profanity) on bits and pieces of the email were in quotes, interspersed with a whole lot of paraphrasing. Wait, did I just say paraphrasing? No, that's not really the right word for it. I think a more appropriate term might be fabrication or perhaps disinformation — or if you're more of the informal type, bullsh#.

For a specific example, consider the following line from the Daily Caller garbage:

One of the goals of Clinton’s campaign, Reynolds says, is to ensure Breitbart is destroyed.

The "proof" of this is supposed to be the very next line which is a quote from the email:

“It goes without saying that we have to beat these people. But I want to beat them so decisively that their kind never rises again,” she says.

What's interesting to me here is that it's not even a particularly good fit for the author's assertion even taken out of context. Maybe with a bit of squinting, some nose pinching and a little bit of spraypaint huffing? Nah, not even then. When the immediate context is included, it's quite obvious that no rational human being would be able to characterize Reynold's statements as saying, "One of the goals of Clinton’s campaign [...] is to ensure Breitbart is destroyed" without intentionally lying:

not just conservative but radical, bigoted, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic conspiracy peddlers who never have been and never should be anywhere near the levers of power in this country. But Donald Trump just gave them a broad new mandate to shape his campaign, his message, the future of the Republican Party, and quite possibly the country. It goes without saying that we have to beat these people. But I want to beat them so decisively that their kind never rises again. Doing that is going to take hard work, moral clarity, unshakeable determination, and enough resources to make sure that every last voter in America hears from us every single day about the choice in this election.

So the goal is to "destroy" Breitbart News by making sure that every last voter in America hears from Hillary supporters? Annoying perhaps but certainly nothing approaching the very clear implications made through the Daily Caller piece that Hillary's campaign is promising to do something extralegal or unethical to "destroy" Breitbart News or worse, that if elected, Hillary Clinton would as President, take action to shutdown Breitbart News (claim #3 from above).

So what about this "right to exist" bit? Did Reynolds really say that Breitbart News has no right to exist? That certainly sounds anti-freedom of the press doesn't it? Read for yourself. Here's what Reynolds says in the email:

"Now, we've had a conservative media in this country for a while. I don't always like what they have to say, but I respect their role and their right to exist. Breitbart is something different."

So she doesn't like what conservative media says but she respects their role and their right to exist. Check. Then she says, "Breitbart is something different." Different than Fox? Okay, I'll give Fox that. They might be extremely, openly biased but they're still certainly far more credible than the likes of Breitbart. What she clearly doesn't say is that Breitbart News doesn't have a "right exist."

It's all complete and utter BS. Not one of the claims made are true nor are the imnplications substantiated by the email whatsoever.

What strikes me as particularly disturbing is that a lot of the folks who have/will buy into this are the same one's who several times a day echo Trump's irrational, disingenuous whining about how the media is out to get him and are constantly misconstruing his words and taking him out of context.

The sames folks will also completely ignore statements from Trump (who has filed multiple vexatious/frivolous lawsuits against the media) about how he's going to "open up libel laws" so that people can "sue for lots of money" when the press prints something that is "negative." They cheer when he condemns the media for lying. There hasn't been in modern history a candidate for President who has been more overtly anti-freedom of the press and yet, none of that gets acknowledged. Then based on the strength of a garbage piece from an "alt right news" site like Daily Caller — who is clearly doing exactly all those things the mainstream media is being accused of daily as a way to explain away the things that come straight out of Trump's mouth — these folks will go crazy talking about how Hillary is attacking the freedom of the press.

Ugh.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Misrepresented?

LOL

She called for the resources to go to war with a media outlet that is critical of her.

She is trying to beat them so badly that others of their kind never come around again.

What a shill mouth piece this thread is.

Sir, own it. She is not asking to just oppose them. She is asking for resources to make it into the white house to END THEM. NOT ignore them, with respect.

So undemocratic, un american, and utterly un western.

Its a whiney bitch and moan fest, calling for action against political oposition on her part and you play the damage control echo chamber.

What was your particular brand of globalism you advocate for? Is she even that type of globalist?

LOL

Selling out much?

Is she an ALTER GLOBALIST?

No, she is a closet neo-con. A hawk, and you always jump to defend her against all logic. Because she is for responsible economic policies that help the third world. Look at Hati....loves her.

Makes sense. Seems legit.

So while you yawn at having honor or integrity, you pretend to have defined values. You dont.

You are not an alter globalist, if such a thing exists.

This is shill work for an infiltrated neo-con selling bombs and bricks, and pissing on us with the profits of blood money, contracts and government positions to bastard corporations....after hefty donations to her noble foundation.

Trump says things....oooh freaking oooh.
Go to war with him and give a free pass to her....right.

Clinton misrepresents Clinton fundraising, so it's not going to convince us that she's ethical, trustworthy or accountable. She's a terrible candidate and a danger to everyone, including herself, assuming she can get past the stairs. Today was not that day.

originally posted by: Califemme
Clinton misrepresents Clinton fundraising, so it's not going to convince us that she's ethical, trustworthy or accountable. She's a terrible candidate and a danger to everyone, including herself, assuming she can get past the stairs. Today was not that day.

What does that have to do with the topic of the thread? I'm not trying to convince anyone that Clinton is trustworthy or accountable. She is a terrible candidate. Trump is also an untrustworthy, even less accountable and a worse candidate.

Does it or does it not matter to you that the Daily Caller writer lied about the contents of the email?

Thanks for verifying this email is real.

And the Daily Cailer article is accurate.

Thanks again.

a reply to: theantediluvian

It's quite amazing to see an ATS member like you become a Hillary mouthpiece, but alas it has happened.

#correcttherecord.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You're right. Reynolds never specifically said "destroy" Breitbart, she just went on about how they're basically the scum of the earth. There is nothing wrong with that and no threat to freedom of the press. As for the right to exist, I think they were speaking about this remark specifically, since we're paraphrasing:

I don't always like what they have to say, but I respect their role and their right to exist. Breitbart is something different.

At the very least, she doesn't respect their right to exist. That seems obvious, given that she wants help to send Trump and Bannon back to the fringes.

While we're on the topic of paraphrasing, and Trump's threat of opening up libel laws, here is at the very least the entirety of the sentence:

I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.

In other words, he is speaking about libel, which can result in a lawsuit for damages.

It's a sad day when people endorse suppressions of freedoms and rights.

But that is where we are.

Honestly, according to the electoral college, Hillary will win.

This is what we can expect.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I thought it was too good to be true upon you posting in the other thread the email in question. I think that if we as a community are to maintain the online moral high ground regarding accuracy in reporting then I can only conclude that nowhere in that email does it say, suggest or hint at the allegation presented which is to shut down Brietbart if Hills gets the big chair.

It pains me greatly to even acknowledge that even Hills would not be so stupid as to stifle free speech simply because it's anti Clinton.

I welcome my friends here to grab a screenshot of the email and circle in red that which appears to support the intended shutting down of Breirtbart.

Seriously, unless I'm literally reading the wrong email, I just cannot see it.

I particularly enjoyed Hillary bringing up the whole Obama being born in Kenya thing when it has been proven that Clinton and her supporters were the original "birthers" back during her failed 2008 campaign.

Trump had to go out and hire a media executive because he does not have a daughter who is the Director of of a large media conglomerate that contols sites like The Daily Beast which serves as a mouthpiece for the Clinton campaign (when it is not running trash articles outing gay Olympic athletes from countries that punish gay people).

a reply to: Sublimecraft

By the gods you are a member here that I admire. . . .

That being said, I don't think you will ever see a note, email, letter, memo from Hillary that she wants to stifle free speech or inhibit the 1st Amendment.

But her actions, her intentions, her inferences, should speak quite loudly her true intentions.

We are a membership of conspiracy theorists. We are not a "news aggregate". We deal in suppositions, inferences, innuendo.

How often are we right? In the arena of politics. . . . . too often we are right.

Of course you could counter and show examples of how Hillary has been a champion of free speech. But I feel that even that task would be beyond the limits of even Hercules.

It goes without saying that the only way to “beat these people so decisively that their kind never rises again,” is to shut them down completely and elimiate their first amendment rights.

a reply to: tadaman

Yawn.

Aside from the fact that you actually are a paid political operative and I'm not, a key difference in what motivates our political posting is that I think Trump is the worst candidate in the last 50 years at least and you are a delusional Trump fanboy.

I have no love for Hillary. None at all. I just think Trump is all the worst things about Clinton and in addition to that, an unstable clown whose entire campaign is built on authoritarian pipe dreams for white Christian nationalists.

He gave the Clinton Foundation at least $100k in 2014. He gave to Clinton campaigns in what? 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2007? One of those years Melania gave her money too and Donald Jr and even Ivanka, who also gave $5,000 or more to the Clinton Foundation, have donated to Clinton something like three or four times a piece.

Bill and Donald go waaaay back and the travel in the exact same circles. They're old golf buddies according to Clinton and he's got Bill's number right in his cellphone next to Doug Band's (who he called when he didn't get an invite to Chelsea's wedding). Hell, his son-in-law's (Jared Kushner) parents were the largest single donors to Hillary's last Senate campaign.

Here's the real kicker. Three weeks before he threw his hat in the ring, Donald Trump called Bill to discuss his plans to run for President.

Have you not wondered why his campaign hasn't been really hitting Bill Clinton? It's not just because their kids (and son-in-laws) are besties and they have a long personal and political relationship — it's because your hero the idiot whisperer took flights to Jeffrey Epstein's sex-slave island just like Bill Clinton did and unlike Bill, Trump's been accused of having sex with an underage girl there.

You think their foreign policies are going to be drastically different? Did you miss the part where Trump and Hillary both went to kiss the ring of Henry Kissinger? Guess so.

The only possible reason for you to think that Donald Trump is in any way, shape or form less establishment or less of a globalist than the Clintons is because he says so and in case you haven't noticed, he's quite possibly the only person they GOP could have wound up nominating who makes Hillary look half-way honest.

He claims that two months before he got into the race that he went from one of the evil globalists to anti-establishment hero and you buy that crap? Pathetic.

Name one single thing that Donald Trump has changed except his tune.

Stop trying to derail my thread with this irrelevant BS. Daily Caller didn't just misrepresent what was in the email, they flat out made s# up. Care to to make an argument in their defense that doesn't involve baseless insults and other such blathering?

Speaking of which, you still owe me an apology for making up things I said in another thread.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: tadaman

I just think Trump is all the worst things about Clinton

And there we have it. You will respond, and get several stars because you yourself have "fanboys".

Glad you at least admitted you think it rather than trying to claim the factual Trumpacolypse so many Hillbots believe will happen.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well unfortunately there was alot left to interpretation in that e mail. Though the words were not spoken and your 100 percent right there is obviously meaning behind thr words that were chosen. For me I see this as half truth half lie it's deep into the grey area. However we must take her statement at face value and not interject into its meaning. If your a republican this is the exact same thing you claim the press has done to Donald. And truthfully it's true they create a meaning based off their bias. If you believe its unfair for Donald than you shouldn't do it to Hillary. As they say a knife cuts both ways.
I'm tired of fake outrage on both parties behalf want to compare candidates talk about issues not rhetoric. I have been put in a strange position as I try to make up my mind about this year's vote. I find myself defending Trump and Clinton as I try to decide who I hate the least. As they say god help us amarica were going to need it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

At the very least, she doesn't respect their right to exist.

I can see where that argument could be made but I personally don't believe that was her intent but the wording is poor and really, the whole "I respect their right to exist" bit is odd because if you believe in freedom of the press, that's kind of a given.

I could be wrong though, she may in fact not genuinely respect their right to exist but that's not exactly arguing that they have no right to exist either.

In other words, he is speaking about libel, which can result in a lawsuit for damages.

You and I both know that the President can't "open up libel laws" so that doesn't really make any sense. I'm not sure we have a deficit in the current laws already on the books either.

However, what really gets me about that statement is the next bit, specifically the bolded part:

"so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles"

That's incompatible with freedom of the press by any definition.

“I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
-Hillary Clinton

Ironic.

a reply to: DBCowboy


That's a great find, DBCowboy! But unfortunately, Hillary Clinton made that statement without knowing what the implications were, so she didn't really mean what she said in the context that some people would interpret it as being... yup!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
“I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
-Hillary Clinton

Ironic.

I guess your and my definition of ironic must be diffrent. Thus isn't ironic at all she no where in that email said we shouldn't speak out against the govt. And as far as I know bright Bart isn't part of the gov't. But you could say she is advacatong thr right to speak out against the media which would be consistent with this statement you deemed so important. See this is what I was talking about in my other post both sides taking statements filtering through there bias towards a candidate and regurgitating garbage.

Why not talk this opertunity to discuss an issue like freedom of the press. Should we allow what claim to be news sites and channels inundate us with there own personal biases. Or should we expect the media to maintain a neutrality?? Is it thr job of the news to give us there view?? Now that could be an Interesting debate.