320 Years of History
Gold Member
Why would anyone ask now, a year after the book was debunked and several years after the author's integrity was found grossly wanting, what sources were used to do so? The hotly anticipated book that was the GOP's hope for campaign collapsing scandal for Mrs. Clinton was a non-starter even before the book was published. The book's been out for a year.
Do anyone in their right mind really think the GOP would not have been harping incessantly about its claims for that whole year were they to think the book and its author credible? Noooo....it took Donald Trump and his fascination with empty innuendo to do so. No surprise seeing as he often doesn't know what he's talking about or what he's getting himself (and everyone else) into.
Do anyone in their right mind really think the GOP would not have been harping incessantly about its claims for that whole year were they to think the book and its author credible? Noooo....it took Donald Trump and his fascination with empty innuendo to do so. No surprise seeing as he often doesn't know what he's talking about or what he's getting himself (and everyone else) into.
- 'Clinton Cash' publisher corrects '7 or 8' inaccurate passages
- Twenty-Plus Errors, Fabrications, And Distortions In Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash
- Hannity Says Clinton Cash Book "Was Never Debunked," One Day After His Fox Colleague Debunked It
- Clinton Allies Knock Down Donor Allegations, New Questions Pop Up
- Clinton Cash Author Peter Schweizer's Long History Of Errors, Retractions, And Questionable Sourcing
Schweizer has had at least 10 serious issues where fact-checkers and media outlets have founds ignificant errors questionable sourcing, or have forced retractions of his work. Among them:
Read the refutations of the book; they are on the Internet, but to be sure, they won't much appear on the sites of folks who are predisposed to wanting to accept them. One can't look to one's allies and darlings and expect to get the opposing point of view.- “Bears a fatal shortcoming in Journalism 101” — In 2013, Schweizer falsely claimed that President Obama and then Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, held zero one-on-one meetings. The Washington Post said Schweizer’s story “bears a fatal shortcoming in Journalism 101.”
- “Bogus” — In 2012, The Washington Post fact-checker deemed Schweizer’s claim that President Obama skipped more than half of his intelligence briefings “bogus.” Furthermore, he said, “we had nearly given this data four pinocchios and in retrospect we were perhaps too generous with three. It turns out, presidents receive intelligence briefings in different formats that Schweizer did not consider. By Schweizer’s standards, President Reagan would have missed 99 percent of his briefings.”
- “Partisan Source” — In 2012, Schweizer was exposed for his inflated allegations that President Obama’s major donors received loan guarantees from the Department of Energy. FactCheck.Org excoritated his data saying, “We find that figure is both inflated and from a partisan source that Crossroads obscures with deceptive attribution.”
- “Incorrect” — In 2011, Schweizer was forced to retract his insider trading charge against Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. The Providence Journal noted “numerous factual problems with Schweizer’s allegations, including that Whitehouse wasn’t a member of the committee in question at the time.”
- “Inaccurate”— In 2010, USA Today was forced to issue a correction on Schweizer’s op-ed. “Peter Schweizer inaccurately stated that former vice president Al Gore receives royalties from a zinc mine on his property in Tennessee despite his environmental advocacy. He no longer does, as the mine was closed in 2003.”
- “The facts don’t fit Schweizer’s claim” – In 2006, KGO TV in San Francisco investigated Schweizer’s claim against Nancy Pelosi and found “the facts don’t fit Schweizer’s claim.”