One of these days the Fox News logo will be a shiny pretzel. Not to be out-speculated by US broadcasts concerning the results of Donald Jr.’s June meeting with Russian emissaries, Fox News has cooked up a brew the ingredients of which require a long boil before the mass comes together…
This whole Moscow Mess shows that Hillary Clinton maybe, could have, might have, perhaps was associated with, could be considered to be cooperating, colluding, conspiring, with the opponents of the Magnitsky Act… because (now grip the rope on your logical thinking skills firmly) —
Secretary Clinton expressed the initial Obama Administration’s objections to the Magnitsky Act in 2010. The administration argued that the State Department was already denying visas to those Russians who were implicated in Magnitsky’s death, also of interest to the administration in 2010 were Russian cooperation to keep supply lines to Afghanistan open, to negotiate with the Iranians concerning their nuclear program, and to deal with the Syrian Civil War. [NewYorker]
However, to the Residents of the Fox News Bubble Zone this translates to a flat statement of “Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act.” Now comes the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc portion of our program. “Her initial opposition coincided with a $500,000 speech her husband gave…” Yes a few weeks later Bill Clinton gave a speech at the Renaissance Capital annual investment conference. No connection is demonstrated — it’s all in the timing, as in post hoc ergo propter hoc line of illogical thinking.
From the perspective of the Republican apologists we have to “fast forward” to 2016 when the Clinton campaign email (hacked and stolen) said: “With the help of the research team, we killed a Bloomberg story trying to link HRC’s opposition to the Magnitsky bill a $500,000 speech that WJC gave in Moscow.” There are a couple of things to note about the use of this statement which illustrate the problems with Fox reportage.
First, if one doesn’t put much thought into the process, the image is created that there was a connection (between Secretary Clinton’s opposition to the act and the payment of former President Clinton’s speaking fees) and that the “killing” of a story implies something nefarious about this. Remember, the Secretary’s opposition was tied to Obama administration policy regarding dealing with the Russians in 2010.
Secondly, the image requires a person to ignore the initial clause in the e-mail, “with the help of the research team.” It’s not too hard to spike a story if the publisher is assured that the report is a collection of idle speculation infused with inaccurate information. Note as well that the pilfered e-mail stated the proposed Bloomberg piece was “trying” to link the Secretary’s opposition to the Magnitsky Act to her husband’s speaking fees — not that the report succeeded in making such a connection. If the research shows no connection, there’s no story. Little wonder the story got the spike.
And how did Fox News get the e-mail concerning how research submitted to Bloomberg News caused the latter to put the story in the bin? It came compliments of the unfriendly hackers. There’s no small amount of irony in having the Trump Apologist Network utilize the same stolen e-mail the Trump’s themselves may have encouraged? To make this connection we need to wait for the conclusions of two Congressional intelligence committees, and the Special Counsel’s investigation.