Pro-Clinton Columnist In Bed With Clinton Staffer — Literally

[Matariki]

http://www.menstrait.com/article/pro-clinton-columnist-in-bed-with-clinton-staffer-literally/

Over the past 24 hours, a flurry of scandal has unfolded involving MSNBC contributor, Washington Post opinion columnist and prolific Clinton supporter Jonathan Capehart.

Writing an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Capehart sought to sling mud at Bernie Sanders — Swiftboat-style — in questioning Bernie Sanders’ past achievements in fighting for civil rights on behalf of African-American communities in the 1960s. (This, itself, isn’t even an original idea, as Capehart was simply jumping on the Establishment’s anti-Sander claims, which continue time after time to be disproved or found to be outright lies. (Here, here, here and here — in case you’d like some background reading.)

But that is not the central thesis of this story. Instead, let’s look a little more closely at Jonathan Capehart himself, and the flurry of lies and misdirections for which he is quickly becoming known.

Capehart, who currently offers his opinions to readers of the Washington Post and viewers on MSNBC, has spent the past five years in a long-term relationship with Nicholas Schmit IV, a long-term Clinton aide. Schmit has served in various capacities for the Clinton family and the US State Department under Clinton since 2004. You can see his full resume on LinkedIn, but we’ve summarized the key timeline of his career here.

more...

[leftofcool]

1. Oh for fuck's sake!!!!!!!!!!!!

And this is your business how?

[Matariki]

2. It explains motives for his hit piece

I wonder what he was promised in return. Because by doubling down on his lie, instead of just admitting a mistake, he's hurting his career. So something must be making that worth it.

[roguevalley]

33. if this were a republican thing the first poster would be saying

that about them. Funny how when your own ox gets gored its different.

[passiveporcupine]

137. It's wrong to call attention to anything the Hillary campaign is slinging.

But if we say anything about Hillary, even if it is the truth...Oh Noes, it's not fair.

[wolfie001]

159. Hoisted by one's own petard.

Funny how that works, tis a classic example.

[riversedge]

194. look closely--it is a homephobic site

[Perogie]

217. I looked around at the web site

Can you help me out? What part of it is homophobic?

EDIT: I just realized you wrote homephobic. I still need your help on that. What part of the site is against homes?

[Merryland]

6. Isn't obvious conflict of interest every voter's business?

The facts, as I understand them, are that Mr. Capehart's husband has worked, and works, for Clinton for some time. Mr. Capehart and his spouse share a house that, presumably, his spouse's income has helped pay for. Beholden to Clinton? Just maybe.

[leftofcool]

36. A staffer's sex life is not anyone's business

Most of us have to work to pay our mortgages. Capehart and his spouse are no different.

[noiretextatique]

71. it is not about sex

It is about the motives.

[Enthusiast]

91. Gigundus Plus One!

It is about the motives.

[okasha]

196. Outrageous!

How totally unheard of for a married couple to share political views! Something must be done about this hideous situation. Bernie will pass a law that forces people to marry outside their political alignment!

[Admiral Loinpresser]

214. This has at least the appearance of impropriety.

The very sloppy reporting technique, the lack of disclosure about his potential conflict of interest and the lame rationalizations now that he has been busted. Running scared on Twitter. He's getting exactly what he deserves.

[riversedge]

221. Look at the title of the article--it IS al about sex

[FailureToCommunicate]

76. Was Bill and Hillary's relationship not relevant to their partnership in politics? Or James Carville

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2016, 06:59 PM - Edit history (1)

and Mary Matalin's? When you and your spouse are IN THE SAME business, working in concert to mess with another politician, it sure seems relevant to me. And it's NOT about sex lives. It's about the collusion.

(edited to clarify)

[Tommy2Tone]

157. Where does this shit stop.

Is it your right to know what position they have during sex. Do you want to tell us about Bernie having sex with his wife. I worked with my wife in a restaurant. Was our sex live rel event to your hamburger.

No you just posted some shit and are trying to cover it up. A jury may remove my post but your post is despicable.

[JonLeibowitz]

168. Nobody cares about their sex life. They care about the conflict of interest.

[Matariki]

171. Are you obtuse by design or by birth?

The discussion is about RELATIONSHIP not sex. And the relationship in question is a clear conflict of interest in light of the journalist telling lies to hurt the opponent of his spouse's employer. He had a journalistic duty to, at the very least, make known his possible conflict of interest.

[Lordquinton]

178. it's not the Bernie suporters trying too cover something up

This was big news when it broke, now Clinton followers are trying to shut it down at every opportunity.

[cui bono]

212. Your outrage is completely unfounded. No one is talking about their sex life.

You're the only one who brought up positions! Yikes. Why would you even go there? That's just weird.

Now I know you're not that naive to not realize that relationships, whether they be romantic or otherwise, can cause people to have allegiances and even motives for slimy actions, such as Capehart's obvious hit piece.

.

[Merryland]

104. I could care less about his sex life

I just don't like him wielding the power of the Washington Post pen to try to destroy a good man and forget to mention his partner's financial relationship with the other candidate.

[CorporatistNation]

191. THIS IS NOT About Sex... It Is About The RELATIONSHIP And CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

Nothing OBJECTIVE ABOUT MR CAPEHART as a journalist here. He is in da tank fer Hillary and this revelation only serves to add further emphasis to it! Jonathan is a SHILL NOT A JOURNALIST!

[A Simple Game]

133. Funny how some people go right to thinking about sex when a gay relationship is mentioned.

Most of the time Republicans come to mind.

[cali]

134. What? Weird. You think this has anything to do with his sex life?

I doubt you'd say that it's about his sex life if he was straight and someone pointed out that his partner worked for Hillary.

[m-lekktor]

139. you just showed your ass in that comment! nt

[Cassiopeia]

164. You really believe this article is about

his sex life in any way?

[cui bono]

213. Where did anyone speak about his sex life? The only people bringing it up are Hillary supporters.

Funny that.

As I just posted to someone else, except in your case I'm not certain...

I know you're not that naive to not realize that relationships, whether they be romantic or otherwise, can cause people to have allegiances and even motives for slimy actions, such as Capehart's obvious hit piece.

.

[Duckhunter935]

14. as a journalist he should have

Disclosed this conflict of interest

[deathrind]

79. 👆 This.

On a personal level as another poster said it is no ones business. On a professional level this is a clear conflict of interest.

[Volaris]

82. Even if it's NOT a conflict of interest,

Yeah...full disclosure here would have been the order of the day, it's just the professional thing to do.

[Duckhunter935]

90. yes, I should have stated possible

[Ikonoklast]

101. Ding ding ding! Winner winner!

Deception by omission.

[NCTraveler]

226. Have you seen hagoodman.com?

Said individual claims to be a journalist as well.

[Duckhunter935]

228. nope

[NCTraveler]

229. Good call. It's in your best interests not to go there. Nt

[Broward]

17. Clear conflict of interest. Stop pretending otherwise.

[leftofcool]

38. Horseshit

This is just another team bernie conspiracy theory.

[Broward]

49. Capehart lacks any journalistic integrity and should be fired.

[Fearless]

52. So if Scalia was in bed with someone who was in bed with big coal... not a conflict of interest

If he rules in favor of big coal?

[MrMickeysMom]

65. Sure it is, leftofcool...

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. This is not a team bernie whatever

this is a conflict of interest that under the code of ethics of the SPJ should have been revealed, or better yet, not write the story.

Right now this is as far as you can get from Bernie and it is about Capehart and why people do not trust the media.

And from the SPJ code of ethics

– Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

[eggplant]

107. Certainly there is no reason Capehart couldn't have passed the stories on to another journalist. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. He should have

even if there was a slight smell of conflict of interest

[eggplant]

110. Of course he should have. Very little surprises me these days, though.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Well we are also seeng people defending this from Capehart

when they would not do that if this was oh Breitbart...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

119. There is a reason. Because it was a petty ratfucking story of questionable veracity.

The only place it was, even if it contained some truth , would be some petty little blog and some gossip blurb on a talking head circle jerk. In other words, right up his alley.

[cherokeeprogressive]

87. Journalistic objectivity is alien to you I take it.

[840high]

145. You're in denial.

[Katashi_itto]

174. LOLOLOL!

[cali]

22. I dug this up. Glad it's being more widely disseminated.

[Matariki]

37. It is being circulated on Twitter

where Mr. Capehart is doing an amazing job ruining his journalistic cred. #RetractCapehart

[cali]

41. Yep.

[Matariki]

143. Good job on finding this info Cali

just want to acknowledge that. I saw your post the other day. At the time I was still thinking this was an honest mistake and being blown out of proportion.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

70. Yes, you did.

[Matariki]

127. +1

Cali is the first person I saw mention this. Good investigating!

[Duval]

151. +100.

[840high]

147. Good find - thank you.

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. I guess you've never heard of objectivity.

[FreakinDJ]

44. Really - you want to act indignant

If the shoe was on the other foot so to speak I could hear the clamor already

Disingenuous to say the least

[mgmaggiemg]

46. exactly...;)

[mac56]

47. I see what you did there...!

[Peregrine Took]

60. We would be talking about this if his partner was a Clintonista woman, wouldn't we?

Sounds like YOU are the one who has the hang up about the sex of his friend.

[jeff47]

78. A good journalist would have disclosed this conflict of interest.

Good journalists often over-disclose. "I went to a party that this guy also attended" sort of thing where any conflict of interest would be very tenuous.

This is a much larger conflict, and he did not disclose it.

[pennylane100]

92. You would not even ask that question

if their relationship was heterosexual. It is perfectly legitimate to point out when a person's significant other has "skin in the game" Nobody gets a pass and it is not acceptable to give a pass to anyone, be they gay, straight or transsexual.

[Gene Debs]

98. I imagine that if it turned out that a mainstream "journalist" propagating

bullshit smears against Hillary Clinton were found to be boinking a top staffer in the Sanders campaign, you'd suddenly find that unacceptable. Am I right?

[CoffeeCat]

106. It became our business when Capehart told us to stop posting the picture of Bernie Sanders!

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2016, 08:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Capehart's hit piece was so over-the-top---and such sloppy journalism--his bizarre behavior warrants an examination into what would motivate him.

Finding out that he's the partner of a Clinton staffer certainly reveals a great deal.

[BigBearJohn]

219. I agree 100%

[geologic]

120. "And this is your business how?"!!!

[Tommy2Tone]

149. Exactly

It is none of there business.

[Fawke Em]

192. It's a clear conflict of interest.

I worked as a reporter for 13 years. My editors would have NEVER allowed me to cover the people and/or organizations that employed my husband for obvious reasons.

You really can't see that?

[John Poet]

216. "BUT.................................... HILLARY!"

End of auto-response.

[John Poet]

215. "Conflict of interest" they used to call it

[aesop55]

225. Coordination of mis-information is important.

The other night I was watching Chris Matthews on MSNBC. And then I watched him again on an interview with Thom Hartmann. It bothered me because the better Senator Sanders does, the more vile Chris Matthews becomes.

And then I remembered that last year, Matthews on his show Hardball, said that his wife, Kathleen, was considering running for Congress. He assured his audience that it would no way effect his ability to be impartial. Hmmmm.......

So I looked up Kathleen Matthews FaceBook page. Wow - all of the pictures of Kathleen with Jeanne Shaheen, and Hillary Clinton. One picture of Kathleen and Hillary was taken 40 years ago. Now, you know that it takes money and connections to win elections. And Kathleen's relationship with Hillary and all of Hillary's endorsers will be very important for her chances to win the seat in Congress.

And it will be very important for Hillary to win the primary nomination. And Chris knows that.

Am I poking my nose in their marital relationships? No. Am I connecting the dots as to why Chris Matthews has become so toxic about Bernie Sanders? Yes. There is a point when you cross the line between honest journalism (reporting the facts) and conflict of interest (distorting the facts for your own gain).

Clearly Chris Matthews and Jonathan Capehart have crossed that line - regardless of whether their partners are opposite or same sex. The conflict is the same.

[wendylaroux]

3. nice looking couple nt

[MineralMan]

4. WTF? I assume that many people are

in relationships. Often, they share their political outlooks. What are you implying here?

[Matariki]

5. I'm sure it's obvious what the implications are

[MineralMan]

7. I'm sure it's obvious that you're looking for bogeymen.

Uff da!

[jkbRN]

15. It's a conflict of interest, to say the least

[restorefreedom]

9. well given his personal relationship,

and given that he doesn't seem to have the personality of matalin/carville, it is not likely he will take a pro bernie position or an anti hillary position.

its a fairly straight line, unfortunately.

[jeff47]

86. That a journalist should disclose such conflicts of interest.

You see Josh Marshall or Krugman say things like, "Disclosure: I met this guy at a party once" all the time.

This would be a far greater conflict, but there was no disclosure.

[MineralMan]

94. Always a good, ethical idea.

I always followed that rule. But, I also never had any conflicts of interest. I refused to put myself in that position.

That said, this is a bogus controversy from the get-go.

[A Simple Game]

152. Exactly, if Capehart's story had been true and that wasn't Bernie in the picture

then none of this would have mattered. But the fact is he intentionally lied and topping that with a close relationship with a Clinton staffer makes the conflict of interest a story too.

Another reputation ruined by association with a Clinton. How many is that in the last week? Three or four?

[MineralMan]

154. I do not care about this at all.

It's not something I've been participating in in any way.

Old photos and memories do not matter in any real way.

[A Simple Game]

161. Funny when I don't care about something I don't read or post in those threads. n/t

[MineralMan]

163. OK. We all do what we do.

Carry on.

[A Simple Game]

172. Bye. n/t

[Fawke Em]

193. Because Capehart's husband is employed by one of the campaigns, the editors

at WaPo should have never let him cover the Democratic nomination "beat." It's a clear conflict of interest.

He could cover the Republicans if he wanted, but since he has an obvious financial interest in one of the Democrats, he cannot appear unbiased.

[Arazi]

8. It certainly explains why Capehart is doubling down on the lie

his partner has that kind of relationship with the Clintons, it absolutely has to have an influence

[LuvLoogie]

10. I think DU might have tape worms...

[Trajan]

54. Interesting analogy ...

Please explain ...

[LuvLoogie]

97. Something about unexplained ills

and discovering a seemingly pure, but tainted water source has riddled the body with creepy-crawlies.

[Duppers]

144. DU? More like the WaPo and Clinton's staff.

[dsc]

11. wow just wow

typical gutter snipe crap.

[wendylaroux]

12. no,just no,either side would do the same thing with this,

get real. pffttt.

[farleftlib]

20. No, that's not how Bernie rolls

Not at all. He's been almost goaded into making snarky comments about Hillary and he refuses the bait every time. False Equivalency. Plus, 'the other guy would do it' is never an excuse for wrongdoing.

This is not how journalism works. It didn't used to be anyway.

[wendylaroux]

27. Of course Bernie would not say it,but still everyone would think it.

there is a close relationship between Cape and this other guy,with a connection to Hillary. Come on now.

[farleftlib]

32. No. You c'mon now

Bernie is being swiftboated by people with an agenda. Trying to turn it around by saying he would do the same is not only lame, but shows complete ignorance of Bernie's demonstrated character.

[wendylaroux]

73. oh I did not say he would do the same thing,

so Hillarys' close relationship with wall street elite and big corps. do not have any influence on her

[Hassin Bin Sober]

131. I'm glad you agree Capehart's actions have been gutter snipe crap.

This petty ratfuking story warranted a column, a tv appearance, countless snarky tweets, a call to the photographer, a call to the widow and another column defending his bull shit in the face of overwhelming evidence. All while failing to disclose his conflict of interest.

Yeah, it's gutter snipe crap alright.

[Matariki]

13. I think this might possibly explain why Capehart is doubling down ON HIS LIES

Time retracted their insinuation. The photographer, Danny Lyon, confirmed Sanders' identity in the photo. The archivists at the University of Chicago fixed the caption back to its original state. There is NO doubt that the photo is of Sanders.

Capehart is losing credibility and yet he is CLINGING to his misinformation. Either he stubbornly doesn't like to admit errors or he's getting sometime more valuable than his journalistic integrity in return.

[DirkGently]

25. Capehart has finally issued a half-honest "update"

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2016, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Update: I’ve heard conflicting testimonies from Danny Lyon, the photographer, and Randy Ross, Bruce Rappaport’s ex-wife.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/02/11/stop-sending-around-this-photo-of-bernie-sanders/

And sorry, outraged partisans, but the phrase "in bed together" is not for nothing.

This was a motivated lie by a motivated person with direct personal connections to the Clinton campaign.

It's not irrelevant or unseemly to note that Capehart's bizarre fabrications and attacks on Sanders may be explained in part by his partner's history as a literal Clinton employee.

If it seems too personal a thing to discuss, the way to avoid that would have been for Capehart not to use his position in the national news media to spread ridiculous deliberate misinformation in an effort smear a candidate.

[LiberalArkie]

64. There was never any doubt from Danny Lyon on who it was.

Capehart was done in by his partner. Partner said something like "Hey are you ready for this?" and Capehart never did his own research in it. How many people have been done in by that same thing.

[Matariki]

141. He's still posting stuff like this on his Twitter account:

Just 2 hours ago: "This is a story where the Civil-Rights activism of Bernie Sanders and Bruce Rappaport collide"

3 hours ago: "I really respect Danny Lyon,” Randy Ross told me “I’m a hundred percent sure that he’s wrong.”

4 hours ago "I’m certain he’s wrong. I mean, I was married to Bruce,” said Randy Ross."

Not even "half-honest"

[mgmaggiemg]

16. I fail to see how this is a scandal

tell me what I am missing...to HRC supporters in a relationship is not a scandal....a republican and a dem in a relationship would be a scandal....

[Matariki]

19. The journalist in question did a hit piece on Sanders

after being proven completely untrue, instead of retracting and apologizing he is doubling down. Why? What does he get in return for destroying his credibility?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511229291

[mgmaggiemg]

28. this author being incorrect on his facts

has nothing to do with sex...obviously a lot of people didn't know it was bernie in the photo I have the same thing...in my highshcool year book I am pictured in a play...the editor got the name wrong and put the name of someone who could be similar to me...to the photo is forever and ever for all time incorrectly attributed ....there's just nothing I can do...so many people were wrong about the photo it's not something that can be uniquely pinned on him....although he should acknowledge it and issue a correction the way all reporters do

[Matariki]

31. The author doubling down on his lies probably does.

If you *honestly* don't believe that who is married to who in politics, well you are being incredibly naive.

[mikehiggins]

18. a low blow

Capehart may well be an asshole, etc, etc, but targeting him as a homosexual like this is sort of beyond the pale. Of course we may suspect personal motivations for Capehart's "sins" but, just like with Tweetie his personal involvement with a Clintonian isn't even a starter of a story.

He is just a silly, ambitious young man who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. We all know people like that. Hell, some of us have been people like that. Some still are. The point is that, here in the US in 2016, digging up the fact that Nick and Johnny are an item has nothing to do with what we are up in arms about.

The LGBTQ (is that right?) community should not be made to feel that Sanders people, many of whom are part of that community (oh, my stars and garters!), is going to try and "smear" Capehart and co for something as commonplace as that.

Capehart is a bad journalist (perhaps already suggested by his sucking up to Tweetie). Anything else beyond that is his business, not ours.

[Matariki]

21. You know damn well his sexual orientation isn't the issue.

I'm part of the LGBTQ community, so just forget trying this tactic with me.

[mikehiggins]

34. Fine. Its not the issue. Why is it the focus of the post, then?

I'm glad to see I got the LGBTQ thing right, by the way. I don't belong so I wasn't actually sure. I can't even say some of my best friends are members. Don't really know.

I do know that if I were Irish American, on the other hand (and I am) and somebody interrupted a whole line of argument implying I wrote an attack on a candidate because I was in bed with another Irish American on a regular basis I would think that argument could be viewed as deflecting from the main point.

Capehart is no credit to journalism. He is damaged goods. That is the point.

And since he has been caught, any possible hope for support from the Clintonians is dust in the wind.

Love those old song lyrics...

[Matariki]

43. Who is married to whom matters in politics

When a journalist is doing hit pieces on a candidate and it turns out that their husband/wife/partner is employed by the other candidate, it matters. I think that is obvious.

[Laughing Mirror]

117. His partner being a man is not at issue

Nor would that be an issue if his partner was a woman. It's because the partner works for Clintons, and what that means.

Nothing at all to do with his sexuality, or that he is gay.

[Duppers]

148. Focus of this thread???

Get serious.

You're filtering waayyy too much.

[Peregrine Took]

67. Well said. n/t

[farleftlib]

26. His partner's close ties to Clinton are relevant and fair game

this has nothing whatsoever to do with his sexual orientation. This is classic conflict of interest and journalistic bias. He has something to gain by a Clinton win and that needs to be exposed when he is swiftboating her opponent.

[DirkGently]

30. Don't be ridiculous. No one's talking about his orientation.

If his heterosexual wife was a Clinton employee, the implication would be the same.

Capehart is a liar abusing his position as a journalist here. The rest of his identity is not the problem in any way.

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. YOUR post is the first in the thread in which the word homosexual shows up.

Congratufuckinglations.

[mikehiggins]

63. Thanks

That really did surprise me, as a former New Yorker who's been involved with politics since Hillary and I were Goldwater supporters.

I guess that's why I sit up straight when something happens that sets off my "unintended consequences" alarm.

It started sounding loudly, like the Tardis gong in Dr. Who, when I actually read that article.

Capehart is done. Even if the Clintonians prevail he has failed. The legendary Clinton loyalty doesn't extend to outsiders who fumble the ball so obviously.

[Fearless]

53. As a gay man myself, this has nothing to do with his sexuality

[SMC22307]

55. No one is targeting Capehart "as a homosexual."

He's being targeted as a shoddy journalist, in bed -- figuratively and literally -- with a Clinton staffer.

Capehart is 48. Not exactly "young."

I care about the Fourth Estate, and based on the backlash over this story, I'm not alone.

[Merryland]

115. You don't think a spousal relationship is important?

Nobody on this board has expressed the least bit of homophobia, or targeted Capehart's sexual/marital preference. His spouse works for Clinton. Come on.

[Iggy Knorr]

207. check the thread, nobody is targeting him for his homosexuality

It's his lack of ethics or integrity that everyone is upset about.

[nashville_brook]

23. that is a serious conflict of interest. imagine how Capehart benefits

from a Clinton win. could be anything from a peach press secretary position to something in the state dept. on the flip-side, if Clinton goes down, it's really awful for their bottom line. so there's huge motivation to flack for HRC. to leave this relationship undisclosed is dishonest in the extreme.

[mikehiggins]

50. I'd have to say "conflict of interest" is legitimate.

The article as written and posted sort of stressed something else.

Two points...

The LGBQT community is an oppressed, supressed minority. It may not seem that way in NYC where I spent most of my life but even there it is barely beneath the surface. Out here in the Southwest it is much more blatant. I hate to use the "sensitivity" buzzword but reprinting that article and bringing up Capehart's sexuality in the process is, well, and IMHO, pretty, pretty, pretty insensitive.

AND

Conflict of interest? Hey, folks, everyone on the other side with any sort of stake in the current status quo has a conflict of interest, whether its DWS or Capehart or Tweetie or the New York Times or the Washington Post or whatever. You are in the narrow gate and all the armies of Persia are marching at us.

We few, we precious few, cannot afford to gratuitously insult any of our partners by hanging the Capehart albatross around their necks.

I think I need some coffee...

[MisterP]

112. the fact that he's gay is public knowledge; there's no outing, no risk

actual gay people don't care who he's with, we'd care what job hubby has

I don't think bashers are gonna be motivated by the fact that the guy who crudely swiftboated a 50-year-old photo was incidentally a gay man

[nashville_brook]

223. no one gives a hoot about his sexual preference

and he doesn't get to use it as a sheild either.

[KingFlorez]

24. Sanders will get rid of him after the revolution

All these people who slighted Sanders will learn after the revolution!!!!!!!!!!

[Matariki]

29. We live in a time where information doesn't just come from a controlled source

This is all over twitter. Tough luck for the old guard who relied on telling lies in newspaper and television to get their way.

[treestar]

39. LOL

It's must be a sad life to be so suspicious of everyone! These two are in a relationship, so he must be getting something in return to write a piece he would probably have written anyway. Two Hillary supporters in a relationship! The scandal!

[leftofcool]

59. I can't imagine living in the tin foil hat bubble

Sad life indeed!

[geologic]

132. Happy with stainless steel foils...

[beedle]

227. You're talking about Capehart right?

The person who took a 50 year old picture that at worst, even if his 'story' were true, would have been a simple mislabelling issue, and tried to spin it as some conspiracy about Bernie's dishonest civil rights activism creds?

I mean the only way someone could be more 'tin foily' would be if when shown evidence they were wrong, they refused to issue a retraction ... oh right!

[tularetom]

40. Did he not think this was gonna come out?

He has pretty much compromised his own future and probably that of his buddy as well. And he probably should not expect the Clintons to lift a finger to help him out.

The dumb shit.

[leftofcool]

42. I think you just did a great job of pissing off the LGBT community.

[Matariki]

45. Because that's what this is about?

[cherokeeprogressive]

80. It sure is what they want it to be SEEN to be about.

[SwampG8r]

100. Thatz been the spin since he has been exposed as a liar

They try to tie the fact people are catching him lieing with " tearing down a member of the lgbtq community and a "progressive journalist" so later they can call bernie supporters homophobes
Just more division politics from camp weathervain

[farleftlib]

51. Why?

Only straight relationships, by their very nature, constitute a conflict of interest? That's news to me. Because nobody said his gay relationship was the problem. His partner stands to gain from Hillary's presidency and he swiftboated her opponent. That needs to have a light shone on it.

[Fearless]

57. This LGBT person is disappointed

In YOU trying to use sexual orientation as a wedge issue.

It has no bearing whatsoever in this conflict of interest case. Would you say that if he was black that his racial background has anything to do with it??

Shame on you.

[Matariki]

68. Thank you.

This LGBTQ person sees right though that transparent attempt to shut this thread down

[azurnoir]

69. so it would be okay if he was 'straight'? his orientation has nothing to do with this

it's a detail, that his partner is part of Hillary's team however does, lets simply call it 'bad optics'

[Fearless]

74. It would be irrelevant if he was straight and IS irrelevant that he's gay

The sexual orientation of the person has no bearing in this conflict of interest issue. It impacts no facts, changes no positions, and neither increases nor decreases the conflict of interest itself.

It simply has no place in this discussion.

[azurnoir]

88. the facts are Capehart's partner is male, Capehart did write a fallacious hit piece on Bernie

and Capehart's partner is part of Hillary's team, that last item makes the hit piece bad optics, as I said his orentation is a detail not the focus

[Fearless]

218. FFS it doesn't matter the gender of his partner

That's the blasted point. It makes absolutely no difference to the story.

[JoeyT]

126. No way dude.

Third Wayers are *extremely* concerned about LGBT issues.




When they can use them as a club to beat people with. The rest of the time, not so much.

[QC]

114. This G isn't pissed off about treating Capeheart's relationship

like anyone else's.

He's pissed off about the daisychain nature of the establishment on display in this story.

Thanks, though.

[Laughing Mirror]

128. Think what you will

I'm a gay man glad this fraud is being exposed.

[DemocraticWing]

190. Gay man here...Hillary pisses me off more than the OP does.

Of course speaking for us is a big habit for Hillary supporters.

[Jester Messiah]

56. Ahh... Sleaze, lies, and corruption.

You can always tell when the Clintons are in town.

[Botany]

58. Thanx for posting and now the next question who coordinated this smear campaign?

Somebody went into the University of Chicago archives and changed Bernie's name,
John Lewis tried to say that Bernie had nothing to do w/the civil rights movement,
Jonathan Capehart pushed the meme, and both Time and CNN tried to sell this
bullshit.

This was orchestrated and carried out by many people at many different levels
so my guess is this was the work of "creative response concepts," of Arlington,
VA because they were the ones behind the swift boat lies and Sam Alito's wife
running in tears because the Dems were so mean to her husband in his SCOTUS's
confirmation hearings (Gloria Borger then of CBS helped to carry the water and
push that lie).

And the next question is if and how was "team clinton" connected to this smear
campaign?

[jalan48]

62. ^^^^^This^^^^^

[MrMickeysMom]

72. Plus, 1,000,000,000,000!!!

In-fucking-FINITY!

[farleftlib]

75. Head meets nail. Bravo.

They always leave a slime trail when they do something this obvious.

[Botany]

84. If this smear campaign goes back to HRC then she should drop out of the race ASAP.

Too many things happened at too many levels and with "good timing" that this
was no accident.

[farleftlib]

95. Well I'm sure there are buffers

If experience has taught her anything, it's to maintain some level of plausible deniability. Since the MSM is giving her passes on just about everything, it will be up to alternative media to connect the dots. Kudos to cali for her role in finding out about this matter.

[RiverLover]

96. Jury results (on one slimy alert)

On Sun Feb 14, 2016, 09:54 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Thanx for posting and now the next question who coordinated this smear campaign?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1231207

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Complete conspiracy theory swill against a potential democratic nominee, hide this non-sense.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Feb 14, 2016, 09:58 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Great post Botany! And this 'alert' is the prefect example of people trying to HIDE the FACTS about Hillary and her campaign.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Botany]

99. To who ever alerted on my post

Please show me where anything I posted was wrong.

[KoKo]

146. Thanks...this brings back memories....

of DU'ers scouring the net as we tried to find who was responsible for Kerry's Swiftboating. Don't know if "Creative Response Concepts" is still in business or if they are now folded into David Brock's new media enterprises. Doesn't matter, though, because the dirty trick strategy is pretty much the same.

This was orchestrated and carried out by many people at many different levels
so my guess is this was the work of "creative response concepts," of Arlington,
VA because they were the ones behind the swift boat lies and Sam Alito's wife
running in tears because the Dems were so mean to her husband in his SCOTUS's
confirmation hearings (Gloria Borger then of CBS helped to carry the water and
push that lie).

[Matariki]

160. Interesting. Thanks KoKo

[nadinbrzezinski]

210. Thanks for the memories

now that brings back some pain

[dreamnightwind]

186. Her name is Sally Cook

It would be great if someone would get to the bottom of what inspired this.

Don't know much about Sally Cook, or about Randy Ross. They (Cook actually did it) appear to be the main people behind getting the photo credit changed to Rappaport. Getting it changed to Rappaport when it is in fact Bernie is, in my mind, extremely odd, definitely doesn't pass the smell test of usual things you'd expect if nothing untowards was going on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511223587#post67

Education

University of Michigan Law School
Juris Doctor (J.D.)
1972

The University of Chicago
Bachelor's Degree, Psychology
1961 – 1966
Experience
retired
https://www.linkedin.com/in/sally-cook-5132b5a0?authType=name&authToken=jPpx



http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/46201-in-sally-cook-4394074.html
Sally Ann Cook
Indianapolis, IN
Licensed for 43 years
961 Woodruff Place East Dr
Indianapolis, IN, 46201-1925
Office [phone](fax number)

Admitted to practice in State / Court
Date
Indiana 1972
https://www.lawyer.com/sally-ann-cook.html

[Botany]

198. Hmmmmmm!

thanx for posting. Now why would a lawyer be planting false evidence and
who is paying her?

[MrMickeysMom]

61. Jonathan Capehart, ....

The "journalist", I mean BLOGGER.... Who can take this guy seriously again?

Hey, Jon.... my advice is, "don't shit where you eat"!

[Faux pas]

66. Now it all makes sense.

Thanks for posting this Matariki!

[riversedge]

77. So, he has a relationship. Shame on you for bringing the partner into this .

[Matariki]

83. Oh I'm certain if this wasn't related to Clinton

you'd understand 'conflict of interests' on the part of a journalist doing a hit piece just fine.

[SMC22307]

102. "The partner," who is a Clinton staffer. This is no different than...

going after Carville/Matalin, Brown/Senor, Greenspan/Mitchell, etc. for bias and conflict of interest.

Wag it elsewhere.

[cherokeeprogressive]

136. That the "partner" as you call it is and has been on the Clinton payroll has no bearing?

[riversedge]

197. Correct and I am glad you have been enlightened.

[cherokeeprogressive]

199. I guess you're just another person who's never heard the term "journalistic objectivity".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity

And just for good measure...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

[Matariki]

200. I'm sure they've heard of it when it suits them.

When it's not inconvenient.

[Squinch]

85. O.M.G!!! And did you hear that James Carville and Mary Matalin were MARRIED?????? All those years!!!

But, really, so what?

[Matariki]

93. You know what?

If Capehart just admitted he made a mistake and retracted his article about the photo of Sanders, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. I thought the whole photo thing was a dumb distraction. But after clear proof was shown, when any sensible person would drop it, the guy is doubling down. I no longer think his article was an innocent mistake, but agree with others that he was participating in an attempt to 'swiftboat' Sanders.

So yeah, the fact that his husband/partner is employed by Clinton matters.

[valerief]

89. Swiftboating Bernie for his boyfriend!

[AlbertCat]

103. The nepotism is astounding!

It was the real take-away from the "Bernie stole info from Clinton's server" fake, engineered scandal.

DWS

and of course...."HRC 2016" license plates anyone?

It just keeps adding up!


And since Hillary keeps getting compared (by her own supporters!) to Powell, Rice, and even Dubya himself.... let's not forget the nepotism of FL in 2000.

[cherokeeprogressive]

138. It's not nepotism, it's incest. nt

[SidDithers]

105. FFS. This is what DU has become...

Sid

[Fumesucker]

116. But if you go carrying pictures of Henry the K

You ain't going to make it with anyone anyway

[geologic]

140. Nice...

[R B Garr]

220. Agreed, especially considering Capehart asked one

of Bernie's campaign manager's to clarify and he didn't know for sure if it was Bernie, which is what gave it credence and moved the story forward. All the conspiracies don't mention the ex-wife and roommates who started questioning who was in the picture, just another alum who also questioned it.

They even said it wasnt a big story on the Matthews show where Capehart appeared with Tad Devine of Bernie's campaign. Tad Devine sounded flippant and cagey. Bill deBlassio was on that segment and smiled at Tad's flippancy.

Chris Matthews' comments were that it wasn't a big deal, but authenticity was important. If the other side did it, the Sanders people would be all over it. So true.

I recognize most of those people harassing him on Twitter from here. And now I see why Thom Hartmann is stuck on Russian TV.

[Red Oak]

108. K&R

[ucrdem]

113. Character assassinating journalists for any reason is not progressive and not Democratic.

Seriously, cool your jets already. There are many better ways to express objections.

[Matariki]

124. Mentioning his relationship is "character assassination"?

Mentioning the FACT that his partner works for Clinton is "character assassination"?

[Merryland]

125. character assassination?

calling a journalist out for conflict of interest and exposing a really creepy anti-Sanders plot is more like truth-telling. The only character assassination was done by Capehart.

[dreamnightwind]

184. Capehart is a character assassinating journalist

You have it all backwards somehow, not surprising.

[senz]

121. Obvious conflict of interest. Explains Capehart's blatant lies about Bernie Sanders.

Love how Clinton supporters try to deny it.

"Move on, nothing to see here."

Uh-huh.

[stonecutter357]

122. " this posts has been hidden by a DU Jury" DanTex.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

123. I don't care about the sleeping arrangements of others.

Doesn't sound like a progressive preoccupation, just sayin...

[AzDar]

129. Can't BELIEVE that anyone wouldn't find this skeevy... especially since Capehart STILL refuses to

correct/retract/clarify. He is tripling down on the bullshit and his absolute abdication of objectivity...

[Matariki]

150. Dirty politics are only 'skeevy' when it's not your candidate

[nadinbrzezinski]

206. His blocking of the "trolls" on twitter who have dared

to call him on his breach of ethics are now exchanged like badges of honor.

The WAPO page is now giving it to him with both barrels.

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

130. The oral is Don't hang out with Clinton people. Look what they make you do.

[cantbeserious]

135. The Establishment Is Apoplectic About Bernie - No Editorial Tactic Is Too Low Or Malicious

eom

[Helen Borg]

142. But was Bill Clinton involved in any way?

You never know...

[CommonSenseDemocrat]

153. This is so fucking homophobic

Sickening

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

162. Ah, I'm pretty sure the issue would be exactly the same if Capehart was straight and in bed with a

long time female Clinton aide and started smearing her opposition.

'Gay' doesn't even matter.

[valerief]

165. Incredibly lame, but you've earned entry into my Forever Ignored Club!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

156. Capehart has a future as Hillary's press secretary.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

166. So, Bernie Sander's supporters are engaging in character assassinations.

Who the fuck cares who people fuck. What stays in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom. We are not Republicans.

[Matariki]

177. How is mentioning that his partner works for Clinton "character assassination"?

Is it untrue? No. Is it something to be ashamed of and therefor kept secret? I would think you'd also say 'no' to that. So how is this "character assassination?

I understand that it's an inconvenient truth for Clinton supporters, but would nonetheless like to hear your justification for calling a statement of fact "character assassination".

[JonLeibowitz]

179. Yes, it should stay in the bedroom. Except journalists should disclose conflicts of interest

THAT is what this OP is about.

[oberliner]

167. He's an opinion writer. He's allowed to be pro-Clinton.

And he's allowed to be in a relationship with someone who worked for her.

None of that means the Hillary campaign was behind his actions.

It just means that he supports Hillary and decided to go after Bernie.

I understand attacking this person for his article, but I don't understand the leap to claiming that the Clinton campaign is responsible.

[Matariki]

169. And the public is *allowed* to call out conflicts of interest on his 'opinions'

ESPECIALLY when he's telling LIES.

[oberliner]

170. He has been a transparent supporter of Hillary Clinton

He has done nothing to hide this from anyone.

[Matariki]

173. That does not give him a pass to lie

[oberliner]

175. Of course not

His lying was reprehensible and deserves to be condemned.

I am just saying that it isn't fair to hold the Hillary Clinton campaign responsible for his actions.

[Matariki]

180. I would certainly hope the Hillary Clinton campaign isn't responsible

At this point I have to assume he's acting out of his own enthusiasm and biases.

[oberliner]

188. I agree with you

However, it seems that some folks here believe otherwise.

[avaistheone1]

176. Really can it get any more incestous than that?

[Gman]

181. And I should care because...?

I must be concerned and disapprove of what two people do in privacy? It's my business because...? The world is ending why...?

This is far more pathetic than that picture stuff.

[Matariki]

182. Because undisclosed conflicts of interest have consequences?

for example: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/11/fox-n17.html

[leftofcool]

185. No real Democrat gives a shit who Capehart sleeps with.

[Matariki]

187. I'm sure you know perfectly well what this is about

I'm certain you are quite clear that this isn't about who he sleeps with or what his sexual orientation is.

But please, do go on...

[Gman]

201. So that's an excuse to stick a nose in somebody's bedroom?

Then how do you explain James Carville and Mary Matalin.

[Matariki]

203. Your post is nonsensical

Which I'm sure you realize

[840high]

183. It seems every day there is something

shady connected to the Hillary campaign.

[Bad Dog]

189. If anyone wanted proof that American politics is in the gutter,

they could do a lot worse than look at this thread. Why not demand all presidential candidates and their associates have endoscopies, so you can all stare at it to your heart's content. Let's face it, it's a lot easier than talking about the actual issues. No wonder Putin's running riot in Ukraine and the ME if this is what you're all obsessing with.

Leader of the free world? You're having a laugh.

[Jim Lane]

195. In 2008, Palin was literally in bed with big oil.

At the time she was nominated, her (heterosexual) husband was employed by BP. That wasn't the major reason to oppose Palin but it was mentioned.

My thanks to the LGBT people who've posted to refute the "homophobia" smear.

[kgnu_fan]

202. really...

[BainsBane]

204. Is this what we have to expect under a Sanders presidency?

That any journalist or individual who dares to write or say anything that questions Sanders in anyway will find their private life broadcasted as punishment for dissent?

And this was about something as minor as a photo. Imagine if anyone dared to object to a policy position or executive action?

[nadinbrzezinski]

205. Historical records are not minor things

and this is not about Sanders, but a code of ethics.

[cherokeeprogressive]

208. You slay me. Have you never heard of "journalistic objectivity"? It's actually a real thing.

You're probably saying "Wow!"

You see, there used to this common practice wherein the person delivering information said something to the effect of "In the interest of full disclosure..." and went on to detail their behind the scenes involvement in whatever it was they were reporting on. What's more, good editors and producers pulled anyone with even the slightest conflict of interest from those very stories.

I know it sounds like science fiction to you, but honest to goodness - journalistic objectivity was once part of every day life in this country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity

[R B Garr]

222. Yes, and what makes it funnier is that one of Capehart's

Twitter harassers from this website actually said that Capehart was trolling *them* on Twitter. She actually said that in a thread here. That's the level of irrationality.
No wonder he blocked them.

[Ino]

209. Tweets at RetractCapehart are great!

https://twitter.com/hashtag/RetractCapehart?src=hash

Thom Hartmann tweeted "When you clean this up, please let us know who fed you that "story" to begin with"

[nadinbrzezinski]

211. They are getting so funny that it is requried reading

and to be fair, he did it himself. Many of those folks, (including me) were blocked by him.

[Kentonio]

224. Considering some of the smear attacks the right wingers have thrown at Hillary over the years

I find it astonishing how quick her supporters are to defend a clear and blatant breach of journalistic integrity.

You can't defend a journalist failing to declare a conflict of interest. You just can't. Not unless you want to also defend an assault on journalistic principles and standards.