My Letter to the Editor of the New York Review of Books

David Brock

3 min readFeb 9, 2016

February 8th, 2016

Robert Silvers

Editor

New York Review of Books

Dear Mr. Silvers,

In light of The New York Review of Books’ January 30, 2016 article, “The Clinton System,” by Simon Head, I am writing to express my disappointment in your outlet’s willingness to lend credence to Head’s baseless series of attacks on the Clintons. Head’s piece is full of misleading claims and leans heavily on already debunked myths. Many of these inaccuracies appear to have been first published by right-wing author Peter Schweizer in his book, Clinton Cash.

My organization, Media Matters for America, found Mr. Schweizer’s book to contain more than twenty errors, fabrications, and distortions. It would seem that this firmly establishes Schweizer’s lack of credibility. Nonetheless, Mr. Head appears to have recycled a slew of Schweizer’s falsehoods and myths in his article in The New York Review of Books. Here are just three prime examples:

1) SIMON HEAD CONCLUDED:

Bill Clinton helped Clinton Foundation donor Frank Giustra secure a uranium mining contract in Kazakhstan. [The New York Review of Books, 1/30/16]

· PETER SCHWEIZER CONCLUDED: Pres. Clinton helped Giustra secure a uranium mining contract in Kazakhstan in exchange for a sizeable donation to the Clinton Foundation. [Clinton Cash, pg. 27, 31, 2015]

· THE TRUTH: The New York Times story that originally made this allegation has already been debunked by a Forbes article headlined, ‘Clinton Commits No Foul in Kazakhstan Uranium Deal.’ [Daily Beast, 4/22/15]

o Forbes: By the time Clinton arrived in Kazakhstan, Giustra was already “well on the road to finalizing” the contract. [Forbes, 1/12/09]

o Forbes: Giustra had already pledged $5 million to the Clinton Foundation “months prior to the trip.” [Forbes, 1/12/09]

o Forbes: President of Kazakhstan’s state-run uranium agency: The meeting between Bill Clinton and the Kazakh president “could not have had any influence on the deal,” since the contract did not require government approval. [Forbes, 1/12/09]

2) SIMON HEAD CONCLUDED:

Hillary Clinton ignored Colombia’s human rights record and reversed her position on the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement that would benefit Giustra. [The New York Review of Books, 1/30/16]

· PETER SCHWEIZER CONCLUDED: Sec. Clinton vocalized her support for the U.S.-Colombia free trade deal just before Giustra-linked companies acquired Colombian land and mineral rights. [Clinton Cash, pg. 145–146, 2015]

· THE TRUTH: Sec. Clinton began supporting the deal after she joined the Obama administration, where its passage was a priority after key worker protections were included. [Politico, 4/22/15]

o Politico: “It is noteworthy that it was after Giustra contributed $100 million to the foundation in 2006 that Hillary Clinton first announced her opposition to free-trade pact.” [Politico, 4/25/15]

o Daily Beast: “If Clinton was so intent on advancing Giustra’s Colombian business interests, she would have been for the trade deal at the exact moment Giustra finished paying her husband.” [Daily Beast, 4/22/15]

3) SIMON HEAD CONCLUDED:

Hillary Clinton ignored Colombia’s human rights record and the fact that Giustra’s oil company has been the subject of complaints about the treatment of workers, “numerous strikes and lawsuits by pro-labor groups.” [The New York Review of Books, 1/30/16]

· PETER SCHWEIZER CONCLUDED: Pacific Rubiales has been the subject of numerous complaints regarding labor rights violations. [Clinton Cash, pg. 155, 2015]

· THE TRUTH: Daily Beast: Violence against trade unionists in Colombia has gone down since the free trade deal went into effect. [Daily Beast, 4/22/15]

Given the above proof points, and with all due respect for The Review’s sterling record of factual accuracy and truthful reporting, I suggest The New York Review of Books remove Simon Head’s fatally flawed article from your website until all appropriate corrections are made.

Yours truly,