Quote:Chelsea Clinton slammed New York Times writer Amy Chozick Tuesday for alleged factual errors in her new book Chasing Hillary about her coverage of Clinton’s two failed presidential campaigns.

Clinton questioned the accuracy of several details in the book last week as well, including claims that she popped champagne when things were starting to look bad on election night.

“Things were already looking bad when, several people told me, Chelsea Clinton popped the Champagne,” Chozick wrote.

Chelsea pointed out on Twitter that she was pumping breast milk at the time Chozick said she was popping champagne.

Chozick maintains that her book had been fact-checked and was a work of non-fiction.

Chozick covered Hillary’s 2008 campaign for The Wall Street Journal and the 2016 campaign for The New York Times where she obtained the first on-the-record interview with Chelsea Clinton.

The book also contains many unflattering details about Hillary, including that she went on a profanity-laced tirade against her aides during a 2016 debate prep session.

“Aides understood that in order to keep it all together onstage, Hillary sometimes needed to unleash on them in private,” Chozick wrote. “‘You want authentic, here it is!’ she’d yelled in one prep session, followed by a f**k-laced fusillade about what a ‘disgusting’ human being Trump was and how he didn’t deserve to even be in the arena.”

Link

Ok, that was a visual of Chelsea Clinton that I really didn't need to have pop into my brain.

Poor Chelsea is so ugly that if she gives you oral it counts as anal.

Hopefully for the baby her breast milk was laced with champagne. Would you want to be sober and a Clinton?

(04-26-2018 09:42 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Poor Chelsea is so ugly that if she gives you oral it counts as anal.

Epic.

If it was so incorrect why doesn't she sue for defamation or libel?

I also heard Clinton was too drunk to go out and talk to her supporters too, which is why she sent that creep Podesta out there instead.

(04-26-2018 10:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  If it was so incorrect why doesn't she sue for defamation or libel?

Its a pretty high bar to clear for a public figure to prove libel.

I'm just amazed someone thought this was worthy of a thread.

(04-27-2018 07:36 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-26-2018 10:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  If it was so incorrect why doesn't she sue for defamation or libel?

Its a pretty high bar to clear for a public figure to prove libel.

It's high enough Chelsea is squawking about it.

So, I'm supposed to believe that on the night her mother is expected to become president-elect, where Chelsea will be on a stage with her mother as she busts through the glass ceiling for all the world to see, she decided that that would also be the perfect time to pump out some breast milk. Yea, makes a whole lot of sense.

(04-27-2018 09:31 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So, I'm supposed to believe that on the night her mother is expected to become president-elect, where Chelsea will be on a stage with her mother as she busts through the glass ceiling for all the world to see, she decided that that would also be the perfect time to pump out some breast milk. Yea, makes a whole lot of sense.

Imma just gonna throw this out there - pumping doesn't necessarily stop based on the requirements of the outside world.

When you gotta pump, you gotta pump.

(04-27-2018 09:59 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 09:31 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So, I'm supposed to believe that on the night her mother is expected to become president-elect, where Chelsea will be on a stage with her mother as she busts through the glass ceiling for all the world to see, she decided that that would also be the perfect time to pump out some breast milk. Yea, makes a whole lot of sense.

Imma just gonna throw this out there - pumping doesn't necessarily stop based on the requirements of the outside world.

When you gotta pump, you gotta pump.

Boob leakage isn't pretty.

Ewwww! Ok guys, I'm out of this thread...lol...

(04-27-2018 09:59 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 09:31 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So, I'm supposed to believe that on the night her mother is expected to become president-elect, where Chelsea will be on a stage with her mother as she busts through the glass ceiling for all the world to see, she decided that that would also be the perfect time to pump out some breast milk. Yea, makes a whole lot of sense.

Imma just gonna throw this out there - pumping doesn't necessarily stop based on the requirements of the outside world.

When you gotta pump, you gotta pump.

(04-27-2018 09:27 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 07:36 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-26-2018 10:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  If it was so incorrect why doesn't she sue for defamation or libel?

Its a pretty high bar to clear for a public figure to prove libel.

It's high enough Chelsea is squawking about it.

She can squawk about it... as does Trump... but neither will get a judge to rule in their favor.

(04-27-2018 11:16 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 09:27 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 07:36 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-26-2018 10:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  If it was so incorrect why doesn't she sue for defamation or libel?

Its a pretty high bar to clear for a public figure to prove libel.

It's high enough Chelsea is squawking about it.

She can squawk about it... as does Trump... but neither will get a judge to rule in their favor.

We're not talking about Trump. Quit changing the subject.

(04-27-2018 01:35 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 11:16 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 09:27 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 07:36 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-26-2018 10:40 PM)gdunn Wrote:  If it was so incorrect why doesn't she sue for defamation or libel?

Its a pretty high bar to clear for a public figure to prove libel.

It's high enough Chelsea is squawking about it.

She can squawk about it... as does Trump... but neither will get a judge to rule in their favor.

We're not talking about Trump. Quit changing the subject.

We're talking public figures and libel, and Trump advocating changing the libel laws so he could sue.

(04-27-2018 01:43 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 01:35 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 11:16 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 09:27 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 07:36 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Its a pretty high bar to clear for a public figure to prove libel.

It's high enough Chelsea is squawking about it.

She can squawk about it... as does Trump... but neither will get a judge to rule in their favor.

We're not talking about Trump. Quit changing the subject.

We're talking public figures and libel, and Trump advocating changing the libel laws so he could sue.

Wrong. The OP was about Clinton being upset about "factual inaccuracies". Nobody said Trump. I get it. He's living in your head. He's your President. Now move on and discuss the topic at hand or do you not understand?