(Optional Musical Accompaniment To This Post)

There are three ur-texts that must be read if one is to understand the dynamics of ratfking in our modern politics. The first, of course, is All The President's Men which, thanks to Donald Segretti, introduced us to the term in the first place. The second is The Hunting Of The President by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, which detailed the operation of what James Carville called "the puke funnel," whereby information dug up, stirred up, or made up by various dingy operatives in Arkansas and elsewhere made it so deeply into the mainstream that, eventually, the halls of Congress were awash in it. And the third is Joshua Green's lengthy survey of the long career of Karl Rove, who began by fking small-time rats in Alabama and ended up in the West Wing. If there is one consistent theme through all three of these essential studies it is the steady decline of the importance of the middle man to broker deals between the grassroots ratfkers and the elite political press. No longer does your Segretti have to travel the nation, cancelling rallies and writing fake letters. No longer does the elite political press have to launder the information that comes from Larry Nichols or the attorneys representing Gennifer Flowers. It's easier just to buy it wholesale from the dealer.

Yesterday, several news outlets announced that they had obtained "exclusive rights" to the research compiled by one Peter Schweizer, a veteran Republican operative, for his upcoming hit-job on Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. These outlets included, unsurprisingly, Fox News and Breitbart News. They also included The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Schweizer has a long history of fudge and nonsense in service to the conservative cause. His career is a pure creature of the well-funded ideological terrarium of the modern conservative movement. His work is on behalf of something called the Government Accountability Institute, an oppo-research outfit richly funded by all the usual suspects. His book, then, starts in something of a hole, credibility-wise, at least by any standard of journalistic vetting that I ever heard of. But neither the Times nor the Post seems reluctant at all to pile into the same mud hole as Fox and Breitbart's Mausoleum For The Chronically Unemployable. Here's some dude from the Post giving an answer that his reporters never would buy if it came from, say, the Clintons.

We made an arrangement with Peter Schweizer's publisher so we could read his book before publication because we are always willing to look at new information that could inform our coverage. Mr. Schweizer's background and his point of view are relevant factors, but not disqualifying ones. What interests us more are his facts and whether they can be the basis for further reporting by our own staff that would be compelling to our readers. There is no financial aspect to this arrangement.

Even if I believe that no money changed hands in any way, and I'm willing to believe that's the case for the moment, what precisely are the details of "the arrangement"? Why couldn't the Post simply have waited for the book to be released and then reverse-engineered its contents? What promises were made to Schweizer and his publisher -- and to the other news operations with which the Post is partnered here -- should the Post discover that Schweizer is as full of half-truthy crap as his entire career indicates he is? Inquiring minds and all that. Amazingly, the explanation given by the Times is almost worse.

Carolyn Ryan, NYT's Washington bureau chief and political editor responded to TPM through a spokesperson in an email: We had access to some material in the book, but we wanted to do our own reporting.

Again, why not just wait until you can order the damn thing on Amazon, rather than climbing under the covers with someone whose CV contains a stint as a hack in the service of Princess Dumbass Of The Northwoods? The answer can be found in the first story that the Times produced under this arrangement.

But "Clinton Cash" is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book.

Got that? The book has credibility because the New York Times cut a deal with the author. Because of this, the author, and his curious resume, are washed in the blood of the Lamb. (It's God's own little joke that Judy Miller's out there shilling for her longform alibi at the same time that her old employers are touting this unique "arrangement.) I will make the Toby Ziegler bet with Carolyn Ryan that her newspaper linked up with this character because her newspaper has had a hard-on for the Clintons from the time it botched the original Whitewater story right up until last Sunday, when its star political columnist went off her meds again.

There in fact may be something in the funding of the Clinton Global Initiative that needs explaining. Certainly, nobody would argue that the Times and the Post are well inbounds for looking into it, as long as Jeff Gerth is working elsewhere, anyway. It's not like there's much of a race on the Democratic side at the moment. But this shadowy, ill-explained "arrangement" shreds the credibility of any investigation by the two newspapers into whatever is there. At least Donald Segretti did his own dirty work.

Charles P. Pierce Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io