Posted on 10/14/2016 11:56:19 AM PDT by Rusty0604
Even the Wall Street Journal is now fed up with the biased media coverage of the 2016 Presidential election as revealed by a scathing article written by Kimberly Strassel, a member of their editorial board. As Strassel points out, it's almost impossible to turn on the TV without hearing about Trump's "lewd" comments while coverage of Hillary "uniformly ignores the flurry of bombshells" inherent in the various WikiLeaks, FOIA releases and FBI interviews.
If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know that Donald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.
But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of. It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders. The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story. So let’s review what amounts to a devastating case against a Clinton presidency.
Of course, the list of Hillary scandals is becoming way to long to remember though one of the biggest has been her establishment of the now infamous private email server and the subsequent intentional destruction of federal records despite the existence of a Congressional subpoena.
Start with a June 2015 email to Clinton staffers from Erika Rottenberg, the former general counsel of LinkedIn. Ms. Rottenberg wrote that none of the attorneys in her circle of friends “can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents.” She added: “It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I’ve either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.”
A few months later, in a September 2015 email, a Clinton confidante fretted that Mrs. Clinton was too bullheaded to acknowledge she’d done wrong. “Everyone wants her to apologize,” wrote Neera Tanden, president of the liberal Center for American Progress. “And she should. Apologies are like her Achilles’ heel.”
Clinton staffers debated how to evade a congressional subpoena of Mrs. Clinton’s emails—three weeks before a technician deleted them. The campaign later employed a focus group to see if it could fool Americans into thinking the email scandal was part of the Benghazi investigation (they are separate) and lay it all off as a Republican plot.
Meanwhile, as Fox News reported yesterday, according to an anonymous source within the FBI the "vast majority" of the people that worked on Hillary's case thought she should be prosecuted adding that "it was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked."
The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”
“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”
Moreover, the Wall Street Journal points out that the Obama administration was seemingly "working as an extension of the Clinton campaign" with both the State Department and DOJ providing frequent updates to Hillary staffers about a confidential criminal investigation into her misconduct.
The Obama administration—the federal government, supported by tax dollars—was working as an extension of the Clinton campaign. The State Department coordinated with her staff in responding to the email scandal, and the Justice Department kept her team informed about developments in the court case.
Worse, Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, as documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show, took special care of donors to the Clinton Foundation. In a series of 2010 emails, a senior aide to Mrs. Clinton asked a foundation official to let her know which groups offering assistance with the Haitian earthquake relief were “FOB” (Friends of Bill) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs). Those who made the cut appear to have been teed up for contracts. Those who weren’t? Routed to a standard government website.
The leaks show that the foundation was indeed the nexus of influence and money. The head of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Ira Magaziner, suggested in a 2011 email that Bill Clinton call Sheikh Mohammed of Saudi Arabia to thank him for offering the use of a plane. In response, a top Clinton Foundation official wrote: “Unless Sheikh Mo has sent us a $6 million check, this sounds crazy to do.”
Strassel also takes direct aim at the press and admits that the "leaks also show that the press is in Mrs. Clinton’s pocket." While the WikiLeaks emails reveal substantial coordination between Clinton and the press perhaps none are more disturbing than when Donna Brazile, now DNC chair, sent the exact wording of a CNN town hall question to Hillary ahead of a scheduled debate.
The leaks also show that the press is in Mrs. Clinton’s pocket. Donna Brazile, a former Clinton staffer and a TV pundit, sent the exact wording of a coming CNN town hall question to the campaign in advance of the event. Other media allowed the Clinton camp to veto which quotes they used from interviews, worked to maximize her press events and offered campaign advice.
Mrs. Clinton has been exposed to have no core, to be someone who constantly changes her position to maximize political gain. Leaked speeches prove that she has two positions (public and private) on banks; two positions on the wealthy; two positions on borders; two positions on energy. Her team had endless discussions about what positions she should adopt to appease “the Red Army”—i.e. “the base of the Democratic Party.”
Finally, Strassle concludes by saying that "Voters might not know any of this, because while both presidential candidates have plenty to answer for, the press has focused solely on taking out Mr. Trump. And the press is doing a diligent job of it."
The WSJ is carrying Clinton’s water.
See Rove, Gigot, Stevens.
Liberal Establishment Pussies, all.
Second thoughts, WSJ??
Interesting development considering the WSJ has been part of the biased media shielding Hilliary!.
Cheap illegal immigrants to mow their lawn for $5.00 / hour is all they care about.
That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.
And Comey gave her the immunity idol...
WSJ editorial has always been more right-leaning than WSJ “news”.
Kimberly Strassel may be out of a job soon.
Sins? Try treason and crimes...
Once they start....it’s all gonna come down....
Which one is that? The really corporate type who shows up on Morning Joe on occasion?
In a weird way, I would almost want Clinton to win just to see the smirk wiped off these rotten globalists as they regret their constant nastiness towards Trump.
Yup!
I want to know where these "Cheap illegal immigrants" that work for $5.00 an hour are. When I had to hire a lawn service because my husband had back surgery it was $50.00 for what was about a 1/2 hour job.
Cheaper then having to deal with the city but still, I keep hearing about all these illegals that will work cheap but I can't find 'em.
Yes it is. A story about "burying Clinton stories" is another example of all talk, no action. The Clinton stories are still buried. We get it.
Her own people referred to their base as “the Red Army”?
Anyone know which email that was in? It’ll be choice to present to those left wing loons who somehow insists that they aren’t communists.
bump
The problem with the wsj is today they may have a decent article and then for the next 3 days every one of them is trash... Like Brett Stephens writes. (Why I cancelled my two subscriptions).
No, I think not. She is the designated Conservative on the editorial side. Actually, she is a good journalist. I always read her columns.
That’s too bad. It used to be a great paper. I lost hope when Dorothy Rabinowitz who I used to admire started sneering at Trump. That did it. Let her put up with HC for the next 4 years!
I don’t know, she is the author of this WSJ article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.