The Media Is Giving Hillary Clinton a Free Pass

Freaking out over the commander-in-chief forum.


Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was finally asked a tough question during NBC's commander-in-chief forum, so naturally the establishment media immediately coagulated around the notion that NBC's Matt Lauer was the worst moderator ever.

An Air Force and Navy veteran, who said he held "the top secret sensitive compartmentalized information clearance," said to Clinton regarding her acts as secretary of state, "Had I communicated this information not following prescribed protocols, I would have been prosecuted and imprisoned." He then asked, "Secretary Clinton, how can you expect those such as myself who were and are trusted with America's most sensitive information to have any confidence in your leadership as president when you clearly corrupted our national security?"

How could Lauer allow a veteran to spend precious time on Clinton's email "scandal," they wondered from the bubble? Since Clinton claims that her experience is what makes her ready "on day one," it's not unreasonable to wonder why she still supposedly didn't understand how classified documents worked; or why she engaged in actions that probably allowed foreign actors to access top secret information; or why she attempted to obstruct the investigation into those emails. We can't talk about Donald Trump tweets 24/7, after all.

For critics, there was an even uglier moment. How could Lauer let Trump get away with lying about his position on Iraq? This was the big takeaway last night, and the dominant apprehension of the media, the sanctity of the candidate roundtable and political debates. As if politicians blatantly lying about their positions were a unique event.

Basically, everyone lied about everything at the forum. Yet rarely was any of the post-forum hand-wringing concerned about Clinton's performance. It is true that Clinton's distortions are better-couched, but why was there no pushback when she claimed that no Americans died in Libya "action" in 2011? Why was there no fact-check on Clinton's false intimation that no one hacked her emails? The consensus is that a foreign nation probably did hack her classified emails. No one seemed exceptionally concerned about her prevaricating on that one.

Now, media types are wondering if perhaps moderators should engage in spontaneous fact-checks, which, theoretically, sounds like a wonderful idea. In practice, though, as the very stories calling for fact-checks illustrate, the media is highly selective in ascertaining which inaccuracies they find problematic, and which would skew coverage even more than it's already skewed—if that's possible. Imagine Candy Crowley, who moderated the second presidential debate in 2012, using incorrect information to defend President Barack Obama from Gov. Mitt Romney but having no moderator challenging the president's litany of untruths regarding Obamacare.

Republicans "lie," but Democrats offer imprecise or nuanced assertions that can be transformed into a truth with a couple of Vox.com explainers.

What must have been most off-putting was Clinton's performance. For the first time, a small part of me was forced to concede that Clinton might be one of the few politicians in the country awful enough to lose a general election to Trump. She must have felt something went wrong as well because for the first time in 278 days she held a formal press conference, on a tarmac in New York.

Not that it mattered. The press didn't exactly roll her an orange and ask her what her favorite color is, but it wasn't far off. Most of her time was spent ripping Trump's ugly assertion that he prefers Russian President Vladimir Putin to President Obama. It was unpatriotic and outside the norms of political discourse, said Clinton, who probably forgot that a couple of months ago she was cheering on Democrats who were accusing Republicans of arming ISIS.

With the freedom to ask the probable next president of the United States anything in the world they wanted, the first query from the media was about polls. Why aren't you winning by a larger margin, Hillary?

By the end, Clinton had answered a total of four questions, not one of them challenging or enlightening in any genuine way. Two softballs allowed her to pontificate about foreign policy. One question was about the horserace, and one about the unfair treatment she receives from the media.

Clinton said during the press conference: "I have been somewhat heartened by the number of articles recently pointing out the quite disparate treatment of Trump and his campaign compared to ours. I don't understand the reasons for it." That's probably because it's a complete fantasy propagated by partisans and now internalized by the media as a reality.


NEXT: Movie Reviews: Sully and The Beatles: Eight Days a Week – The Touring Years

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. People just aren't used to presidential candidates who were under investigation by the FBI during their campaign, or have coughing fits which suggest she's swallowed a cat.

    I'm not sure if covering that is media bias, or "doing news."

    1. "Under investigation by the FBI..."

      Hey, Brian... They closed that one out. its time to update your calendar. It's September of 2016. How long are you guys going to talk about the fact that Clinton basically acts like an entitled upper management type? Maybe that's not so interesting.

      1. What's interesting is you managed to qoute something and reply to it entirely out of context immediately after it was said.

        Were under investigation. Not is or are under investigation.

        Normally your just good for a misquote from some obscure link. Bravo!

        1. What can you say? She was cleared. To be called a felon one has to actually be indicted, brought to trial, and actually convicted-- by a real live jury. What happened to the principle of innocent until proven guilty. I thought libertarians of all people would get that one. Principals over principles.

          1. She was not cleared.

            1. Not only was she not cleared, she was not tried and thus was never exonerated of anything. She is still innocent until proven guilty but if she were tried, she would be a slam dunk for prosecution.

              The real discussion and scariest part is the blatant display of our further deterioration into a banana republic where all government officials are above the law.
              The problem with brain damaged leftists is that they see no threat to liberty in the fact that proven criminal politicians are given complete immunity, as long as its their Marxist in power. So like all failed Marxists governments, these dolts don't see the light until they are in a bread line.

              And did you know that the media gives all leftists a pass?

              1. banana republic

                Here's a question. If we are becoming a banana republic, who are the banana companies, and what represents the banana? Or is the analogy not that deep?

                1. What follows isn't a comprehensive list. But, I would argue banana companies include Wall St, the major defense contractors, the unions and the various foundations that form the Fenton Communications keiretsu.

                  1. I'd add the major health care companies to that list.

                    1. Here in MA, the health industry is collapsing into an oligopoly with PArtners Health care as the dominant provider east of the Connecticut River.

                      My brother recently litigated a malpractice suit where he had a devil of a time finding a judge who didn't have a conflict of interest involving Partners. Essentially, Partners has been inviting judges to invest and/or sit on various advisory boards.

                      And of course, when one demands a judge recuse themselves... there are consequences. Monopolies are fun!

                    2. Essentially, Partners has been inviting judges to invest and/or sit on various advisory boards.


                      *jots note to Loss Prevention Department*

                    3. It didn't work out so well for Partners...

                      My brother won... in the end the conflict of interest issue really didn't alter the outcome of the case. The facts on their own were pretty overwhelming.

                      The note to your loss control guys should have some verbiage about presurgery disclosures being meaningful. a patient shouldn't wake up from what she was told would be a simple, minor surgical procedure intended to ID whether a mass is cancerous to discover that the she was missing half a lung. Surprise!

                2. Trust you are joking but:

                  Not that deep. Banana republics as in corrupt socialist African and Caribbean nations marked by geography and thus healthy banana trees.

                  1. Not really joking. And I got some good responses.

                    The essential feature of a banana republic is the corruption of the government by usually external influences to provide favorable treatment for a certain industry.

                    Not a perfect analogy, but I think there are a lot of parallels deeper than just corruption. And the socialism in those nations came largely in reaction to the banana republics. You could draw some parallels to the phenomenon of Bernie and the leftward shift in the Democrats. The corruption and cronyism doesn't justify or excuse the moves toward socialism, but it does help explain it.

                    1. Automobile industry anyone? Remember the bailouts of GM and Chrysler? Tesla Motors proppped up by tax credits? The problem is, it's much bigger than a certain industry. Perhaps we're just a third-world country with good infrastructure.

                    2. the corruption of the government by usually external influences to provide favorable treatment for a certain industry.

                      The legal industry.

              2. She is still innocent until proven guilty

                Only for purposes of criminal punishment. The rest of us are perfectly free to regard her as guilty as sin.

                1. "a rebuttable legal presumption"

                2. Indeed guilty as sin. and as evil a sub-human as has ever existed.
                  Power hungry whores like the Clinton's(sub any pol) would have gladly taken the mantle of dictator over time were it not for what is left of our constitutional adherence.

              3. In other words, the Lord Almighty, Creator of the Cosmos Himself could descend to earth and declare Hillary Clinton innocent of any and all email-related crimes or misdeeds, and you'd still smell a coverup.

                1. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I'm gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don't rule the night. They don't rule it. Nobody does. And they don't run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

                2. In the meantime, while we're waiting for His arrival, can you stick with the facts?

                3. That leaves you with her bring massively incompetent and ignorant about dome pretty basic procedures and standards.

                  She is either guilty or s lazy moron.

                4. If she isn't guilty then she's negligent and stupid, and incapable of following instructions that E-3s in the military who didn't finish high school successfully do on a daily basis. Perhaps you consider those to be excellent qualifications for President of the United States.

                5. It depends on the FACTS, not some deus-ex-bullshitica. Hillary obstructed justice - that has been clearly documented and even admitted, although not in a trial. That ain't going away. The treason might take a few more emails courtesy of Assange to prove beyond doubt.

                6. She'd have to confess her sins & admit her wrong-doing first. Which is mighty unlikely

                  Otherwise, she's the one doing the descending

                7. Did I miss something? Did this happen?
                  WOW! I guess Hillary is not as dumb as she looks.

                  1. then again, if God is such a fan why'd he leave her with that huge ass?
                    (Might as well get in my own ad hominem while I'm here).

                8. It would help if the person investigating her had done so, instead of saying "technically it's illegal, but we don't feel like it should be prosecuted."

                  1. ----It would help if the person investigating her had done so, instead of saying "technically it's illegal, but we don't feel like it should be prosecuted."-----

                    ...which translates to 'she's guilty as hell, but I don't want to commit suicide by shooting myself in the back of the head three times, so I'm not going to recommend an indictment.'

                9. Did anyone other than Hillary sycophants say that she was innocent? Because otherwise, you know, you're kinda being a disingenuous twat.


                10. My, you just don't do logic, do you? The FBI concluded, quite clearly, that her actions were in violation of the law, but concluded that she violated the law unintentionally and, assuming the laws in question are not strict liability offenses, she was not guilty. Many people dispute, with good reason, that it is absurd to assume that the secretary of state was unaware that she was in violation of the law and that, if she was truly unaware, she must have been so incometent as to be thoroughly unqualified in the first place.

                  Now, for once in your wretched life, make a point or go stick your head back in the ground.

                  1. assuming the laws in question are not strict liability offenses,

                    Except that they are.

                11. In other words, the Lord Almighty...could ... declare Hillary Clinton innocent of any and all email-related crimes or misdeeds, and you'd still smell a coverup.

                  Right, because he's be lying his apocryphal head off.

          2. Oh yay.

            The government is so fucking corrupt that Hillary can't be indicted, isn't that great!!!

            Fuck off, slaver!

          3. They applied mens rea to her but no one else. It's pretty fucked up.

            1. Also if you read page 19 of the FBI report it is pretty clear PRN destroyed all the email evidence based on instructions given by Clinton's lawyers in a conference call well after those records were under subpoena. I don't need a jury trial to be fairly comfortable she is a criminal.

              1. I don't understand why one or more of the lawyers haven't been tried. They might cop a plea and put Hildog in the big house rather than the white house.

                1. Question asked and answered, T.

                  1. And Tony, having disappeared into the abyss will return to ask the exact same question again tomorrow and act like it was never answered at all.

          4. What happened to the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

            "Tell me about it!"--Richard Nixon

          5. Put the crack pipe down amsoc, you're being even more retarded than usual.

          6. She was cleared.

            No, she wasn't. Comey went on in detail about the crimes she committed. She is an unindicted felon.

          7. american socialist|9.9.16 @ 3:12AM|#
            "What can you say? She was cleared."

            I can say you're a scumbag liar.

          8. You realize the huge mistake they made in not charging her with some minor infraction and having her cop a plea for a fine only right?

            She hasn't been cleared of anything and any future FBI/AG combo can reopen the case and file charges at any time and if they won't do it her actions are the most clearly impeachable offense any president has ever clearly committed.

            If she doesn't win a Republican AG can and probably will file those charges in January 2017, if she does win, impeachment proceedings begin in January 2017

            1. impeachment proceedings begin in January 2017

              Not gonna happen. The Repubs are unequipped* for such an action.

              *On account of they are missing both balls and a spine.

            2. She won't be indicted in either case. If she is, so much the worse, because it will be portrayed as (and believed by the masses to be) an act of political revenge. In a sense, I guess you could say it would be, but in the same sense that Jacobin's execution was political revenge via the justice system, in that it was that, but it was also very much deserved, similar to the Democrats going after Nixon and his cronies for his infractions. In other words, just because your political opponents want you in jail doesn't mean you're not guilty of something.

              Anyhow, the dems, the media, and moderate Republicans would rally around her and no prosecutor would be willing to touch the case; in the end it would get dropped from the sheer amount of scandal generated and despite that would still be used to tarnish the GOP for decades to come.

              The only way Hillary ever could have been held responsible for her actions is if she were indicted before the election or if she lost to an unassuming Republican who made no mention of going after her once in office, so that it could at least look organic. Trump has let that ship sail, so anything that happens to her if he wins will hurt him more than her.

          9. She was not cleared. To be cleared someone in authority (other than herself) would have had to say she didn't do anything wrong. What the FBI did was say she shouldn't be prosecuted, far a reason nobody with two working brain cells believes; that her criminal acts were unintentional.

            If her actions regarding classified information were unintentional, she is too stupid or to careless to be President of the United States. However, I don't think anyone actually believes her actions were unintentional, which makes her a felon. An unconvicted (thus far) felon, but a felon.

            Not, mind you, that Trump strikes me as a huge improvement. But if he gets elected, Trump will arrive in the White House with both parties ready to oppose him. Shrillary, OTOH, will have both the Democrats and the Press eating out of her hand, and will get LOTS of programs passed. And, on the evidence, she is a stupid bitch and bought and paid for by assorted corporate interests.

        1. Cynical Asshole, There is something about your comment that I find hilarious and deeply disturbing.

          1. ..and they're all just like you and me."

    2. She swallowed the cat to catch the bird, she swallowed the bird to catch the spider.

      1. ...That wiggled and jiggled and tickled inside her

        1. Unlike Bill, who hasn't been inside her since the 90s.

        2. Perhaps she'll die.

    3. Hey, coughing fits are totally commonplace for people who make a living as public speakers! Why, the "C" in C-SPAN stands for 'coughing'! The channel is a literal cacoughphony! Hell, I can't remember a speech by Obama, Bush or Bill Clinton that didn't include a 20-second coughing fit that rendered the president hoarse for awhile afterwards, you right-wing loony!

      leftist dipshits

      1. I thought the C came after A and B and was followed by D, none of which happened?

    4. I'm making over $15k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. Read more on this web site... http://www.14earnpath.com

  2. For a long time, interviewers have tried to become the news. They believe the hype about themselves and think they are the story, not the guest. How many interviews have I seen that seem like the interviewer could not care less about the answer they are receiving. They have an agenda and must move on to "the next question."

    These interviewers make it so refreshing to listen to someone like Terry Gross.

    1. That is what Katie Couric did to make herself famous,. She answered her questions in her questions so there was nothing for the interviewee to say.

      1. I thought what she did was look great on camera, and allow network executives to think there just might be an outside shot they could get their paws on her if they played their cards right.

        1. Homely and not that attractive. She isn't even girl next door, any port in a storm cute.

  3. You know... The silver lining that would come out of the dark clouds of a Trump presidential shitshow is that all of these "liberal" bloggers who think that Saint Clinton shouldn't have to answer any questions at all because Trump Bad would have to fucking STFU. That would be nice.

    That said... In a serious decision between Trump and Clinton where I'm not high or drunk or trying to indulge my inner communist anarchist its Clinton. Is that question of who has the experience, wisdom, intellect, finesse, and policy chops even close?

    1. From your comments here, how would anyone ever conclude that there is a time when you are not high or drunk?

      1. Communist anarchism must be code for statist.

        1. Maybe you should read up on it. I recommend pages 19 onwards in the sections on private property.

          https://libcom.org/files /AlexanderBerkman-ABCofAnarchism.pdf

          1. Given that her experience is not only crappy but also only rooted in pay to play, I would say she also has no better wisdom than a teenager, I see no intellect, finesse would have to persuade me since she is such a raunchy hose-beast, and policy chops are - grow government, further strangulate the economy with regulations, continue never ending wars - all the while continuing her revolving door of corruption, graft, and cover-up.

            Am Soc, you are simply taken by a con-man. Like all other pols.

            Vote for the person who says we will have less government to continue to foul things up.

          2. Keep dreamin' amsoc, keep dreamin'

          3. An anarchist who doesn't believe in private property? Haha. I think libertarian anarchists are out of their minds, but the socialist kind are positively rabid. "Hey Mark, how'd you like to live in a society where everything you own belongs to the first guy to blow your brains out and take it?" Sounds great, sign me up!

        2. It is a term used by people who believe that anarchism is about throwing round, hissing, cast iron cartoon style bombs and as a result are 100% on board with it.

        3. It's code for thief.

    2. So, to be clear: drugs make you vote Republican? I'm calling it now: the FDA is a Democrat conspiracy to prevent socialists from voting Republican.

    3. "Is that question of who has the experience, wisdom, intellect, finesse, and policy chops even close?"

      No, it isnt even close.

    4. "Is that question of who has the experience, wisdom, intellect, finesse, and policy chops even close?"

      No, it isnt even close.

      1. Hilary had a long established record of proven incompetence and malfeasance.

    5. Socialist war mongers for Clinton

      1. Are their any other kind of socialists? They throttle their own economy so the war machine is needed to keep gaining resources and keep the proles focused on their neighbors rather than the Party and how its ruining their country.

    6. I love how "experience" is so important now.

      There is literally not one single thing Hillary has done that hasn't turned out to be a collassal fuck up.

      But sure experience in fucking up? That's the important thing....

      1. Each failure is just another step towards success.

        1. + 10000 ways NOT to invent a lightbulb

      2. Remember when claiming that then-candidate Barack Obama wasn't qualified for the Presidency because he lacked experience was really just code for racist white people not wanting to vote for a black person? That was fun.

        1. Pointing out that Hillary is uniquely unqualified to be president due to her age/health/corruptness/incompetence (and if you take her stance on the server thing at face value, she is obviously incompetent) you're a misogynist that probably beats women for fun.

          1. I don't believe she's uniquely unqualified. There are plenty of corrupt, unethical, narcissistic old fuckers who shouldn't be trusted with a sharp pair of scissors. It's just that she's the one running for President.

            1. +1 Running With Scissors.

            2. "It's just that she's the one..."

              Thus the 'unique' appellation.

      3. Hillary is the living embodiment of the Peter Principle. Can you imagine how much of a shitshow her Presidency is going to be when her entire professional career is one of failure after failure?

        1. Yes, but it will be blamed on Paul Ryan and those horrible Teathuglicans.

      4. Even her "experience" evaporates under scrutiny.

        A short-serving junior Senator from NY with pretty much zero in her portfolio.

        A SecState who boasted of "travelling a whole lot" as a major accomplishment.

        Uhhhh - that's about it.

        1. She was married to a President. That's the same thing as running the world.

          Remember when she fixed our health care system?

          1. I hear she saved all the children too.

    7. Is that question of who has the experience, wisdom, intellect, finesse, and policy chops even close?

      If you look at the reality of Clinton on all of these things, I can't see how any rational human being would conclude Clinton is the choice. I mean, Clinton has foreign policy experience like Typhoid Mary had catering experience. And there is no evidence of Clinton possessing anything resembling intellect, wisdom, or finesse.

    8. It's hard to say who would be the worse president considering how much they lie. But I live in hippie liberal land so trump winning will be far more entertaining. Still I'll continue to vote for my write in candidate, Lex Luthor. No super powers, supermans greatest enemy. That's bad ass president material in my book. Heck Red Son Lex beat superman and once the pesky commie superman was gone he made the world great again. Hmmn, maybe I should change my vote.

    9. Rod Blagojevich has experience.
      Wisdom - even Obama admits that Hillary's war in Libya was his biggest mistake.
      Intellect - she doesn't know how SoS documents are classified, or how to 'wipe' a disc etc.
      Finesse - OK, she can finesse her way out of all sorts of crimes. Score one.
      Policy - all war all the time, free stuff for everyone, racial/sexual preferences just because, tear 1A, 2A, 4A, and 5A right out of that dusty old parchment

      Amongst the Senate, a lowly group, she would probably be in the bottom 20. For honesty, dead last.

      1. For honesty, dead last.

        *ponders Harry Reid*

        Close call, but I can't argue.

    10. better measure them midgets

  4. I try not to laugh out loud when politicians are talking (or someone else is talking about politics). I consider it disrespectful to my own rationality to meet disagreement with ridicule instead of reason.

    The thing that sticks with me most from the 2012 campaign was the vice presidential debate. Biden was laughing at every other answer Paul Ryan gave, and I thought "how vile of him. There are millions of people who agree with Ryan right now, and even if they are wrong, they deserve better than to be treated as foolish children."

    Despite my above feelings, I laughed out loud no less than three times at each candidate during this forum. What an election this is.

    1. "I consider it disrespectful to my own rationality to meet disagreement with ridicule instead of reason."

      You need to follow the playbook like the rest of the lefties.
      Rules for Radicals, #5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon
      "It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

      1. I learned it from Gore Vidal.

      2. Maybe. I think at this point that ridicule doesn't accomplish much except to further divide people into opposing TEAMs where no actual debate is possible.

        I prefer to take the high ground.

        1. The high ground may be great for floods, but politics is more of a lightening storm.

      3. Which explains John Stewart/Stephen Colbert/Samantha Bee's success.

    2. Why did you waste your time watching the forum?

      It's not like anything that they were going to say there mattered. Each person there was going to say whatever words they thought would get them the most votes, and the truth of falseness of those had no bearing on their choice to utter them.

      There was no point in listening to a single word they said since nothing they said provided any additional actionable information.

      And, if you want to watch vile people, at least Keeping up with the Kardashians has tits and butts.

      1. Each person there was going to say whatever words they thought would get them the most votes

        True of literally every forum, debate, press conference, campaign appearance, etc. of every politician since the dawn of time. There's no point in wasting a second of one's life listening to any politician speak, ever.

        1. I've been taking that to heart this year and have made a special point of avoiding all of the debates and fora and whatever other canned events the candidates have put on.

  5. Hillary will invade the entire middle east.

    1. And then we'll have peace, right?

      1. Either that, or we won't have peace and it will be someone else's fault.

      2. And then we'll have peace, right?

        "She will make it a desert, and call it peace."

  6. Harsanyi complaining about Clinton getting a pass from mainstream media while citing the most recent example of mainstream media taking her to task and asking tough questions. Maybe Harsanyi doesn't read the Times, or Maureen Dowd as one example. To be fair, he probably just doesn't read.

    Harsanyi doesn't even try to cover his straw men.

    1. Oh, and Chris Wallace asked her some tough questions, and you don't get more mainstream than FOX News. Maybe Harsanyi just doesn't pay attention, no less read.

      1. Piss off, joe. Go lick HRC's taint in The Nation's comments, if they have any.

      2. Perhaps "Hillary's YASS QUEEN sycophants in the media" would have been more accurate?

      3. Ok, that's 2 more kilograms of wood to burn tonight.

        1. No fireplace, but 96% of out electricity is from coal. I left my air conditioner running all day instead.

          1. I always leave my AC running. The dogs like it cool.

            1. I usually turn my down because the cats don't care. They are mad I'm not there, the temperature matters not.

              1. You're a cat person?

                This explains so much...(just kidding, I love cats and dogs equally)

      4. Go watch Matt Lauer put the fucking lumber to Ryan Lochte and get back to me on "tough" questions. Oh, and he did it with half the nation tuning in to see our gymnasts and track athletes break world records. And Lochte is a meathead swimmer with no responsibility or power over anyone.

        Hillary's crimes are a thousand times worse and more numerous, her lies even more egregious, and they wouldn't dare treat her the way they treated that dumbass aquanaut. Imagine him going after her that way over the emails during halftime of Sunday Night Football this weekend.

    2. Poor little baby got asked a tough question by a veteran, not the media. Fuck her.

    3. Someone is seriously butthurt that there's still one real libertarian left here at Reason.

    4. You sound like a kid complaining about how his buddy paid for his crime by doing six weeks community service after murdering the mailman.

      And no, no one who matters reads Maureen Dowd, because she's a maniacal man-hating bitch.

  7. The Media Is Giving Hillary Clinton a Free Pass

    This just in from the No Shit Department...

  8. One of the things "the media" should understand about Hillary is that this corrupt behavior of hers won't suddenly stop when she takes office.

    Hillary Clinton has been doing the same corrupt things in the same corrupt way since she was in Little Rock, while her husband was Governor of Arkansas, since she was in the White House, when her husband was President, and since afterwards, when Hillary was the Secretary of State. If Hillary becomes President, she'll keep doing the same corrupt things she's always done--going back to when Bill Clinton first became the Attorney General in Arkansas in 1977.

    It's been a consistent feature for 40 years. Her corrupt behavior isn't going away if she wins the White House. She'll have more opportunities for corruption than ever--with executive privilege, the bully pulpit, and the power to pardon to boot.

    If Hillary wins, her four years in office may burn the Democratic Party down to the ground.

    1. Unfortunately, it will probably burn the rest of the world to the ground too.

      1. So, can't a *woman* just watch the world burn, or only psychotic men in clown makeup?

        1. I am not sure I see the difference.

          1. You sexist motherfucking asshole.

    2. If Hillary wins, her four years in office may burn the Democratic Party down to the ground.

      This has been one of my consistent "acquiescence" to both sides on this issue; as bad as it is, it's only going to be worse four years from now. It's highly likely that the *good* outcome will be 4 more years of ClinTrump.

      Hillary burning the Democratic party to the ground means some populist socialist between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump will be well represented at the next election and have a bevvy of disaffected voters to mop up. Plenty of whom will be the same 'socialism is good as long as it only reigns in evil corporations', 'wars are bad and drone strikes only happen to brown people', 'equal healthcare and internet access are fundamental human rights' millennials back for round 2.

      This is the only point I generally cede Gary Johnson, I think the LP will be worse off if he were to win, but the nation generally would be better now and for the next couple election cycles.

    3. One of the things "the media" voters should understand about Hillary is that this corrupt behavior of hers won't suddenly stop when she takes office.

    4. But she dodged Bosnian sniper fire!

      1. Yeah, she might have gotten scratched by the thorns among the roses they gave her.

        1. She's a stunningly brave woman, that mother of Diane Reynolds.

    5. There are too many people, many of them in the media, who have sold their souls to the Democratic Party for it to be so easily destroyed. At best, she may do to the Democrats what Nixon did to the Republicans.

  9. I thought this part of a recent Peggy Noonan article in the WSJ was spot on:

    "Reading the Fox story reminded me of a moment last February in New Hampshire, during the primaries. It was a weekend night. I was at one of her rallies in a high-school gym in a handsome suburb. It was well-organized?good lighting and security, a buzzy crowd. Mrs. Clinton was introduced and she bounded out?blue pantsuit, well made-up, high-energy, pointing out friends, real or imagined, in the crowd. I thought: Give it to her, she's 60-something, she's out in America working the room, making the speech, enacting the joy, when she could be home on a Saturday night watching TV.

    Then it struck me. If she weren't here, she'd be in an empty house in Chappaqua, N.Y., the focus of no eyes?not important, not glamorous, no aides or staffers. I thought: She needs to run, it's this or reruns on Bravo. I thought: This is why you pick up that there is no overarching purpose, theme or mission to her candidacy?because there isn't. There is only her need?not to be powerless, not to be away from the center. It's not The America Project, it's The Hillary Project."


    1. Yeah, if she weren't running, she's be sitting at home alone every night. She'd be a lonely ex-wife. Maybe some opportunistic aging playboy would glom onto her. . . . maybe she doesn't want that either.

      In the meantime, the Hillary Project isn't about any issue. It isn't just about self-aggrandizement either. It's always been about influence peddling and corruption. Without the White House, she has no influence to peddle. All of her Bill Clinton White House influence peddlers, from Sydney Blumenthal on down, are working for the Clinton Foundation.

      Her candidacy is all about getting the leverage necessary to peddle influence. Maybe having issues that he genuinely cared about made Obama worse in terms of public policy. Hillary doesn't care about policy. Hillary just cares about monetizing influence.

      1. From the article:

        The Clinton campaign has a strong television ad out that shows Mr. Trump yelling and making faces. It warns at the end that a president only needs one mistake to make things go terribly wrong.

        I haven't seen the ad, but is Clinton really sure she wants to have a discussion about not making any mistakes? Were I her I'd want to avoid opening that particular door as long as possible.

        1. Why should she? Right now absolutely no one who matters to her is going to call her on it. She voted for Iraq. She supported her husband during Welfare and criminal justice reform. She was integral to the invasion of Libya. During her watch as the SoS Russia started to re-exert its global ambitions. She's not even good on womens' issues if you consider how she treated Bill's plethora of conquests, consensual or not. Yeah, sure she supports a woman's right to choose and sexual assault victims should always be believed, except for the times its inconvenient her her ambitions. Then they go right under the bus and she'll use every dirty trick available to her to ensure it happens.

          And yet when she is elected there are going to be no-shit tears of joy from her supporters because of how great they think she's going to do.

          1. Well, I'd like to think that when/if they debate, if Clinton's tack is "Trump, unlike me, will make catastrophic mistakes as President" all Trump has to do is start from the top: Benghazi, Russian reset, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc.. Hell, I'd like to see Trump run an ad that's just a series of Clinton's flip remarks when confronted with her screw-ups:

            "What difference at this point does it make?"

            "Wipe? You mean like with a cloth?"

            "We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again, and we're not putting ground troops into

            "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

            I mean, even for real dyed-in-the-wool yellow dogs, I have a hard time believing that an unvarnished litany of all the shit she's lied about and all the things she's done wouldn't be devastating.

            1. an unvarnished litany of all the shit she's lied about

              Paging Ken Burns. We have a 12-hour documentary we need you to do. (and please keep it to only the highlights so it fits in our 12-segment window)

        2. Great definition of the acquisition and exercise of power regardless of motivator be it self-aggrandizement or wealth or more power to corrupt. To Ceci and Tundra's points it's funny how re-districting, executive actions, Presidential pardon's and other liberally enacted policies can bite you in the butt when you aren't the group in power.

        3. I have seen the add. With a minor tweak or two, it could be a Trump ad. Every complaint that Hillary raises about Trump is exactly what Trump supporters are looking for. There is a reason that Trump is gaining in the polls while spending less that a tenth of the Clinton campaign is spending on ads.

        4. Yep. I've seen it and it's like "Why the fuck should we worry about Trump when you've actually made the fuckups"

        5. It warns at the end that a president only needs one mistake to make things go terribly wrong.

          sort of like Benghazi?

          1. People said the idea of Trump holding the nuclear football scared them. Picture someone with the ethical fortitude and character of Hillary Clinton holding the thing. I managed to get to about four seconds before I needed to have a stiff drink and watch kitten videos.

          2. That didn't happen. Or it was Bush. One of those two I'm sure.

      2. But what's Daisy without her Tom?

      3. "Hillary doesn't care about policy. Hillary just cares about monetizing influence"

        OK, now we're against Hillary because she's a money grubbing capitalist?

        Wait a second...I'm a money grubbing capitalist! Fuck you!

        I'm fine with being against her because she's an egalitarian socialist, but if she's an elitist capitalist pig, GayJay might have lost my vote...fortunately I know you're full of shit,

    2. "It's not The America Project, it's The Hillary Project."

      Thus her campaign slogan "I'm with her" vs. Trumps "Make America Great Again"

      One slogan focuses on the candidate and the other on national interest. They couldn't be more different.

      1. Which is interesting since Trump's campaign has been all about his personality and Hillary's about keeping her personality out of the public eye.

        "I'm with her" sounds like kind of a throwback to "I like Ike" or something like that.

        1. I cannot think of a more horrifying prospect than to be considered "with" Hillary Clinton.

          1. Besides, it's HERSELF. Not "her". Diane Reynolds said so.

  10. the unfair treatment she receives from the media

    She is, in fact, getting unfair treatment in the media. It's just not in the way that her and her supporters are asserting.

  11. How dare the press question Hillary! That they even dare to look upon her is an insult that will not go unpunished. Do they not know that she has the power to destroy them? As president, she will bring them all to their knees for their insolence. They will speak only when told what to say.

  12. I'm making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I'm my own boss. This is what I do,

    ?? ? ? ? http://www.review40.com

  13. When a journalist know that Hillary Clinton, who happens to be a Democrat, is obviously the correct choice to be president, why would he assist Donald Trump to defeat her? It makes no sense.

  14. Once more in case you missed this. The worst damage control I've ever seen by a politician. GJ should just be quiet.

    1. I want to like Gary, I really do, but my god he's a trainwreck of a political candidate. I have no idea how this guy was ever elected to anything higher than a local water board.

    2. If we'd gotten MacAfee he'd definitely know what Aleppo is. He's probably smuggled something into or out of it at some point in time in his career.

  15. I appreciate experienced women.

    1. That's what I said, at age 19.

      1. Oh, what a night!

    2. *arches eyebrow*

      I rather suspected you did.

  16. She's a Democrat, and represents the "most progressive platform ever."

    She's a woman, so if you don't like her for any reason you are a misogynist by default.

    The mainstream press, with the exception of Fox and Limbaugh, love all things Clinton and share her specious values [government take all, victimology, perpetual dependence, takes a village, etc.].

    Of course they give her a pass and a half; she's fucking anointed.

    1. Someone I know had a bumper sticker printed (I cant believe his car hasn't been vandalized)

      "Vote for Hillary because she is a woman
      Just like you voted for Obama because..."

      The truth of it is that both have supporters not because of race or gender but because they are pinkos.

  17. More proof that the FBI investigation was a sham:

    (1) They gave immunity to Hillary's IT guy, but still didn't press him when he claimed attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege belongs to the client. He could have waived it, but somehow never gave full testimony because he claimed it.

    (2) Cheryl Mills was a State Department employee and counsel to the Secretary of State during Hillary's tenure there. That means she cannot have any clients other than the US Government, which, as her only (legal) client, is the only organization that can claim the attorney-client privilege. And, can waive it. Yet she was allowed to claim the privilege for conversations with Platte River and others. No such privilege could exist, and the federal government could waive any privilege that might be claimed. Yet they never did, allowing critical testimony to be denied.

    (3) Other testimony was denied under the 5A. A grant of immunity waives that as well. So why didn't the FBI force people they had given immunity to, to testify? Why didn't they give immunity to more of the lower and mid level players?

    1. Because they had to pretend to do their jobs knowing that the person they are investigating will be their boss in 6 months. Incentives, how do those work?

    2. I was one of the few while the FBI investigation was ongoing who was saying that there was no way Hillary was ever going to be indicted no matter the evidence. People would then tell me that Comey was a standup guy who had some integrity. I don't think most people wanted to admit to themselves just how corrupt things have become.

      1. Could you be specific? Did you read the report?

        1. You mean the devastating litany of Hillary's wrongdoing? For crimes that do not even require intent? Followed by Comey actually saying that his refusal to recommend prosecution of Hillary did not mean he would decline to prosecute others for the same things? Combined with the more recent timeline revelation showing deliberate destruction of evidence while under subpoena? You mean that, you mendacious little fuckstain?

        2. Did you read the IG report? Her private unsecured server was never allowed. Never, ever.

        3. It boiled down to 'Hillary was negligent but not no mens rea, so no crime.' Essentially, Comey considered her security lapses not being strict liability offenses (which I suspect is debatable; I should hope that 'accidental' violations of security protocols be regarded as just as serious as deliberate ones, but whatever). And on some level, mens rea is fairly subjective; you could argue that the perpetrator of almost any crime didn't have mens rea if you're willing to get theoretical enough. A rapist might argue he honestly believed his victim was consenting, etc. So, in the end, as I see it, Comey more or less employed a healthy dose of 'subjective interpretation' in deciding that Hillary lacked mens rea, and was genuinely not aware that she was violating the law. Now, it'd be damned hard to prove she knew she was in violation of the law, but many of us would say it's pretty hard to believe that she didn't know (if she was truly so oblivious to the law as it pertained to her job as secretary of state, she isn't qualified to be a traffic cop let alone a cabinet member let alone president).

    3. Have you seen this article, RC Dean?

      "The FBI notes also blow past evidence that Clinton advisers may have engaged in a cover-up. Consider page 10 of the FBI report: "Clinton's immediate aides, to include [Huma] Abedin, [Cheryl] Mills, Jacob Sullivan, and [redacted] told the FBI they were unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton's tenure at State or when it became public knowledge."

      That's amazing given that Ms. Abedin had her own email account on the private server. It is also contradicted by page 3: "At the recommendation of Huma Abedin, Clinton's long-time aide and later Deputy Chief of Staff at State, in or around fall 2008, [ Bill Clinton aide Justin] Cooper contacted Bryan Pagliano . . . to build the new server system and to assist Cooper with the administration of the new server system."

      The FBI must also have ignored two emails referred to by the State Inspector General showing Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin discussing the server while they worked at State: "hrc email coming back?is server okay?" Ms. Mills asked Ms. Abedin and Mr. Cooper in a Feb. 27, 2010 email.

      . . .

    4. . . .

      "I had to shut down the server," wrote Mr. Cooper to Ms. Abedin on Jan. 9, 2011, noting that "someone was trying to hack us." In an Aug. 30, 2011 email released through a lawsuit, State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull informs Ms. Mills, Ms. Abedin and others that he believed Mrs. Clinton's current Blackberry was malfunctioning "possibly because of [sic] her personal email server is down."

      Ms. Mills has a particular reason for denying early knowledge of the server: She became Mrs. Clinton's personal lawyer after they both left State."

      "The FBI's Blind Clinton Trust"
      Wall Street Journal

      1. ^ Hey Tony, check this out, it gets even worse!

        1. Good thing no one has ever been prosecuted for lying to the FBI, right Tony?

          1. I loved it when Hillary did her Sergeant Schultz routine.

            I don't recall
            I don't remember
            I was never trained
            I know nothing

            But vote for me because I've got decades of government experience

            1. Don't forget "I can't remember because of health reasons at the time but don't even think about questioning my current physical condition... no matter how many hair balls I cough up!"

        2. Yeah, if the FBI file is to be believed, it's full of evidence of blatant perjury.

  18. Most of her time was spent ripping Trump's ugly assertion that he prefers Russian President Vladimir Putin to President Obama. It was unpatriotic and outside the norms of political discourse

    Who is, Trump or Barack Obama?

    1. Of course, loyalty to the president has nothing to do with patriotism. At least that's what the left told us when Bush was president.

      1. It's different when they do it.

  19. Of note is that 2 weeks ago hillary was -550 to win. Early this week she was down to -350, and yesterday she was down to -325.
    Still a big favorite, but falling fast since the trump campaign shakeup.

    1. It's gonna be Trump. Trump's persona is so public that there just aren't any skeletons left in the closet. He started off as an obnoxious blowhard saying outrageous things and has slowly, gradually moderated his public personality. He has positioned himself such that he has nowhere to go but up. He's set the bar so low for himself that he impresses skeptics just by not being a lunatic.

      Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has more skeletons than the Paris catacombs. Yeah the media and people in government are complicit in helping her hide them, but with every denial and every little obvious use of influence or technicality she looks more and more corrupt and dishonest. She increasingly represents everything that people hate about politics, especially at the national level, and she utterly lacks the charisma she'd need to convince people otherwise.

      1. I do think Trump will win. I couldn't have imagined it a year ago. And I will lose a bet I placed.

  20. Maybe Hillary doesn't talk to the press more because the only thing they're going to ask about is emails.

    1. Oh yeah, Andrea Mitchell would be all over that...

    2. "Maybe Hillary doesn't talk to the press more because the only thing they're going to ask about is emails."

      Maybe that's about the only reason to talk to that hag at all, unless she's running one of her blue-light specials on political access or Bill's got the Motel 6 franchise on the Lincoln bedroom again.

      1. A con-artist never wants to be cornered.
        If you never tell a lie, then you don't have to remember what you said.

        If you are a pathological, authoritarian, vindictive, stupid, conniving, turkey neck cunt, sociopathic, criminal piece of shit then you don't get in front of the press - who I might add are entirely in her camp.
        For some reason, they have started, for the first time ever over 40 years of criminality, to skim the surface of her deeds.
        I guess they are desperate for ratings which is a good lesson to all dictators. Until you can kill your adversaries, don't assume they will play ball.

    3. Well, I guess you can't blame her for wanting to avoid dealing publicly with her criminality and corruption.

    4. Gee, you mean they do their jobs? Wow.

    5. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

      *Deep Inhale*

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    6. Really? Last time she was interviewed the first thin they asked was essentially "OMG you're so great how on earth are you not beating Trump by more?"

      Anyone who dares press her is liable to be accused of misogyny and lose their job. The executives at the major news sites are donating to her campaign for Christ's sake, how do you actually believe they're going hard on her?

  21. RE: What If You Were Mistakenly Put on a Watchlist?
    Innocent until the government makes a mistake.

    The media is quite right to give Madame Premier (which will happen in November) a pass. After all, asking her difficult questions only annoys her and distracts her from inventing new ways to oppress us further and think of ways to enrich herself and her cronies. Such queries are therefore not only impolite but contrary to what the media should be employed in any socialist totalitarian state. One can only imagine the just punishment meted out to counter-revolutionary reporters that have the temerity to ask Madame Premier questions regarding the economy, foreign policy, taxation, etc. Dictators do like to be questioned much less be annoyed by the hoi poiloi in the press. Indeed, one can see in the future she will have the wisdom to tell what is going on in her head by releasing press releases to each reporter in the White House dascha. This way the reporters will find what's going on in the Premier's office and our Glorious Leader will not have to deal with the untermenschen that work as journalists.
    It won't get any better than that.

  22. uptil I looked at the paycheck which had said $7458 , I did not believe that my brothers friend woz like actualy earning money parttime from their computer. . there neighbor has done this 4 only thirteen months and a short time ago paid for the morgage on their mini mansion and bourt a top of the range BMW M3 . more information..

    CLICK THIS LINK?? ? ? ? >> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  23. Most of the media is owned by elite members of the democrat party.

    They were against unjust wars when Boosh was in office, but ignored WarBama's unjust wars.

  24. This was a Commander In Chief discussion. Why spend 1/3 of his time going over the same old email dead horse story? Or, if he wanted to pressure her over that, then why didn't he hit Donald up about his bribes to the Florida AG and Texas Governor to excuse him from the Trump University suits.... or his decades of East Coast Mob connections, his statement to Stern that he was OK with the Iraq Invasion, then later said he wasn't? What about his payoff to avoid a suit for rape, or his present suit by 2 13 year olds for pedophilia? What about his use of $4 p/h Polish illegals to build his casino....Not to mention he had to be sued to actually pay them? Seriously? Lauer should have focused on 'Commander In Chief' and not drifted away into old rehashed issues.

  25. Just got here late as usual, and haven't read the comments. Gotta say thank you David. Loved this rant. And no, I'm not voting for Trump.

  26. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.NetNote70.com

  27. as Stephen said I didnt even know that people able to make $8773 in 1 month on the internet . hop over to this website

  28. my buddy's mother makes $66 an hour on the laptop . She has been unemployed for ten months but last month her check was $18065 just working on the laptop for a few hours. blog here..
    ?????->> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  29. Mason . if you think Jesse `s rep0rt is incredible... yesterday I bought Smart ForTwo from bringing in $6885 this-past/four weeks and-more than, 10/k this past-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-work I've ever done . I began this six months/ago and pretty much immediately got me at least $71 per hour . look at this site ..
    ??????>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  30. That is not at all what the 'establishment media' was saying. Their case is that Trump did not receive the scrutiny that Clinton did. Not once did Lauer challenge Trumps claim about being against Iraq war, when in fact he supported the invasion. Clinton is being graded on a curve. When Trump manages to go a week without saying something ridiculous he's seen as presidential and finally making the pivot. When Clinton does anything it's scandalous.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.