Wednesday, August 24, 2016

The Real Scandal is the Way the Clinton Foundation is Covered

I love James Carville. He just went out and said it yesterday: 'There is a special place in hell for those who are trying to shut the Clinton Foundation down. If the CF shuts down, people are going to die.'

It is simply amazing that this latest story is actually being passed off as a ''scandal' at all.

Paul Waldman:

"There’s a new round of “revelations” concerning Hillary Clinton’s time at the State Department today, and since it involves some people sending emails to other people, it gets wrapped up with that other story about Clinton. Are you ready for the shocking news, the scandalous details, the mind-blowing malfeasance? Well hold on to your hat, because here it is:

"When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, many people wanted to speak with her."

"Astonishing, I know."

"Here’s the truth: every development in any story having to do with anything involving email and Hillary Clinton is going to get trumpeted on the front page as though it were scandalous, no matter what the substance of it actually is. I’ll discuss some reasons why in a moment, but we could have no better evidence than the treatment of this particular story."

"Let’s briefly summarize what’s so earth-shaking that it gets front-page treatment on both the New York Times and the Washington Post today, not to mention untold hours of breathless cable news discussion. There are actually two stories in one."

"The first is that a federal judge has ordered the State Department to speed up its review of approximately 15,000 previously undisclosed emails that the FBI retrieved off of Clinton’s server. We have no idea what’s in them. It could be something horrifying, or it could be utterly banal. My money’s on the latter, but it’ll be a while before we know."

"The second story is that Judicial Watch, an organization that has been pursuing Clinton for many years, has released a trove of emails it obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, emails that supposedly show how donors to the Clinton Foundation got special access, and presumably special favors, from Clinton while she was at State."

"The only problem is that the emails in question reveal nothing of the sort. What they actually reveal is that a few foundation donors wanted access, but didn’t actually get it."

In the AP story yesterday they cherrypicked 85 meetings for a woman who met with 17,000 world leaders.

Hillary Clinton's campaign went on a full-court press against a familiar opponent Wednesday: the press.

"Ripping into an Associated Press report finding that more than half of the people outside the government who met with her as secretary of state donated to the Clinton Foundation, top-ranking officials with the Democratic nominee's team accused the media and critics of "cherry-picking."

"Well, because they took a small sliver of her tenure as secretary of state, less than half the time, less than a fraction of the meetings, fewer than I think 3 percent, the number they've looked at of all the meetings," chief strategist Joel Benenson told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day." "This is a woman who met with over 17,000 world leaders, countless other government officials, public officials in the United States. And they've looked at 185 meetings and tried to draw a conclusion from that."

Read more:

The media obsession with the Clinton Foundation is always pretty amazing. You have Donald Trump who's business model is mixing business and politics and trading on favors and yet the press thinks maybe the American people will vote against Hillary for being caught speeding a few times compared to a known felon like Donald Trump.

Trump ripped off 40,000 Americans at Trump U-and basically ripped off every vendor and business partner he ever had. Yet the outrage is that the Clintons raised money for AIDs research and poverty.

Media logic says that if Hillary every in her life got a speeding ticket that is no less wrong than Trump being a serial felon.

Judd Legum:

"Look, if someone in power is selling favors, that's a big problem. It's fully worthy of being investigated by the press."

But the simple fact is nothing close to that has been uncovered."

"And yet, there is a particular way a "Clinton scandal" is covered that skips over "evidence of impropriety" & goes right to "corruption"

Right. When a 'Clinton scandal' starts the first thing you always hear is 'Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.'

Again, maybe speeding isn't right but is it the same as grand larceny? But the media always judges her only against God Almighty.

Not that I believe she even has a speeding ticket in this case but I'm making an analogy.

For more on what the AP story didn't find in the emails, see this good Yahoo piece.

1 comment:

  1. Here's a good tweet storm on the subject: