This article in The Washington Examiner points out a glaring example of the journalistic ineptitude so prevalent in news media today. The quotes from New York Times campaign writer Thomas Edsall are damning to any remaining claim of objectivity:
“Edsall said it is “attacks” from both Republicans and her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders that are responsible for her low popularity. The unrelenting assault from the right and the left on her integrity and competence, conducted both by Republicans and by her opponent for the Democratic nomination, appears to have taken a toll,”
Exactly when does an investigative journalist realize that the reaction to Mrs. Clinton is not because of what the opponents say but because of what she did? By deflecting the ill effects of the ongoing scandals onto the people reporting it, Mr. Edsalls continues the classic liberal first defense step of discrediting the messenger.
By this same logic, Richard Nixon could have finished his presidency if it had not been for Woodward and Bernstein. While it was true that they reported what happened, Mr. Nixon was not impeached for what they said, but for what he did.
Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell still faces prison for what an investigation says he did, not for what was reported in the newspaper. Without getting into whether or not his prosecution was legal or biased, the fact is, he was prosecuted in a court of law because of his actions. I have no recollection that anyone ever said, “the attacks have taken their toll” in the reports about the Governor’s conduct.
Casey Anthony is also now back in the news because of a report by her attorney that she admitted to killing her daughter. Again, legal incompetence aside, this is another high profile case in which a person was charged and put on trial for doing something, not because someone reported on what she did.
With the release of the latest report from John Kerry’s Justice Department Inspector General’s office, the evidence is overwhelming. According to that report, Mrs. Clinton did not follow the rules and guidelines of the Department. Those “rules” are based on complying with the law, and not following them constitutes violation of the law. Neither Mrs. Clinton nor her aides cooperated with investigators from that department or from the FBI. These facts stand in direct contradiction to claims Mrs. Clinton has made on numerous occasions.
She illegally used a private server rather than secured departmental servers for ALL her email communications. She transferred official State Department information that came to her from the secure servers not only to her own insecure server, but emailed that information more than once to people without security clearance, and whose information security was also not approved. She illegally deleted official State Department emails (now being produced by that same State Department). All of these actions she intentionally took are demonstrably illegal and subject to prosecution under current law.
So exactly why is it that her low trustworthy numbers are the result of mean spirited Republicans and Bernie Sanders who won’t stop talking bad about her? To paraphrase comic Jeff Foxworthy, “If you can look at clear evidence of a crime and blame those who are pointing the crime out to the public rather than the person who committed the crime, you might be a New York Times journalist.”