Via Bark Bark Woof Woof, this piece by Paul Glastris in the Washington Monthly:
And it's not just the usual suspect, i.e., Fox News or CNN. It's the New York Times, AP, LA Times -- all the ones you thought were trustworthy.
Maybe Darrell Issa and Trey Gowdy have joined their editorial boards.
Over the last two weeks, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has taken a hit in the polls, much of it pretty clearly due to aggressive press investigations involving her relationship with the Clinton Foundation when she was Secretary of State. Even Hillary fans should see that these investigations are warranted. After all, Clinton is running for the most powerful office in the world. While she was Secretary of State, her husband was overseeing a $2 billion a year charity. That charity took in donations from foreign governments and individuals with international interests. These facts raise legitimate questions. Did donors to the Foundation get special access to the secretary and the department as a result of their donations? If they did get special access, did they receive any favors? Did Hillary or her staff do anything illegal, unethical, or contrary to U.S. interests or administration policy?
The good news is that as a result of these investigations we can now answer those questions pretty definitively: no, no, and no. The bad news is that the press doesn’t seem to want to take “no” for an answer, even if the answer is based on the evidence of its own reporting.
And it's not just the usual suspect, i.e., Fox News or CNN. It's the New York Times, AP, LA Times -- all the ones you thought were trustworthy.
Maybe Darrell Issa and Trey Gowdy have joined their editorial boards.
No comments:
Post a Comment