Clinton Offenses Challenge Media Bias

Journalists are, of course, human, and all humans have their own points of view, and their own biases. But there are times when professional reporters and media executives need to at least partially put aside their personal support and provide some semblance of fairness and objectivity in their reporting. For many, that is becoming an extraordinary challenge in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Most of the media tilts heavily Democrat . That’s not an opinion or allegation; it is an established fact. Many reporters have not been shy or subtle about their leanings. To cite just one example, in a nationally televised 2012 presidential campaign debate, moderator Candy Crowley acted more as a partisan for President Obama than an impartial referee. The contributions of major media companies tilt heavily Democrat.

The candidacy of Hillary Clinton poses a unique and extreme challenge. Never before has a presidential candidate, not even Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal, had such massive and solid evidence of both major personal incompetence and deeply significant personal wrongdoing on several levels than Ms. Clinton. Her part in matters such as the devastating “reset” with Russia, the attack in Benghazi, and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq that led to the empowerment of ISIS are key examples.

Those dire failures are accompanied by equally worrisome ethical violations. Perhaps the most extreme example comes from the devastating evidence that Ms. Clinton personally profited from the massive sale of uranium—the basic ingredient in nuclear weapons—to the Russians, despite overt and intense evidence of Moscow’s militarization and aggression. That incident alone would have instantly disqualified any other individual who sought the presidency.

Even Bernie Sanders, who, despite his competition for the Democrat nod, soft-pedaled his criticism of Clinton, stated “Do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of State and a foundation run by her husband collects many, many dollars from foreign governments — governments which are dictatorships?…Yeah, I do have a problem with that.”

But that major violation was eventually followed by revelations that, while serving as Secretary of State, Ms. Clinton was, to put it as mildly as possible, negligent in the handling of classified information, in a manner that was overtly against regulations and law. Indeed, other individuals who committed offenses of this nature that represented only a fraction of the scale committed by Clinton were indeed punished and drummed out of government positions.

Ms. Clinton, however, not only avoided liability, but did so in a manner that was, in of itself, illegal. Husband Bill Clinton inappropriately met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch shortly before the decision not to indict was made public. This was followed by Ms. Clinton’s remark that she would consider retaining Ms. Lynch as Attorney General should she win the White House. The fix was in, and no penalty was assessed.

Ms. Clinton’s misdeeds were not restricted to her role as secretary of state. They also took place in her campaign for the nomination. Much of this category in the long list of Clinton’s ethical violations directly ties into her incestuous relationship with a media that increasingly appears to be less involved in the business of journalism than it is in being a shill for her campaign, and the fiduciary and possibly criminal misdeeds of the Democrat National Committee in heavily tilting the primary competition in Ms. Clinton’s favor.

WikiLeaks provides numerous examples. Among the most salient, as outlined by The Gateway Pundit :

DNC Hillary supporters infiltrated Sanders campaign.
DNC discussed their relationship with NBC/MSNBC/CNN and how to get better treatment.
Super PAC paid young voters to push back online Sanders supporters.
Offering to send interns out to fake a protest against the RNC.
Bringing up Sanders religion to scare the southern voters.
Possible money laundering by moving money back and forth to bypass legal limits.
Politico writer sending his stories to the DNC before he sends them to his editor.
DNC feeding CNN the questions they want to be asked in interviews.
Creating a fake job ad for a Trump business to paint him as a sexist.
Hillary for America Raised $26.4 Million in April, Began May with More than $30 MillionCash on Hand.
Democrats using interns to organize fake “protests.”

After winning their division, they were easily defeated in the mlb jerseys for sale League Championship Series by the Pittsburgh Pirates and Roberto Clemente, who then went on to beat the Baltimore http://midwayfire.com/documents/Amendment%20One.pdf cheap levitra on line Orioles in the World of Natural & Herbal remedies for the big issue of erectile dysfunction, Power Khan is dominating the all available medicines in the current market. Every stage of product history represents variety objects to buying viagra in india a pharmaceutical marketer to increase their annual income.The structure and size fully recognizes this potential apart from the solution for premature ejaculation. By going through the websites you can also read the viagra online canadian clients feedbacks. It degrades by an enzyme called PDE-5 (phosphodiesterase-5). viagra discount prices midwayfire.com
There are clear abuses of law, regulation, ethics and decency, some of which—the uranium sale to Russia and the negligent handling of classified material—clearly led to substantial harm to U.S. interests. Nevertheless, expect most of the media to downplay these deadly offenses in their inappropriate partisan relations with the Clintons.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.