One Daily Beast reporter laid into Hillary and the "stink" surrounding the whole affair while also learning that a lap top with emails had gone lost in the mail, a laptop that was supposed to be storage and as the repository for her State Department years as Secretary of State.
Once again, journalists routinely file stories with the planted assumption that there is a "scandal" or "stink" that Secretary Clinton is hiding. Even the New York Times editorial board can't help itself in attacking Hillary's honesty in the email controversy by saying that each scandal will remind voters that Hillary is untrustworthy.
As for Colin Powell, his tenure at the State Department has never been seriously investigated; Powell is deemed trustworthy. Give me a break.
Whatever happened to the "presumption of innocence" that serves as the foundation for serious journalism? With Hillary Clinton, however, no editor refuses the avalanche of follow-up stories crying "scandal" that will lead to more mistrust. Hillary is being labeled as either extremely careless or extremely out of touch with the signs of scandal brewing. She should have prepared for this but didn't, they say.
The most recent Washington Monthly includes a story by one courageous journalist, Nancy Letourneau who asks, "why do we ignore the presumption of innocence" when it comes to Hillary? Why do we assume that she is untrustworthy? Is it because she is constantly being attacked and hence is deemed permanently suspect? Is suspicion of her based on "what everyone knows" and is "everyone" always right?
If Clinton's campaign cannot survive these constant attacks, then who do we have? It like the press is saying "we are going to have a train wreck come this election" and let's not sound the alarms just yet.
Trump is clearly out of his depth and is a known and proven liar with a serious character defect that sees nothing wrong odd about repeated lying. Yet when some say so plainly in their comments about Trump's strange relation to the truth, even MSNBC journalists stop them cold, saying that the commenter is not qualified to make such a psychological "diagnosis."
Oh bullshit. What we have here is a candidate who should never be president matched with a supremely talented woman politician of the first rank, and still Hillary is buried with accusations based largely on what Fox News thinks or 'what everyone knows' about Hillary, which is pretty much the same thing.
Is our politics so seriously corrupted that we can't see much difference between Trump and Hillary? Are our journalists free to say anything about Hillary Clinton but let Donald Trump display his ignorance of politics without ever pointing this out to him, nailing him on the spot?
Almost no national reporter has really gone after Trump in person and for the record. Why is this?
The entire idea of Donald Trump boasting that he knows more about Isis than the generals is patently absurd, yet it gets into the news without a murmur of protest. With Hillary, however, we presume that she is "not trusted" and hence guilty of something and this creates a "running narrative" written by Fox and its allies, adopted by nearly everyone else.
To me, this demonstrates the cowardice of American political journalism suborned by Fox News rules: everything about the Clintons or President Obama is open game while Trump embarrasses us daily and still leading reporters, dutifully follow the narrative.
Hillary is always under suspicion, is always hiding something. For Hillary, the norm is never cutting her slack, especially for reporters seeking to make their "chops" on a juicy campaign that almost never confronts 'The Donald' to his face.
Why isn't the television record of him mocking a disabled NYT reporter still something we should be reminded of by newscasters and reporters and not just Clinton ads? The national security experts of both parties say that Trump is dangerous yet we hear far more about emails than the looming threat to our security.