Well, At Least Trump Will Know That The News Media Will Cover Both Candidates Objectively With Equal…With Equal…HAHAHAHAHAHA!! I’m Sorry, I Just Can’t Say It

unbalanced-justice-scaleA May 5 NBC News online story reported that the infamous Rumanian hacker called “Guccifer” had revealed “in an exclusive interview” with correspondent Cynthia McFadden that Hillary Clinton’s secret private e-mail server was “like an open orchid on the Internet,” and that he hacked its contents with ease. It has been noticed, however, that NBC interviewed Guccifer during his pre-extradition detention in Rumania, at least a month ago. It was not until yesterday, when Fox News broke the news, also as an “exclusive,” that Guccifer, a.k.a. Marcel Lehel Lazar, asserted from a Virginia jail that he had repeatedly breached the former Secretary of State’s  in early 2013, that NBC let the story out.

Observations…okay, rueful and pointed observations:

1. The possible role of Guccifer in investigating the Clinton email mess was first raised by Fox News last month. Naturally, it was buried by the left-biased news media ( you know, the rest of it) as “a conservative media story,” except that NBC knew it was true, since the network already had Guccifer’s interview. Nevertheless, NBC allowed its non-coverage to imply that Fox was just manufacturing more “smoke” regarding Clinton’s possible--likely, if you are honest, which most Clinton supporters are not by definition—breach of national security laws, as that faux news network is wont to do.

2. The venom with which progressive shills attack Fox News is damning in light of incidents like this one. Perhaps they are really so hopelessly corrupt and totalitarian that they want the news to be manipulated, censored and distorted to avoid letting the public know how inept and corrupt Democrats are. Without a right-leaning news service, the left-biased news media would get away with burying stories like this.

How could that possibly be good for the country? For all its many flaws, everyone should be grateful for Fox News.

3. Gee, I wonder why NBC would bury a story that bolsters the widespread and reasonable belief that when Hillary Clinton says, often laughing that creepy, Cruella de Ville laugh of hers, that no foreign hackers had plumbed her server—like she did just the day before, on MSNBC—she is lying her head off, and that when the President also says that “he’s sure” that no national security data was breached, he is assisting in a cover-up? Why would an objective, fair, news organization do that? Especially when Clinton is still trying to defeat Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries, and when increasing numbers of the public say that Hillary’s e-mail lies have added to their conviction that she isn’t honest or trustworthy? I mean, it’s a mystery, isn’t it? Why would NBC do such a thing, and just hold on to the story until the New York primary was over and a rival network was about to scoop them? I just can’t imagine, can you? There no conceivable, rational explanation, unless, and of course this is absurd, NBC is trying to slant its reporting to assist Clinton and protect the Democratic frontrunner.

But it can’t be that! That would be unethical journalism.

4. Clinton’s camp’s response to Guccifer’s claim actually made me laugh out loud. In a statement to Politico, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon (no relation to Jimmy) said,

“There is absolutely no basis to believe the claims made by this criminal from his prison cell. In addition to the fact he offers no proof to support his claims, his descriptions of Secretary Clinton’s server are inaccurate. It is unfathomable that he would have gained access to her emails and not leaked them the way he did to his other victims. We have received no indication from any government agency to support these claims, nor are they reflected in the range of charges that Guccifer already faces and that prompted his extradition in the first place. And it has been reported that security logs from Secretary Clinton’s email server do not show any evidence of foreign hacking.”

Hilarious, don’t you think? Who is more credible on this topic? Is it the Presidential candidate who hid the existence of the server, then claimed she had complied with all laws, rules, and regulations, then said that she had neither sent nor received any classified documents (after she destroys about 35,000 that nobody but her lawyers ever saw), then changed that to “no documents ‘marked’ classified,” and who has since defaulted back to the original spin that other Secretaries of State did the same thing (none had private servers), that “it wasn’t the best choice,” and that the whole controversy was a Republican plot?  Or is it more reasonable to believe a hacker with no political loyalty to either U.S. party who already hacked her private e-mails once, and who gains nothing from his claims?

Hillary obviously doesn’t know an Apple from a kumquat. What are the odds that her spokesperson is able to say what is accurate or inaccurate about an e-mail server? The rest of this obligatory denial sounds like classic, “Oh yeah? Well you can’t prove it, copper!” bluster.

We all know Hillary Clinton is probably lying if her lips are moving. There’s no reason to assume Guccifer isn’t the most trustworthy individual in this dispute, is there? He’s in jail? The Clinton camp dares to play that card? Heck, if Guccifer a political ally in the White House and a corrupt and politicized Justice Department protecting him, I bet he would be able to avoid prison just like Hillary has.

5. Still, the biggest news, or confirmation is perhaps the more accurate term, is that Donald Trump can expect no fairness from the news media at all, and probably a new low in unconscionably biased coverage is on the horizon. After all, the main-streamers slammed their fists down on the scale in 2008 and 2012, I assume because they were seeking their version of the greater good by any means possible. Now they have someone unquestionably and objectively horrible to keep out of power.

Who knows how far they will go?

_____________________________
Sources: Democratic Underground, Newsbusters, Daily Caller, Fox,

 

 

28 thoughts on “Well, At Least Trump Will Know That The News Media Will Cover Both Candidates Objectively With Equal…With Equal…HAHAHAHAHAHA!! I’m Sorry, I Just Can’t Say It

  1. Going by your last few posts, though, in which you describe her as the lesser of two evils, does it really matter now?

    • Oh, and the answer to your last question there, Jack, is “they will go as far as is necessary to make certain Trump does not win the White House.”

    • You really are derailed by this, aren’t you? If you have failed to notice, this is called Ethics Alarms. Have you noticed me eschewing commentary on Obama’s frequent ethical breaches because he’s already President? It makes a difference because the public deserves the truth, whether they know what to do with it or not.

      And in THIS case, it matters especially because if Hillary gets indicted, may we’ll have a better choice in November.

      Also, the post was primarily about the news media. Other than that, your comment was spot on.

      • Yes, I am derailed. It’s one thing to point out the lapses of an officeholder who’s in place. It’s another to recommend that another prospective officeholder who promises more of the same, maybe even worse, going by this, be the choice of the people. As someone who believes there is a minimum standard for qualifying for high office, I believe both the current offerings fall well below it, and I am having a HUGELY difficult time wrapping my head around the idea that electing a completely non-ethical person is an ethical act.

  2. Breaking news! I hacked into Clinton’s server too! And I had sex with Cruz and Trump — at the SAME time!

    It must be true. I’ve admitted it, right?

      • Beth. So the FBI interrogated this guy in Romania and had the Romanian authorities arrest him and allow him to be extradited so they could bring him to D.C. and charge him and put him in prison on a lark? The FBI hasn’t gone through this guy’s computer? They haven’t gone through HRC’s? He’s just making this up out of whole cloth and the FBI has swallowed it? They’ve never dealt with publicity seeking liars and have no ability to identify them as opposed to legitimate suspects? It’s all just a vast right wing conspiracy?

        And if this hobbyist hacker in Romania got into HRC’s server, certainly none of the highly trained and paid full time hackers working for the Chinese and Russian governments never got in?

        • This is from the Washington Post — I know, I know, freakin’ liberal media.

          “U.S. officials also dismissed claims by a Romanian hacker now facing federal charges in Virginia that he was able to breach Clinton’s personal email server. The officials said investigators have found no evidence to support the assertion by Marcel Lehel Lazar to Fox News and others, and they believed if he had accessed Clinton’s emails, he would have released them — as he did when he got into accounts of other high-profile people.”

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-prosecutors-in-virginia-assisting-in-clinton-email-probe/2016/05/05/f0277faa-12f0-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html

          • You do realize that that is almost word for word what Clinton’s statement said, right.

            Sure there’s evidence: a hacker, who has hacked, says he did. It isn’t conclusive evidence, but it’s first hand and eye-witness testimony. It would be admissible in court.

            The statement was STILL newsworthy, and obviously so, just as if Bill Gates had said, “Well, I hacked her server, too.” And that was the main point of the post.

            • It is only newsworthy if it can be verified. A forensic investigation will show if there has been a data breach. The FBI conducts these investigations every day. If there had been one, we would know. Also, the fact that the information was not disseminated is just further evidence that this did not happen.

              Don’t you think it makes sense for Clinton’s team to repeat what is being reported in the papers?

              • Beth said, “It is only newsworthy if it can be verified.”

                B U L L ! ! ! ! ! !

                You are obviously not the editor for most media outlets.

                An admission of “guilt” is verification enough to make it newsworthy; some media outlets publicize stories with nothing but innuendo.

              • I don’t think it is appropriate for government officials to be repeating Clinton talking points.

                I’m not going to beat up too muck on “It is only newsworthy if it can be verified,” because I’m sure you will retract it yourself once you think about it for, oh, three seconds. An accusation by someone with any credibility at all is obviously newsworthy. Donald Trump, to name a source of many such news items, stated that Ted Cruz’s father may have been involved in JFK’s assassination, and the fact that he said it was enough to make it a news story. A major hacker important enough to be extradited and being examined by the FBI who says Hillary’s server was easily hacked and he hacked it is obviously more credible than that.

                • Criminals lack credibility — by definition. And if I were a hacker caught by the FBI, I might claim the same thing hoping for some sort of deal.

                  The only thing newsworthy about Trump’s comment about the JFK assassination is that it demonstrates (again) that he is unfit for any office, including city dog catcher. He lacks credibility, but he is famous so it got coverage. If Kim Kardashian said the same thing, it also would make the news.

                  But I will stop here. Because I have no interest in defending Hillary.

              • My response is simply conjecture – I know nothing about Lazar, his work, or the reasons for his arrest. Is it possible that Lazar did indeed hack into Clinton’s server, that what he found was of a much different character than what he found on other servers, and that he didn’t release the information publicly due to the nature of the information? Is it possible that he decided to sell it instead? Is it possible that he sensed too much danger in releasing it at all?

                Additionally, I do think it is at least odd that an arrested person would confess to crimes for which he hasn’t been charged. It seems this only happens in those cases in which the defendant is totally nuts and those cases in which the defendant is clearly guilty, will certainly be convicted, and will certainly be sentenced to life imprisonment or death. I don’t know that Lazar is in either of these categories.

        • You just don’t understand, Bill. The FBI is just part of a Vast Right-wing Conspiracy(tm) out to get Clinton.

          • Hah. And who is this government official, so called? How is it everyone in the Obama administration knows all about an ongoing FBI investigation and is free to comment on it in great detail at the drop of a hat?

  3. Something to think about…

    Now that Trump is the de facto GOP nominee, what happens if Hillary Clinton gets indited over the email server and Bernie Sanders becomes the de facto nominee. My worst nightmare is a Sanders vs Trump Presidential ballot in November and no one with a brain steps up to run against them.

    Maybe we should just cancel the election, suspend the Constitution and and keep the “devil” currently in office. Yes, of course I’m kidding.

  4. Have you read the interview with Ben Rhodes in the NY times yet.

    It’s basically a play by play of how the Obama administration uses the main stream media to promote their narrative. It outlines in detail how this administration has created an echo chamber of journalists to shape the public narrative around their agenda.

    The media has lost all credibility as being independent, fair, balanced, or impartial. They are democratic operatives with by-lines.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.