Accuracy in Media

As the election rolls on it is becoming clear that the current favorites to win the two major party nominations are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. But favorites don’t always win. There are still many Republicans and conservatives determined to undermine Trump’s candidacy at a brokered, or open, or contested convention. Call it what you will. Such a move could lead to civil war in the GOP. And Hillary’s path may be even less certain than it appears.

Both candidates—Hillary and Trump—have considerable clouds hanging over them. In this column, I will look at the situation with the Democrats.

Much has been made of the notion that if Trump gets the Republican nomination, many Republicans will stay home or vote for the Democrat. But there hasn’t been nearly the same amount of speculation about what the Democrats will do if Hillary gets the nod.

The Huffington Post quotes one potential voter, Patt Coltem, as saying, “I would vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in a heartbeat….She’s just too shady. She’s a pathological liar.” And that is coming from a Sanders supporter, in an article entitled, “Don’t Assume Bernie Sanders Supporters Will Back Hillary Clinton if She is the Nominee.”

“I will never support Hillary Clinton,” Adam Burch also told The Huffington Post. “I identify as a socialist. She stands for everything that I’m against. It’s Bernie [Sanders] or nothing.”

The New York Times published an article this week arguing that Senator Sanders (I-VT) still could win the Democratic nomination outright: “Mr. Sanders should fare better over the second half of the primary season, after black voters gave Hillary Clinton such a big advantage in the first half,” writes Nate Cohn. In addition, Sanders has shown a willingness to attempt to swing superdelegates his way, even if they have already announced their intention to support Mrs. Clinton. This has some on the left shouting “foul,” suggesting Bernie isn’t being truly democratic if he is willing to ignore the will of the Democrat voters as expressed through primaries and caucuses, as opposed to by party insiders.

The Times was criticized by its own outgoing public editor, Margaret Sullivan, for doing some PR for Hillary, when they changed the headline and added two paragraphs to an already published article. The implication of the article turned dramatically from being favorable to Sanders to being quite unfavorable. It’s yet another example of the agenda-driven media, rather than one adhering to its responsibility to be honest, neutral journalists. Sullivan cited the fact that Robert Reich, who was the secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton, accused the Times of “caving in to Hillary Clinton interests.”

Accuracy in Media has repeatedly exposed Mrs. Clinton’s lies about Benghazi, sending classified information through her server, and her Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest.

The mainstream media’s double standard is transparently favoring the Democratic candidates. Trump, for example, has been repeatedly called upon to repudiate the endorsement he received from white supremacist David Duke, which he has done numerous times. Yet Sanders has not been asked to repudiate his endorsement from the radical-left, which has been foremost among the groups attempting to disrupt Trump’s rallies, while fundraising off of their efforts. Nor has Hillary been asked to repudiate her endorsement from the head of the Ku Klux Klan.

While the mainstream media are content to spread unsubstantiated claims that Trump is causing the violence at his rallies, they refuse to address more concrete evidence of Mrs. Clinton’s malfeasance.

The Washington Times reported on March 1 that “The State Department may wait until after the November election to finish its review of classified information former Secretary Hillary Clinton sent on her secret email account…”  State spokesman John Kirby said that the Obama administration did not want to run the review according to a “political calendar.”

Instead, the State Department hopes to finish its inquiry once the information it seeks has become largely politically irrelevant. Mrs. Clinton and her supporters claim that none of the information was marked classified at the time that she sent or received the information via email.

As we have repeatedly reported, some of the classified information sent through Mrs. Clinton’s server was born classified and needed no special markings. As secretary of state Mrs. Clinton could not have failed to recognize this information’s sensitive nature. And if she did fail to recognize it, that is considered gross negligence, and is still a crime.

The investigations into Mrs. Clinton’s misconduct continue to be slow-rolled. The House Select Committee on Benghazi report is seen as partisan by many, and will be perceived that way even more if Congress waits until the general election. We learned this past week that former CIA director David Petraeus was interviewed a second time by the committee, and that National Security Advisor Susan Rice and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes agreed to testify to the committee only after a direct meeting between Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, and the White House.

And what about James Comey, the FBI Director? If the Justice Department refuses to heed a referral from the FBI, will Comey go public with his complaints, resign, or will there be a revolt within the FBI? Judge Andrew Napolitano said last week on Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier that Hillary’s biggest concern is the Department of Justice. He said that he believes “that the FBI is nearing a conclusion on its accumulation of evidence.

It has the evidence. It’s corroborating and re-corroborating the evidence, and I believe that it will recommend to its superiors in the Justice Department that the evidence be presented to a grand jury. What happens there, nobody knows. But if the evidence is not presented to a grand jury I think you’ll see that evidence along with FBI commentary on it all over the place, and that will be devastating to Mrs. Clinton.” Napolitano added that he thinks people would resign if their work “is tossed into the trash can because the President wants her to succeed him.”

Bret Baier then turned to Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, who said that if Napolitano is correct, she can’t figure out which would be worse for Mrs. Clinton—to have a grand jury and an indictment, or to have information leaked because the DOJ chose not to indict.

President Obama weighed in again on the side of no indictment for Hillary, though he has claimed through his spokesman that he is not in the loop on the FBI investigations. Obama said to a group of donors in Texas that they are nearing the time that “the [Democrat] party must soon come together to back [Mrs. Clinton].” If he thought an indictment was coming, he probably wouldn’t have said that.

Will the FBI’s two investigations into Mrs. Clinton’s email server and conflicts of interest continue, as the State Department inquiry will, until after the November election? As we have previously stated, the FBI investigation will be seen as political no matter what the outcome is, and much rides on what the FBI director chooses to do. Delaying these investigations any further merely serves to prevent voters from making informed decisions.

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


  • Steven Barrett

    It would be beneath Bernie Sanders or any serious contending candidate for the nomination of any party to publicly complain about a brazen display of media bias fueled by carelessness, expediency and laziness on the media’s part. I’m only a supporter of Sanders and not bound by the same constraints.
    Hell yes, if anybody asks, has Bernie Sanders been screwed over by a national media largely guilty of some of the media sins listed above. The moment so many reporters and pundits discovered Sanders was a democratic socialist Independent, that it seemed, was all they felt necessary to know about the man. Never mind the fact that since the early 90’s he’s caucused with the Democrats since he began serving Vermont as its at-large Congressman. That means, in fact, he’s been working as a defacto Democrat longer than a lot of Hillary Clinton’s youngest political bigwigs, not to mention her other surrogates. I’ll never forget a Democratic state legislator, Mr. Rutherford, in South Carolina, blistering Sanders as a johnnnie-come-lately on national television (NBC) . . . when in fact, before Mr. Rutherford, who’s a member of South Carolina’s Democratic leadership team, was only elected to the House in Columbia to begin service in ’99 whereas Sanders was already serving in Congress as Vermont’s only Congressman and working as a Democrat, even though he listed his voting status then as Independent. The relative length of service of both men was not given, thus leading the public to the impression that Mr. Rutherford had a larger point when in fact, he sure as hell was the real johnnie come lately but only on a much smaller plain of service.
    Then there was the faux concerns of Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill for Sanders because of his socialist views, and the way she came across smacked of good ol’ red baiting. Nice to know liberals can play this game when it suits their purpose, too. Just a shame that the liberal media refuses to call their fellow liberals out when they pull this phony game to suit their purposes all the while screaming “McCarthyism” when somebody can actually point to where some of their past heroes did in fact serve the Reds during the final years of Stalin’s reign; thus doing much damage to our nation’s security. To date, nobody has been able to lay a finger on any specific crime of espionage or disloyalty on Mr. Sanders part, even though he has participated in what some folks can arguably say were “leftist” in origin, i.e., especially the “sister – cities” set up to promote peace between cities here and the then Soviet Union, Central America and maybe other places. But no acts of criminal disloyalty can be used by Sanders’ opponents. By the way, don’t you think they would’ve succeeded in doing so by now, even though Bernie Sanders has been involved in elective politics since he was first elected Burlington, VT’s mayor in the mid-80s?
    But leave it to McCaskill and Missouri’s Gov. Nixon to play the old whispering “pinko” game to scuttle Bernie Sanders’ chances in his race against McCaskill’s and Nixon’s preferred choice, former Secretary Clinton.
    Let all the pinko whisperers, all the wannabe red-baiters remember this: Bernie Sanders’ parents escaped Uncle Joe’s “worker’s paradise” to make a living in the United States at a time when Stalin was persecuting Ukrainian Christians and Jews alike. The Jewish Sanders family is especially lucky and fortunate given the fact Stalin had it out most against Jews. (In this respect, he was as Romanov as Nicholas and Alexander III before him.)
    It’s time for the so-called “liberals” in the mainstream media to say goodbye to the favorite bete noires, Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon once and for all time by abandoning their disgraced tactics that helped them to advance their careers. (Even Richard Nixon managed to learn from McCarthy’s excesses over time.)
    And it’s high time that our present day media, especially the “national” mainstream media learn to examine Bernie Sanders’ overall record from his days as a careful watcher of Burlington VT’s tax revenues to keep property taxes down while making the city much more business-friendly to his longtime record of service, the longest history of Independent service by any national legislator in our history. That’s not too much to ask of our press, is it?

  • Betty Eyer

    The real victims here are the American people who will make a very important decision without being exposed to all the options.

  • Daniel Nation

    Here here! Thanks @Steven Barrett

  • Steven Barrett

    Thank you Daniel. The media will seldom if ever admit to creating its own victims of its own host of sins when it comes to inventing truths or being too lazy to simply cover the real facts. And our media experts can’t seem to wonder why the rest of the real world outside of editorial offices don’t laugh as often to the old reporter’s truism against “letting facts get in the way of writing a more interesting story.”

  • maskddingo

    You need no more evidence than the headlines today. Bernie absolutely crushes Hillary in two states by 70%+ margins… Yet the headlines are either ignoring that there was a primary at all last night or focusing on Hillary’s ‘dominant’ 19% victory in Arizona where Bernie also did better than expected…

    It’s gone from simple ignoring to active attempts to undermine. At the same time the MSM all widely support the nomination of Donald Trump.

  • Gz7

    No they don’t.

  • Doug Vasey

    Through ignorance and complacency the American People are to blame for allowing the media and pundits to trick them and lie to them. Sometimes some people just “can’t handle the truth!” Clinton is status quo for corporate America, but people the just love the idea of a woman president too much to realize it.

  • steve hall
  • David

    They support Trump’s NOMINATION. Just like they did everything they could to bring down the REAL Conservatives in 2012 and 2008 (and even in 2000) they are manipulating everything so that Trump is the nominee on the GOP side or the GOP dies. They firmly believe that they can DESTROY Trump in the fall.

    I am NOT a Trump supporter at this time. My candidate endorsed Trump, however.

  • terry1956

    Article Two Section one paragraph two of the US Constitution states ” Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled to in the Congress”.
    The Electors selects the US president if 50% plus 1 or more agree.
    The Electors are selected by the State Legislature not the voters, not congress, not a political party, not the federal executive branch, not the governor, not the court or courts, not campaign donors, not the UN, not the Bank of International Settlement, not the Trots, not the International or US Chamber of Commerce, not the media, not voting machine code hackers.
    If Trump is the GOP nominee and Sanders is the Democrat nominee or Kasich is the GOP nominee and Billary the Democrat Nominee the State Legislature may legally choose Electors who will choose none of the above even if most of the voters in the state does vote for one of the above.
    Since the unconstitutional federal judicial rulings in the 1960s and 1970s requiring all state legislative districts for both chambers be of equal or near equal population size article two section two can not be as effective in protecting the rights of the minority until congress over turns the rulings.
    If before each county had equal vote in the state senate and most of the counties combined had a total population that was a third or less of the state population then effectively state legislation required a super majority.
    Anyway there is an article at the Washington Post actually in support of the state legislatures using their legal authority just this once ( for 2016) then move back to goal of the state legislatures ignoring the wisdom of the founders by turning over the electorals to who ever wins the popular vote nation wide even if that goes against the wishes of the voters in the state.

  • terry1956

    Mine did also( Carson) and I still don’t get it because I still think Carson is the most honest of all of them although I agreed with Cruz more on issues than Carson except Foreign Trade where I agree with Trump the most although he is so wrong on the issue as well being that he is thinking the power belongs to the president when legally it belongs to congress, not the president.
    Of those running so far the Constitution Party man from Alaska would make the best president and likely the best since Cleveland but he has no chance of winning in the general although I think he will get the nomination at the up coming Convention rather than the preacher who is a good man but he is not up on the Constitution, the issues and the Constitution Party platform as the man from AK who use to be chairman of the Alaska Constitution Party and I think was even in the party back when the Constitution Party started under the Name of the Taxpayer’s Party.

  • terry1956

    I think there very well may be enough votes in the state legislatures to deny any of those running enough electoral votes to have a majority and I actually support this even if Cruz gets the nomination and would otherwise have a majority of the electoral votes in the general because then it will go to the US House to decide with each state having an equal vote.
    This will a lot more likely happen if ether Trump or Sanders is likely to otherwise win in the general with legislators from both parties voting for electors who would not vote for Trump or Sanders.
    Some states with a Democrat majority may stop Cruz from winning with the help maybe of a few Republicans.
    Some states with A GOP majority state assembly maybe even with the help of a few democrats very well may stop Hillary from winning.
    The least likely to get state pull back is the governor of Ohio but that may still come from some conservative state assemblies and maybe even a hard left assembly although not likely the latter if it looks like the House would pick Cruz.
    I suspect the governor of Ohio will be our next president if the choice goes to the US House.

  • terry1956

    Most of the MSM supports the nomination of Trump for two reasons.
    1.Big ratings.
    2. They want Hillary to win and they think she has the best chance of beating Trump than Kasich or Cruz.