Accuracy in Media

The mainstream media are content with giving Mrs. Clinton a pass on her many scandals, downplaying or minimizing information that could potentially damage her campaign. At the same time, media organizations work to bolster her air of inevitability as the chosen candidate by repeatedly drawing attention to the size of her lead in terms of the number of delegates she and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) each have.

After voting in 19 states, the latest delegate count shows Hillary Clinton with 1,130 delegates to 499 for Sanders. But those numbers could be misleading. Clinton has among her delegates 458 superdelegates, meaning elected officials and party officials who can vote for whomever they want, and who comprise about 30 percent of the total number of delegates needed to win the nomination. They have announced that they will vote for her, while just 22 superdelegates have declared support for Sanders. Superdelegates were established after the 1972 election in which Democratic candidate George McGovern won just one state, in order to give the party establishment a better chance to control the nominating process and avoid a repeat of that situation.

It is important to remember, however, that in December 2007 candidate Barack Obama had only 63 superdelegates to Mrs. Clinton’s 169. Yet in 2008 President Obama won the Democratic presidential primary with 463 superdelegates to Mrs. Clinton’s 257. Superdelegates are usually inclined to lend their vote to the candidate who is already winning.

It is no wonder that media reports emphasize Mrs. Clinton’s electability over Sanders. After all, the liberal media have put the full force of their reporting behind ensuring her campaign’s success, even though Sanders is making a surprisingly strong showing so far, having won eight of the 19 states that have held primaries or caucuses. He clearly has the enthusiasm factor going for him.

But the Clinton camp has other things to worry about as well. Bryan Pagliano, who set up Mrs. Clinton’s private email server at the start of her time as secretary of state, recently was granted immunity by the Justice Department. National Review’s Andy McCarthy notes that a “proffer agreement signals that an active grand-jury investigation may well be underway, and if it is not yet underway, it soon will be.”

“The Post says of the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s mishandling of classified information, ‘there is no indication that prosecutors have convened a grand jury…to subpoena testimony or documents, which would require the participation of a U.S. attorney’s office,’” he writes.

McCarthy calls this “doubly wrong” because “a proffer agreement—is a powerful indication either that there is an active grand-jury investigation or that such an investigation is imminent,” and a district attorney is not necessary.

A recent Washington Post analysis has detailed some of Mrs. Clinton’s reckless behavior as secretary of state.

“Hillary Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information…” reports the Post. “The finding is the first accounting of the Democratic presidential front-runner’s personal role in placing information now considered sensitive into insecure email during her State Department tenure.”

While the Post does recognize that for “roughly three-quarters of those cases, officials have determined that material Clinton herself wrote in the body of email messages is classified,” the paper also expresses skepticism that this information should have been classified.

“Several [diplomats] said in interviews that they thought the State Department’s review process relied on an overly broad interpretation of ­public-records laws that restrict release of certain information involving relations with foreign governments,” reports the Post. This would include “real-time information shared with them by foreign government officials using their own insecure email accounts or open phone lines, or in public places such as hotel lobbies where it could have been overheard.”

As we have reported, such information is born classified because it involves confidential information received from foreign government contacts.

Mrs. Clinton and her supporters continually cast the investigations into her corruption and lies as motivated by right-wing groups intent on ruining her political career. Yet now they even boldly claim that the government, headed by President Obama, is also biased against Clinton.

Clinton campaign chair John Podesta recently stated that an anonymous source—a “whistleblower”—criticized the State Department Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) conduct, arguing that this investigation has an “anti-Clinton bias,” according to The Daily Caller. Ironically, the IG, Steve Linick, was appointed by Democratic President Obama.

The Associated Press’ White House Correspondent Julie Pace told Fox News’ Chris Wallace on March 6 that she believes that President Obama is backing Mrs. Clinton, and discouraging a criminal indictment. “But the President of the United States has come out and said that there’s nothing that’s going to come out in an investigation that will prove to be—to be criminal,” she said.

These statements by the White House are both inappropriate, and quite revealing. The President should not be pre-judging the FBI investigation. His spokesman has claimed that neither the FBI nor the Justice Department has kept the President apprised of the investigation. But since the record clearly shows that President Obama had direct email communications with Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured email account on at least a dozen occasions, he could certainly become ensnared in this national security scandal if the investigation is allowed to move forward. Obama also faces the dilemma of what an indictment of Mrs. Clinton would do to the Democrats’ chances of winning the White House in November.

Mrs. Clinton appears confident that the two FBI investigations are going nowhere. “This is the same security review that has been going on since last spring,” Mrs. Clinton told CNBC. “I know the Republicans are engaging in a lot of wishful thinking, but this is not something anyone should be worried about.”

The investigation is no security review. The FBI, with well over 100 agents involved in the investigation, is determining whether criminal charges are in order. That is what they do.

Yet again, Mrs. Clinton told MSNBC that she is “personally not concerned” and that she thinks “there will be a resolution of the security inquiry.”

“No other American politicians—even ones as corrupt as Richard Nixon, or as hated by partisans as George W. Bush—have fostered the creation of a permanent multimillion-dollar cottage industry devoted to attacking them,” observes the liberal Atlantic magazine in an article on the Clinton scandals. Yet even The Atlantic describes Mrs. Clinton’s Emailgate as looking “more serious all the time.” The AP’s Pace also said that Mrs. Clinton still does not have a “good answer” to questions about her email server.

Mrs. Clinton is being investigated by more than just the FBI. She also faces inquiries from the “inspector general of the State Department, the inspector general of the intelligence agencies, the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the House Select Committee on Benghazi,” according to The New York Times.

Part of the investigation has to do with public corruption, i.e., using her office of the secretary of state to benefit her family’s foundation, as well as lining the pockets of herself and her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

One case worth looking into is that of Laureate International Universities. As Peter Schweizer reported last year in Breitbart, “Newly released financial disclosures reveal Bill Clinton received $16.46 million in payments from a George Soros-backed for-profit education company, as Hillary Clinton’s State Department funneled tens of millions of dollars to a group run by the company’s chairman.” Shortly after that was disclosed, “Bill Clinton abruptly resigned” from the board.

That is just one of many examples brought to light in Schweizer’s book, Clinton Cash, that demonstrates how the Clintons used Hillary’s position as secretary of state to enrich themselves.

While Mrs. Clinton continues to benefit from mainstream media favoritism, the investigations into her and her aides’ misconduct continues. Even liberal outlets such as The Atlantic are beginning to realize that the charges she faces are serious, and will grow more serious as time goes on. This will only cause a more and more desperate media to overlook as many of these scandals as they can as they proceed on their mission to get her elected in November.

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


  • msnurse

    I am still waiting, as are many others, for this lady to be delivered her due—had she been a GOP’er—she would have been loooooong gone!!!!

  • John Cunningham

    Hillary will be the next Democrat to run for president. While they are at it, probably will win by all means possible too. To much at stake to let the presidency go to the Republicans.

    All the scandals that the Obama Administration has stalled and refused to answer are up for grabs if a Republican wins. We the People and Congress will be madder than Hell but, Obama will just say sue me.

    By the time it is adjudicated, Hillary will be preparing for her second term. Just in case no one has noticed, there is many such lawsuits in the over crowded court system now. I believe the phrase is “Get In Line.”

  • reggie

    Shake the chains, rattle the cage, and roll the barrel. All good sound effects that mean nothing. She has enough dirt on all of them to shut the whole government down, and they know it

  • reggie

    They don’t care if Rubio wins, he’s their baby boy who does what he’s told. We do not have a 2 party system, it’s a 1 party system of rinocrats. As long as they all get theirs, nothing else matters. Trump won’t fall into line, so they’ll eliminate him in any way possible.

  • Mike S.

    “Bryan Pagliano, who set up Mrs. Clinton’s private email server at the
    start of her time as secretary of state, recently was granted immunity
    by the Justice Department.”

    I hope he doesn’t get hit by a truck and die the day before his Congressional testimony — as happened to the man who was set to testify before a McCarthy hearing about covert operatives undermining Radio Free Asia (to help Chairman Mao slaughter more “dissidents”).

    What a sick world we live in. If only the Republicans had abolished Democrats along with slavery in April 1865. But, no, they accommodated them foolishly.

  • 4 major departments of the US government at present are simultaneously involved in separate investigations directly linked to Hillary! She is lying prostrate under a huge microscope while the world watches in eager anticipation.

  • ljm4

    Suppose there are Betting odds on her by now? I mean ‘they’ bet on all sorts of things. HRC is the sort we’d like to see come to a fitting end.

    Espionage is the word I heard from the last talking head…

  • SMalley8

    I have to wonder why the diplomats, the Post, the Democratic Party, or anyone else would seriously argue that State Department,The State Department IG, or other Federal Agencies (i.e., DOD, CIA DHS, etc. have OVER classified these emails. They seem to have missed the fact that, if the emails are Unclassified, then, the entire text (including names duty positions, etc.) of the emails must be released as written, under FOIA – unless meeting with a FOIA exception – which, under FOIA rules, must be claimed in writing to the requester, giving the requester the opportunity to initiate legal action to contest the validity of the claimed exception. In fact, I wonder if these emails have received such high classifications to protect both statements and text to avoid embarrassment bleed over for the writers and respondents who (thinking it would never be published) wrote things they really shouldn’t have

    Furthermore, I’m surprised Ms. Clinton’s “personal” emails she deleted were not sought after more vehemently. While right to privacy protects individuals and their communications, it does NOT extend to Government documents, which are public records, UNLESS covered by FOIA exceptions or classification. Ms Clinton knowingly and deliberately intermingled her private emails and their information with the official State Department emails. As with intermingled client funds with the an attorney’s own personal funds, it is the intermingler’s obligation to prove ANY email she claims as personal truly holds that status. Therefore ALL of her emails should have been turned over to the State Department so that they could appropriately report and comply with the various court orders concerning FOIA suits. Otherwise, there is no way of telling whether she deleted Government emails which could prove embarrassing to her at the very minimum. At any rate, destruction of a Government document without determination by appropriate authority destruction is appropriate and in compliance with ALL Federal Laws controlling destruction is grounds for legal action in itself.

  • She will never be POTUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • LaTisha Jackson

    I hope you understand that she works for the russians…

  • LaTisha Jackson

    death to the inferior!!! DemocRATS, “Liberals”, commies…

  • Mixelflick

    Face it: When the FBI is done with her, she’s going down faster than Monica did n her husband…

  • JuneUSA

    Should derail her, not could. When? Not may.

  • Curtis

    No way she will be first priority.

  • Curtis

    Here Here

  • Curtis

    Yes. Why did they let her do that. She said there were emails to her husband but Bill said he never writes emails. I really hope they get them on the foundation more then anything else.

  • Curtis

    Then fine throw them all in jail and lets start fresh. I can name most of them myself.

  • John Cunningham

    I hope you are right because if you are not, America, to remain America, will have to go to war against the Left.

  • reggie

    I second that motion.

  • Curtis

    Have you guys seen Rising threats shrinking military on Fox News. What Obama has done to our military Hillary is going to keep it that way. Every single thing Obama has tried to do everything he has tried to do has failed in the Middle East. He did not take the advice from his past three defense secretaries. Obama and Hillary taken out Gaddafi was a screw up. When they help take out the Egyptian president and the Muslim Brotherhood came in that was a screw up. Then the Egyptian people formed together and throughout the muslimbrotherhood. The muslimbrotherhood assholes own Hillary Clinton. These young women and older women that are voting for Hillary have no idea what they’re doing when they put that vote towards Hillary. Hillary and Bill also belong to the Bilderberg Group. And their main goal is to disarm Americans and destroy our constitution and make every American rely upon the government for everything in their daily life. Everything. Hillary needs to be stopped now at all cost.