Immerse yourself in any political argument on the Internet, and eventually, someone will say, “Well, at least we didn’t elect the criminal Hillary Clinton.” And the other side will say, “You investigated her for 25 years and got nothing … isn’t that perhaps because she’s not a criminal?” But take a look at a batch of emails  made public last week by the American Center for Law and Justice, and it’s easy to see how Clinton could have engaged in considerable criminal activity and still escaped prosecution.
The emails were part of a Freedom of Information Act request for records related to the meeting between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport.
The American Center for Law and Justice sent requests to both the FBI and Department of Justice requesting records, and the Justice Department said at first that it had no records responsive to the request.
Rather than not having any responsive records, as the Lynch DOJ and James Comey FBI claimed, “It is clear,” the American Center for Law and Justice wrote, “that there were multiple records within the FBI responsive to our request and that discussions regarding the surreptitious meeting between then-AG Lynch and the husband of the subject of an ongoing FBI criminal investigation reached the highest levels of the FBI.”
Most of the emails amount to FBI and Justice PR people getting their stories straight on why the two were meeting and why the press was not allowed to photograph the get-together.
For reporters with the ethics to put their readers first, rather than the political agenda of their favored presidential candidate, the fact that questions about this meeting are being raised and aggressively evaded should have set off alarm bells. It did, in the sense that liberal reporters with The Washington Post, New York Times and ABC News leaped into action to kill the story.
Washington Post reporter Matt Zapotosky emails Melanie Newman, director of the Office of Public Affairs at the Department of Justice, and says his mean ol’ editors just can’t seem to get past all the awful shadiness here.
“Any chance one of you could give me a call for another, hopefully quick, conversation on this AG-Clinton meeting?” Zapotosky emails. “My editors are still pretty interested in it, and I’m hoping I can put it to rest by answering just a few more questions about how the meeting came about – who approached who, and how did they realize they were in the same place?”
In other words, please give me something plausible to tell my editors, so they don’t make me write a story that could get Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama and/or James Comey in trouble. Give me something cute about how Bill figured out it was his old buddy Loretta and he needed to talk golf and grandkids.
Mark Landler of The New York Times wanted no part of writing what could be a negative story on the Hillary campaign either. He “almost apologizes for even inquiring” about it, pointing out he is a White House correspondent who has been “pressed into service” to even make these inquiries.
“Could you let me know what DoJ and the AG have said specifically about this meeting and whether she believes it constitutes a conflict of interest, given the ongoing email investigation?” In other words, what are your canned answers on this?
Then there is an email in which the Justice Department spokeswoman says she has “talked to the ABC producer, who noted that they aren’t interested, even if FOX runs with it.”
So how has Hillary managed to skate through public life for going on 40 years and dance between the raindrops of criminal prosecutions? It’s not that she hasn’t had close calls – intimidation of women involved in the various bimbo eruptions, Whitewater, Madison, Benghazi, Uranium One, pay-for-play with the Clinton Foundation and others.
But here are three reporters from three of the main media organizations in the country … one of whom would rather do anything than look into what should have been an obvious story, another who is more resentful he is being tasked with something not on his beat than concerned about a conflict-of-interest hiding a key prosecution at the highest levels of government and another reporter assuring a friend in the government that the regular policies are in place when it comes to protecting Hillary Clinton from another scandal.
This is not shading the news to fit the agenda. This is not fake news – reporting of unconfirmed innuendo because it makes one’s political enemies look bad. This isn’t even standard liberal media misstating of the facts to tell a story that differs from the truth.
This is actively colluding with people who should be the subject of stories, of intense and dedicated reporting to keep those stories out of the news or at least minimize the “damage”’ to the subjects.
It is not reporting. It is not news-gathering. It is not journalism. It is advocacy. And it is the reason Hillary Clinton has been able to get away with so much for 40 years.