Corruption and Democrats

It is well past time to finally acknowledge an inconvenient truth in American politics: The Democratic Party is thoroughly corrupt. This sad state has come about thanks to a Media which has overlooked the Democrats' crimes for far too long. Nowadays, the Democrats not only don't worry about the Media calling them out for wrongdoings, but they even expect assistance from the Media to cover up failures. The Democratic Party is no longer accountable to anyone.

Case in point: Hillary Clinton's email scandal. From beginning to end, this situation carried the stench of corruption, when it wasn't downright illegal.

Consider this story, from PJ Media:

A new document released by the FBI late this afternoon in another Friday document dump adds another damning piece of evidence to the inexplicably closed Clinton email case. 

An employee at Platte River Networks, the company that managed Hillary Clinton's emails after she left the State Department, sent a work ticket that referred to the "Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation" (Hillary cover-up operation) after Clinton's team had asked the company to modify her email system so that it would automatically delete messages after 60 days.  

Even the IT guy recognizes what is happening, yet the FBI doesn't?

How about this story, from Politico:

President Barack Obama used a pseudonym in email communications with Hillary Clinton and others, according to FBI records made public Friday. 

The disclosure came as the FBI released its second batch of documents from its investigation into Clinton’s private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. 

The 189 pages the bureau released includes interviews with some of Clinton’s closest aides, such as Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills; senior State Department officials; and even Marcel Lazar, better known as the Romanian hacker “Guccifer.” 

In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender. 

"Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be a pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report says. "Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."

Good question Huma. However, the better question is raised by this, from CBS News last year:

President Obama only learned of Hillary Clinton's private email address use for official State Department business after a New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview. 

CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama. 

"The same time everybody else learned it through news reports," the president told Plante.

As former National Security Agency analyst John Schindler said:

What is odd, however, is the fact that Obama previously told the media that he only learned of Hillary’s irregular email and server arrangements from “news reports.” How the president failed to notice that he was emailing his top diplomat at her personal, clintonmail.com address, not a state.gov account, particularly when they were discussing official business, is something Congress may want to find out – since certainly the FBI won’t.

To use Howard Baker's famous Watergate question, "What did the President know and when did he know it?"

Here is what we know:

• Obama knew what Clinton was doing, and lied about it. 
• Her IT guy suspected Clinton was covering something up, and joked about it.
• Clinton was doing something which was, at the very least, unethical, as secretary of state. (Based on her actions for Russia, after their donation to the Clinton Foundation, she was at least selling her influence.)
• Bill Clinton met with U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch in her airplane a week before the FBI announced they were not pressing charges against Hillary.
• FBI Director James Comey admitted that anyone else who did what Clinton did would have faced "sanctions". 
• Based on current law (which was the law when she became secretary of state), Clinton's use of an unsecured private email server to send classified information via email was illegal. 

Hillary Clinton knew going into her job as secretary of state that she was going to do something politically unpalatable, if not illegal. We know she did, and everyone around her, including President Obama, knew she was up to something.

In summary, something illegal occurred, and it is highly likely that pressure was applied to the FBI to keep them from prosecuting Hillary Clinton.

But here is the kicker: Even with all of this known, there is no Media outrage. If a Republican did what Hillary Clinton did, it would be a 24/7/365 news story until the Republican was in jail.

If you still think the Media hasn't given Hillary a "get out of jail free card", consider this story from WND:

If you can’t even win when the rules are changed in your favor, things must be REALLY bad.

That’s how it looks for Hillary Clinton’s new 2016 campaign book, “Stronger Together,” co-authored with running mate Tim Kaine.

WND reported just days ago when the book was being savaged on Amazon.com with negative reviews, with 81 percent one-star ratings and an average of only 1.7.

Clinton supporters lashed out at “trolls” they said were criticizing the book only because they oppose the Democrat’s presidential candidacy.

WND previously reported there were more than 1,200 reviews, and the number grew to than 2,000.

But Thursday afternoon, there were only 255, with many of the most critical reviews removed by Amazon, whose CEO, Jeff Bezos, owns the Washington Post, which created an army of 20 reporters and researchers to investigate the life of Donald Trump.

Victory for the Clinton book, however, remains out of grasp, with the negative, one-star responses, outnumbering positive, five-star responses nearly 2-1.

The one-star ratings Thursday were 62 percent, to 35 percent for five-star ratings.

And reviewers many times simply punched the five-star button then made harshly critical condemnations of the book and Hillary Clinton.

From suz702, who posted a five-star ranking: “I didn’t buy this book or read this book, but I have read the reviews, and enjoyed hours of entertaining, fun filled reading, expressing the TRUTH, about a crooked, lying, corrupt, terminally ill Presidential candidate, who stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders, and who is about the steal the Presidency with the use of election fraud. 10 Stars to the authors of these reviews. Proof that not only are Amazon.com shoppers of superior intelligence, but thye call it like they see it…. Amazon shows this as a verified purchase, when I didn’t buy the book … how fun!”

If Media companies will bend over backwards to prop up a bad Hillary Clinton book, is it any surprise they seem to have no concerns about Hillary's criminal behavior?

I will not tell you to vote for Donald Trump or Gary Johnson or Jill Stein because of this. But I will tell you that a Hillary Clinton presidency will have absolutely no journalistic oversight from the MSM. Based on her history, she could commit a Watergate-style crime and the MSM wouldn't say a peep about it.