UPDATE: “Federal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides … Prosecutors also are expected to seek an interview with Clinton herself …”
“… the [Washington] Post summation makes clear that the mainstream press had almost nothing to do with uncovering the truth or advancing the story [of Hillary's email scandal]. …
So says Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) in an erudite op-ed headline story entitled “Clinton Email Scandal: How A Biased Press Tried To Ignore It.” Is it acceptable — even surprising — for many mainstream media titans to have willfully attempted to manipulate the outcome of a U.S. presidential election? Obviously, it is not acceptable — and I see more bias in “journalism” now than I ever have in my life. If Hillary Clinton were an average American, i.e., not a member of powerful dynastic family nor a former holder of high office, she would have already been indicted for damaging national security — at least have been forced to withdraw her candidacy for the U.S. presidency. (Our current two-party system has created many obstacles to prevent “little” or “average” people from getting anywhere near a position in high public office.) IBD editors paint a detailed, sordid, and well-documented portrait of America’s news media blatantly clearing a path for Hillary, whom they knew was and is most likely a felon, to become President of the United States:
… No one reading the [Washington] Post’s 5,000-word account can come away thinking that the Clinton email scandal is unimportant.
The FBI now has 147 agents chasing down leads. A key person involved in the scandal has been granted immunity. Hillary Clinton — who has already been caught in several lies — might be questioned by federal agents. There are fairly obvious violations of the law, even if it’s just those governing record-keeping. And there were, and continue to be, concerns that national security secrets were compromised, or at least casually disregarded. …
IBD does rightfully credit the Washington Post for reporting so thoroughly on Clinton’s flagrant flaunting of national security protocols. IBD itself appears 5th in a list of the “Top 5 U.S. Daily Newspapers with Paywalls” and 11th in a list of the “Top 25 U.S. Daily Newspaper Digital Editions.” We do thankfully still have at least some semblance of a free press. It is ironic that most media bias is driven by a philosophical/political agenda or plain greed, and is generally not a result of government coercion.
Hillary’s ability to, at least so far, walk on water is a symptom of the sad state of affairs in American politics: 1) too many citizens have disengaged from voting and grassroots activism, willfully or passively shirking their civic duty to protect democracy; and, 2) because citizens have disengaged, the U.S. has developed a professional political elite class, beholden mostly to the lobbyists with the fattest wallets and seeking to stay in office forever. George Orwell concluded his brilliant treatise Animal Farm with these words (you can read the whole book here):
… All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. … Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
As a nation, we’ve allowed some citizens to be more equal than others. We’ve allowed certain power-hungry individuals to obtain much more control over fellow citizens than our Founders intended (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”). Letting another Clinton walk upon water would be an enormous mistake and would set a very undemocratic precedent. But there still may be hope.
Our national government still has some checks and balances. When Hillary and then-Senator Barack Obama were vying against each other for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, the two candidates and campaigns often traded vitriolic and acrimonious barbs. These solar system-sized egos bruise easily. Hillary has often distanced herself from Obama during the current 2016 race. The FBI is currently conducting a large-scale investigation of Clinton. As headlines continually announce new revelations of Hillary’s alleged crimes, the pressure will mount on the White House to steer clear of meddling with the FBI’s investigation:
A former U.S. attorney predicted this week that Hillary Clinton “will not make it to the finish line” in 2016 because she will soon be facing a criminal indictment from the FBI. During an appearance on Laura Ingraham’s radio show Tuesday, famed attorney Joseph DiGenova said that the FBI has “reached a critical mass in their investigation of the secretary and all of her senior staff” and predicted that it would come to a head “in the next 60 days.”
DiGenova, who rose to national prominence during the Clinton scandals of the ’90s, told Ingraham that if Attorney General Loretta Lynch refuses to indict Clinton, there will be a “massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an Attorney General.”
FBI Director James Comey has not indicated when his agents will wrap up their months-long probe into Clinton’s possibly illegal “homebrew” email server, but during a Senate hearing last month, he said the FBI doesn’t “give a rip about politics” and that President Obama has not been briefed on the investigation.
DiGenova said that the FBI already “has so much information about criminal conduct by her and her staff that there is no way that they walk away from this.” …
Hillary’s “Emailgate” is ethically too big to sweep under the carpet. Will it be too big politically to sweep under the rug?