Monday, October 10, 2016

Washington Post: Hillary Kool-Aid Drinkers

If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation.” – Republican nominee Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton during the second presidential debate, October 9, 2016

Mark the moment. A major-party presidential nominee is officially promising to lock up his political opponent, despite an impartial federal investigation....” An anonymous Washington Post editorial, October 10, 2016

As The Post is a Hillary fundraiser, it's impossible for them to be impartial related to Mrs. Clinton's candidacy. In practice that makes them a propagandist rag rather than a legitimate news source.

This is proven by how The Post has, once again, twisted reality into something completely unrecognizable. In their absurdist editorial “A threat to the rule of law,” Donald Trump's pledge to do the right thing—to prosecute Hillary Clinton's obvious corruption—is “wrong”? Let us cite the legal basis: under Title 18, Section 1924, of federal law, it is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and imprisonment for any federal employee to knowingly remove classified information “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.” Mrs. Clinton's non-government, unapproved servers certainly qualify. Thus, Mr. Trump's promise of a special prosecutor for Mrs. Clinton is actually following legal precedent: holding the powerful to the same legal standard as everyone else. Isn't that the purpose of our American democracy rather than the whims of the rich and politically powerful?

Mysteriously, the Post doesn't agree writing: “If anyone needed any more proof that Mr. Trump does not understand the meaning of rule of law as opposed to arbitrary rule of autocrat—that he would use the levers of the federal government in a vindictive, self-serving and corrupt manner—Mr. Trump provided it.” As an example, does Barack Obama's continuing misuse of the IRS to target political opponents suddenly not qualify? Why does The Post confuse outsider Trump with the acts of the current president who has existed by dictatorial overreaching executive orders for the last eight years?

In any case, since when does a politically motivated sham of an FBI investigation mean anything? Only to the Kool-Aid drinkers at The Post. They're the ones who “snarl and double down on old falsehoods” in their jaded character assassination of truth-telling Trump.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

No comments:

Post a Comment