Remember that `vast right-wing conspiracy'?


Well...its back. With bells on!.


 The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy: Hillary Clinton's Scandals Finally Catch Up
to
Mainstream Media - Breitbart


by Ben Shapiro21 Apr 20150



In 1998, as the media caught onto the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Hillary Clinton
appeared on The Today Show with Matt Lauer to defend her wayward husband. She
blamed the Drudge Report and the rest of her political enemies for her
husband's travails:


I do believe that this is a battle. I mean, look at the very people who are
involved in this - they have popped up in other settings. This is - the great
story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is
this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband
since the day he announced for president.


Now, as Peter Schweizer's book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why
Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, hits the
market, Hillary is utilizing the same defense while in New Hampshire. Asked
specifically about the charges that the Clinton Foundation took cash while she
was Secretary of State, and that administration policy magically changed in
favor of those who gave the cash:


We're back into the political system and therefore I'll be subjected to all
kinds of distraction and attacks and I'm ready for that. I know that that
comes unfortunately with the territory. It is I think worth noting that the
Republicans seem to be talking only about me. I don't know what they'd talk
about if I weren't in the race.


The vast right-wing conspiracy to get Hillary Clinton has apparently evolved
to include a huge bevy of formerly left-wing and left-center sources who see
Schweizer's book as a legitimate derailing force for Hillary's campaign.


For example, Cameron Barr, national editor of The Washington Post, said that
"Mr. Schweizer's background and his point of view are relevant factors, but
not disqualifying ones. What interests us more are his facts and whether they
can be the basis for further reporting by our own staff that would be
compelling to our readers."� Clearly, Barr has been co-opted by the nefarious
Koch Brothers.


Then there's Margaret Hartman of New York Magazine, that notorious right-wing
outlet, who wrote, "The claims might not be as entertaining as Hillary hurling
yet another object at Bill, but if there's any fact to them, we're going to
hear about it."� Hartman also noted, "the Times says [Schweizer's] tone is
neutral and the book is meticulously researched."�


Over at The Atlantic, David Graham defended Clinton over the allegations he
had not yet read, stating that super PACs would be poorly positioned to make
Americans aware of Hillary's corruption. But even Graham had to add, "a
forthcoming book by Peter Schweizer has excited the political world with
allegations of quid pro quos, in which foreign governments gave to the Clinton
Foundation and Hillary Clinton, then serving as secretary of state, did them
favor - sessentially alleging bribery in foreign affairs."� His anti-Clinton
agenda couldn't be more obvious, of course.


And there's Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post, who has never been mistaken
for a Republican activist. The media critic wrote of Schweizer's book:


OF COURSE we should be examining the claims made in Schweizer's book. Come on!
The most foundational principle of covering a presidential campaign (or
anything, really) is trying your damnedest to give people the fullest possible
picture of the candidates running to represent them.  The more information you
have at your disposal then, the better….We are information-gatherers at
heart.

Our job as reporters and editors and, more broadly as an organization, is to
vet all of the information that comes at us to see what should be reported,
what shouldn't and what needs to be followed-up on. How then can we (or any
media organization) justify turning aside everything in Schweizer's book
without a glance.


The good news for Hillary: some members of her beloved media will still come
to her rescue. Dylan Byers at Politico is out to defend the fair maiden
Hillary at all costs:


The New York Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have made exclusive
agreements with a conservative author for early access to his opposition
research on Hillary Clinton, a move that has confounded members of the Clinton
campaign and some reporters, the On Media blog has confirmed.


As Cillizza razzed, "So, it's not just the Clinton campaign that's unhappy
with the deal made by the Times, Post and Fox News. It's "some reporters"
too."


At the International Business Times, columnist Howard Koplowitz went even
further, vetting Schweizer rather than the claims in Schweizer's book with a
piece titled, "Who is Peter Schweizer, "Clinton Cash: Author? 5 Things to Know
About Hillary Clinton Book Writer."� Why, it's almost as if Koplowitz cares
more about smearing Schweizer than about actually reporting factual claims
about a presidential candidate. As though he were part of a vast left-wing
conspiracy, or something.


And, of course, Salon.com, which publishes pieces about the value of incest,
came to Clinton's defense as well, calling Schweizer's book a "sketchy Hillary
"expose." "� The author of the piece, Heather Digby Parton, admits that the
topic is well worth looking into and admits further that if the claims of the
book are true, Hillary ought to be grilled on them. Then Parton spends the
next several paragraphs explaining that no matter what the book says, it must
be chock full of lies because Schweizer has written for Breitbart News.


Bad news for Hillary: the VRWC seems to have grown beyond its normal bounds.

Or maybe, just maybe, Schweizer's claims have legs, and even Hillary's normal
allies have been forced to acknowledge that unpleasant fact.

---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Check Out Doc's QWK Mail  Via Web BBS > DocsPlace.org  (1:123/140)