The Hillary protection racket

It should be a big story if additional information comes out that shows just how willing Hillary Clinton and her aides were to violate national security laws and essentially used her paid position in government to enrich herself and hand out favors.  Sadly, since most reporters support Hillary, they bury the story.

A few excerpts from the Washington Examiner:

The watchdog group also said several emails in the newly released batch show Clinton using her official position as secretary of state to trade favors and to provide influence to donors to the Clinton campaign and donors to the Clinton Foundation.

For example, emails from April 2009 show a Puerto Rican TV executive named Miguel Lausell making a request that started with Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band, but was then moved over to Abedin. Lausell was pushing for his preferred candidate to become U.S. Ambassador to the Dominican Republic, and was reportedly a donor to both the Clinton presidential center and the Clinton Global Initiative.

"Pay to play, classified information mishandling, influence peddling, cover ups – these new emails show why the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's conduct must be resumed," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a press release. "The Trump Justice Department and FBI need to reassure the American people they have finally stopped providing political protection to Hillary Clinton."

Reporters should search deep to ask themselves if Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and his aides intentionally violated national security laws; deleted massive numbers of emails to evade many laws, including the Freedom of Information Act; used his position to raise funds for a private foundation; jacked up speaking fees for his wife, including large amounts from Russia as well as other foreign governments; and handed out favors like candy to those who increased the Clintons' wealth.  Would they say that is OK and support him anyway or would they go after him with wall-to-wall news coverage and investigations?

Would they support a decision by the FBI director to not prosecute even if he admitted how many laws Tillerson and his aides had hypothetically violated?

Would the media be supportive of Attorney General Jeff Sessions if he told the FBI director to call it "a matter" instead of an investigation?

Would the reporters accept that Sessions met with Tillerson's wife to talk about vacations and grandchildren a few days before a pretend interview with Tillerson, or would they call for Tillerson to be canned?

Would congressional Democrats give Tillerson and his aides a pass like they did Hillary?

I would hope that if reporters searched deep, they would see their double standard on reporting based on whether they support a person's policy positions and not whether he violated the law, which Hillary obviously did.  She should have been prosecuted just as other people have been for far more minor transgressions.

It should be a big story if additional information comes out that shows just how willing Hillary Clinton and her aides were to violate national security laws and essentially used her paid position in government to enrich herself and hand out favors.  Sadly, since most reporters support Hillary, they bury the story.

A few excerpts from the Washington Examiner:

The watchdog group also said several emails in the newly released batch show Clinton using her official position as secretary of state to trade favors and to provide influence to donors to the Clinton campaign and donors to the Clinton Foundation.

For example, emails from April 2009 show a Puerto Rican TV executive named Miguel Lausell making a request that started with Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band, but was then moved over to Abedin. Lausell was pushing for his preferred candidate to become U.S. Ambassador to the Dominican Republic, and was reportedly a donor to both the Clinton presidential center and the Clinton Global Initiative.

"Pay to play, classified information mishandling, influence peddling, cover ups – these new emails show why the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's conduct must be resumed," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a press release. "The Trump Justice Department and FBI need to reassure the American people they have finally stopped providing political protection to Hillary Clinton."

Reporters should search deep to ask themselves if Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and his aides intentionally violated national security laws; deleted massive numbers of emails to evade many laws, including the Freedom of Information Act; used his position to raise funds for a private foundation; jacked up speaking fees for his wife, including large amounts from Russia as well as other foreign governments; and handed out favors like candy to those who increased the Clintons' wealth.  Would they say that is OK and support him anyway or would they go after him with wall-to-wall news coverage and investigations?

Would they support a decision by the FBI director to not prosecute even if he admitted how many laws Tillerson and his aides had hypothetically violated?

Would the media be supportive of Attorney General Jeff Sessions if he told the FBI director to call it "a matter" instead of an investigation?

Would the reporters accept that Sessions met with Tillerson's wife to talk about vacations and grandchildren a few days before a pretend interview with Tillerson, or would they call for Tillerson to be canned?

Would congressional Democrats give Tillerson and his aides a pass like they did Hillary?

I would hope that if reporters searched deep, they would see their double standard on reporting based on whether they support a person's policy positions and not whether he violated the law, which Hillary obviously did.  She should have been prosecuted just as other people have been for far more minor transgressions.

RECENT VIDEOS