MEDIA AGREES HILLARY FUNDED BY ANTI-GAY REGIMES, STILL CALLS IT “CONSPIRACY THEORY”

Liberal reporters scramble to justify Hillary's ties to anti-woman dictators

Kit Daniels - JUNE 23, 2016

Despite admitting Hillary Clinton took money from Saudi Arabia and other anti-woman regimes while serving at Secretary of State, the mainstream media still claims it’s a “conspiracy theory.”

In what’s perhaps the most hypocritical article of the campaign, Slate’s Jeremy Stahl confirmed the Clinton Foundation raked in millions from anti-gay monarchs and other third-world dictators, but not only did he question whether it was a conflict of interest, Stahl also failed to acknowledge the hypocrisy of a Democratic candidate taking donations from countries that behead gays and stone women.

“It’s true that… Bill and Hillary’s Clinton Foundation did take between $10 million and $25 million from Saudi Arabia and millions more from other regimes and political actors that oppress the rights of women, gays, and religious minorities,” Stahl wrote. “Trump has demanded that the foundation return the money. Whether or not this was an actual conflict of interest when Clinton served as secretary of state, it certainly contributes to a general sense that the Clintons are too enmeshed with too many wicked people to be clean themselves.”

“Here at the Trump rally it means more than that: It is reason to throw Clinton behind bars.”


Actually, the reason why people are calling for Hillary’s imprisonment is due to her presumptive violation of the Freedom of Information Act by keeping government e-mails on a homebrew server so the public – including liberals, conservatives, whoever – would be completely in the dark about what she was doing as a public official.

If her defense is ignorance of the law, then she has no business running for the White House.

There’s also the fact she illegally kept classified documents on her server which was ultimately breached by a Romanian hacker and likely others.

But don’t expect Stahl or other mainstream reporters to point any of that out; Stahl’s article in particular is a case study in media hypocrisy.

Remember how the leftist media tore into Trump when white supremacist David Duke endorsed him back in Feb., despite Trump having no connection to him except for having condemned Duke in 2000 when supremacists took over the Reform Party.

“So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep,” Trump said at the time.

Now compare that to the preferential treatment the media’s giving Clinton despite her actual connections to sexist and homophobic leaders of the Middle East. Have leftist reporters demanded Clinton disavow these associations? Nope.

If mainstream reporters like Stahl want to be liberals and have liberal opinions, it’s whatever. They have a right to do that, but here’s the problem: they’re also trying to portray themselves as objective observers of reality despite having an establishment bias that often runs contrary to reality.

And when it comes to Stahl, he has to ignore reality to downplay the conflict of interest of a female presidential candidate pushing her gender on the campaign trail while simultaneously taking millions from anti-woman, far-right regimes

.