To cover or not to cover ... that is the question

There was an excellent discussion on MSNBC this morning featuring Midwin Charles, who said the media needs to be more discerning and not give Donald Trump the “shiny bouncing ball” for everything he says. I absolutely agree with this.

And I agree with her comments about Hillary Clinton. Trump, the right and the right-wing media is consumed with her. (Reminder, righties … she was CLEARED last week.) How come the right isn’t concerned with Ivanka Trump using personal email while in the White House?

The problem isn’t so much in covering Trump as it is the impossible task of putting things into their proper context when there is a constant deluge of new, horrible stuff that also has to be covered. Hillary Clinton’s e-mails turned into months of headlines because she wasn’t providing the media with new fodder each and every day like Trump and his people do. It’s almost a rewarding of incompetence and shady behavior.

1 Like

Yep. Hillary’s emails were what the media used to created a balanced drama on their entertainment programming. Every time trump did something new and awful it had to be balanced by bringing up emails the same way people bring up if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor to play make believe that Trump’s pattern of lying is no different than what Obama did.

She may not have been but Trump milked it. And he’s doing the same with the Biden story.

1 Like

Trumps lies and Obamas “lies” are two different animals. They don’t even compare.

I liked my doctor and kept my doctor so no lie.

The media, desperate to keep up the “both sides” narrative that they always keep going in an attempt to seem unbiased, were the ones constantly going back to that well. Trump can say or do whatever he wants. The media isn’t forced to cover it the way they do.

She wasn’t cleared. She broke the law there is no debate about that fact. Zero.

They have basically decided not to charge her. That is all.

It’s about the same as watching a guy do 70mph through a school zone, and the cop giving them a warning. You have two eyes, you know the law was broken. For whatever reason the authorities just decided to let them get away with it.


Why? What could possibly be the reason that, during the first two years of his presidency, holding both the house and senate, nothin was done? I haven’t heard a valid excuse other than the evidence itself just isn’t there.

1 Like

I think most people would agree what she did was wrong. That really isn’t in question. The issue I had was this notion that it was somehow way beyond the pale or outside of the norm of what previous Secretaries of State had also done. Colin Powell and Condi Rice both used private e-mail for official business, including of classified information. Neither one of those instances were treated like massive scandals, because neither of the participants were Democratic nominees for President.

She was cleared, no matter how many times the lie is perpetuated.

1 Like

Read the actual law required for charges.

If she had classified data on her server, which she did, then she broke the law. It really is that simple with this law.

As for why they decided not to charge her? Who knows. Probably because it would open the door to holding politicians of all parties to the same standards they expect everyone else to follow.

If I remember right Powell had one that was classified. He had a personal account and I think he had everything cc’d to the official account.

Wrong, but a bit different in scale and motive. And yes he could have been charged for it as well.

They’re not charging her. If they could (this is the Trump admin., remember) they would.

1 Like

Regardless of what Trump says, they could. For some other reason they aren’t.

Because nothing would come of it and Trump has been informed of this and he’d rather use the false rhetoric as a bludgeon to go after his rivals.

Your supposition isn’t proof of any wrongdoing.

We have the proof. Classified information on an unsecured server is illegal. There is quite literally zero debate as to weather she broke the law. She did.

The debate starts and ends around why charges were not brought, and if they had would they go anywhere.

Both of those indicate a broken system that covers for their own. If they don’t charge her it indicates a system unwilling to police its own. If they do charge her and nothing comes of it it indicates the same.

No, that’s not it.

The “crime” that you believe Clinton to be guilty of was found unconstitutional as applied to Clinton’s case.

There is a significant Constitutional law debate about whether she could be prosecuted under the law.

No, that’s not the debate.

None of this is correct.

No civilian in United States history has ever been convicted of the law you believe Clinton violated under a similar fact pattern.