Hillary and the press

At the debate this week, Hillary Clinton again attacked Donald Trump -- accusing him of legally paying no taxes.

It's strange, isn't it, how the press allowed her to get away with that?

She's the candidate who's had her name listed in the press as a tax delinquent.

Or do her days in Little Rock no longer matter?

Let's be clear on that, Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, is accused of legally not paying taxes by Hillary Clinton who illegally did not pay taxes leading to her being listed as a tax delinquent.

And the press didn't find that worth commentary?

While pretending they're not trying to throw the election to Hillary?

They've also worked very hard to excuse her defense of a child rapist.

It's apparently an exception to what she did as a lawyer?

Really?

Because one of her first cases for Rose Law Firm  was domestic abuse.  She described the man who was her client as well over 300 pounds and "guilty as hell" of beating his wife.  But she got the case thrown out of court.

Explain to me again how she's a friend of women and girls?

Explain to me why I know about her work for domestic abusers but the press won't report on it?

Oh, that's right, they're not practicing journalism, they're practicing spin.


Or maybe it's just protecting the Establishment?

Wasn't that Hillary's accusation in VANITY FAIR back in 1992?

"Why does the press shy away from investigating rumors about George Bush's extramarital life?" she asked Gail Sheehy.

What was Hillary's answer?

"I'm convinced that the silence about that is part of the Establishment -- regardless of party -- sticking together.  Fitzerald, Bush's mistress and all these other people."



Wasn't that Hillary's accusation in VANITY FAIR back in 1992?

Is Hillary's 1992 assertion the reason the press dismisses Juanita Broaddrick?


Let's turn to their refusal to ever ask Bill Clinton or Hillary about the charges that Bill Clinton committed rape.


In February 1999, then-NOW president Patricia Ireland issued a statement which included the following:


We will likely never know the truth about Juanita Broaddrick's accusation against Bill Clinton. It's virtually impossible to prove or defend against a 21-year-old rape charge. Perhaps the best way to respond is to call on President Clinton and his supporters not to launch a broadside against his accuser and to urge the president and the Congress to work to improve the status of women.
The Washington Post reports that government investigators "found her account inconclusive." Ms. Broaddrick's account, however, is particularly compelling because, like Kathleen Willey, she has been a reluctant witness with no apparent political or financial motivation.
I understand why she would not want to get involved with the Paula Jones case and why she would give an affidavit denying what she now says is true.
I understand why a woman wouldn't file charges of rape 21 years ago--especially against the attorney general of Arkansas -- especially if she's a married woman who's having an affair. And I understand why she has been reluctant to come forward now.
When I was in law school, I learned that the best rape survivor from the prosecution's point of view is a woman who is old enough to tell her story, but not old enough to have ever had a smoke, a drink or a date.
Ever since the Garden of Eden, in sexual matters, men have been dominant and women have taken the blame.
Ms. Broaddrick says even she blamed herself at the time. After all, she had invited him up to her room. And she was sure she would not be believed.

Now that she has come forward with her story, the National Organization for Women urges everyone to treat Juanita Broaddrick fairly and respectfully and to take her charges seriously. She must not be besieged by attacks on her mental state or character.


And yet 'reporters' like Andrea Mitchell?

She called Broaddrick "discredited" in a report this year -- a report even NBC NEWS knew was wrong so they later -- after broadcast -- edited the comment out of the online version.


What is the reason?

It's been an interesting time since the debate -- where Hillary's charges and claims should have resulted in press scrutiny but instead the media wasn't interested in that.

They were interested in covering for Hillary and focusing on non-issues.


It was left to THE NEW REPUBLIC to serve up "The Huge Corporate Tax Cut Hillary Clinton Doesn't Talk About."

And notice how little pick up and traction that David Dayen article received.