As soon as James O'Keefe released the video and Rob and I discussed putting something together about it, we figured this was going to happen. A man closely associated with the Clinton campaign and the DNC - not knowing he's being recorded, of course - admits that Hillary is illegally giving orders for idiotic hijinks to go on at Donald Trump rallies. The point is not how stupid the whole Donald Duck thing is (and it's very stupid indeed). The point is that a candidate cannot be giving orders to a Super PAC to do things.
That's a felony violation of campaign law. It's the sort of thing that, once it's known, becomes a major scandal and a huge news story. It dominates the morning shows. It brings legal experts onto the afternoon shows to discuss what this means for the election. Its the biggest headline of the month - candidate implicated in felony.
Oh! Sorry! That's true if it's a normal candidate. When it's Hillary Clinton who was caught committing the felony, you can predict exactly what the media's response is going to be - utter silence.
How uniform was it? Check this screenshot from late yesterday afternoon, a little over 24 hours after O'Keefe released the video. I did a news search for Robert Creamer. What do you see?
Media's response to major party nominee being implicated in felony: Silence
Yep. All the coverage, without exception, is from conservative online media or talk radio. Absolutely nothing from the mainstream. Absolutely no coverage of a major party nominee being implicated in a felony. I would use the word unbelievable, but how can I use that word when we fully expected it?
The media are trying to defeat Trump and help Hillary get elected
Now you can imagine the likely explanations, of course. The most obvious one would be that they don't like O'Keefe's method of using hidden cameras to record people, which is hilarious coming from the people who went hog wild over a certain tape of Donald Trump just three weeks ago. They might also argue that Creamer's comments on the video are not admissible in court, which is true. But they're not a court. They're the media. Are the claims of Trump's female accusers admissible in court? Some yes, some no, probably. But don't tell me for one second that they make that calculation when they decide to rush to the air with the story.
The fact of the matter is that this would have been a massive story if not for one thing, and it's something we also talked about yesterday: The media are trying to defeat Trump and help Hillary get elected, and covering this story would be working at cross-purposes with their agenda.
You can complain about media bias in all kinds of large and small ways, and you can argue about whether it's really happening or you're just wanting more favorable coverage for your side than is reasonable to expect. But when a story this big is so universally ignored, there's no way you can deny any further that the fix is in.
Support Canada Free Press
Our media are a disgrace. There's no redeeming them
Like I said last week, it's not voting fraud that's rigging this election. It's the news media. They do it by playing up narratives that help Hillary and ignoring anything that won't help her. Like, the truth about Hillary. They buried this news because this news has the potential to bury her, and they know it.
Much of the media claim would have you believe they're only helping Hillary now because Trump is so dangerous or whatever, but that we shouldn't worry because once she's president they'll "hold her accountable" or whatever. No they won't. You can't claim you'll hold someone accountable when you helped hide the truth so as to put her in power, which is exactly what they've been doing this entire campaign - and never more so than the past few days.
Our media are a disgrace. There's no redeeming them. Ever.
As soon as James O'Keefe released the video and Rob and I discussed putting something together about it, we figured this was going to happen. A man closely associated with the Clinton campaign and the DNC - not knowing he's being recorded, of course - admits that Hillary is illegally giving orders for idiotic hijinks to go on at Donald Trump rallies. The point is not how stupid the whole Donald Duck thing is (and it's very stupid indeed). The point is that a candidate cannot be giving orders to a Super PAC to do things.
That's a felony violation of campaign law. It's the sort of thing that, once it's known, becomes a major scandal and a huge news story. It dominates the morning shows. It brings legal experts onto the afternoon shows to discuss what this means for the election. Its the biggest headline of the month - candidate implicated in felony.
