Corrupt democrats complain: All disclosures that hurt Clinton are 'trying to influence the election,' and therefore shouldn't be covered by the media

Monday, November 07, 2016 by: J. D. Heyes
Tags: Democrats, media influence, election

---

(NaturalNews) If anything, this presidential election cycle has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is a clear double standard when it comes to the media. How the so-called "establishment" media does and does not report depends on which party the candidate belongs to.

And to that end, clearly the establishment media have done all they can to protect and defend the most criminally corrupt candidate vying for the nation's highest office in the history of our republic: Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

A letter to the editors of the Denver Post sums this up.

The writer, Roger Yates from Aurora, says that no one should cast a ballot for Clinton until they've read all of the leaked emails that have been published by WikiLeaks.

"Those voting for Hillary Clinton, defending Clinton and supporting Clinton without reading the information reported by WikiLeaks are intellectually no different than those who criticize climate science without ever having read the science. In short, if you defend Clinton and ignore WikiLeaks, you have something in common with Sarah Palin," Yates writes.

You need to educate yourself because the media won't do it

Whether or not you agree with his references to climate change (which is a hoax) or the former governor of Alaska and onetime vice presidential nominee, his premise is spot-on: You simply cannot make an informed decision without reading documents and email exchanges that no one from the Clinton campaign has seriously challenged as being false.

And the reason why you ought to go and read these documents for yourself, Yates points out, is because the establishment media – which is supposed to serve as a watchdog on government, regardless of who is in power – has done such a lousy job of informing the public about what's in them ... all because most of those outlets are in the tank for (insert Democratic presidential candidate's name here).

This year, that name just happens to be "Hillary Clinton."

If all of this sounds too "James Bond" for you – too unreal to contemplate – then you have to ask yourself why, since WikiLeaks began dumping all of these emails and documents, their servers have been under constant denial-of-service attacks, which is preventing the release of additional damaging evidence against Clinton?

Who stands to benefit from preventing the further release of damaging information? Which country is about to select its next president? Which current president has the most to lose if Trump wins?

And finally, there is this: When the bad news hits Democrats right before election day, corrupt party members and leaders complain that it's "not fair" and "designed to influence the election."

But when bad news conveniently hits a Republican nominee right before election day, then it's a matter of "good" and "responsible" governance.

It's okay to influence elections when Democrats do it

Cases in point: We all just witnessed the outrage from the Democratic-aligned media and Democratic talking heads and political figures after FBI Director James Comey announced last week that his bureau was examining 650,000 more emails that may be related to the original investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server to (mis)handle classified information.

One Democratic leader, retiring (now millionaire) Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, even wanted Comey charged with a crime.

But when Hillary Clinton's husband was running for president the first time, in 1992, Democrats cheered when, just days before the election, special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh announced he would indict Reagan-era Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger over allegations that he knew about a controversial arms-for-Iranian hostages deal during the Reagan presidency. Although the indictment was later thrown out, it was widely believed at the time that the announcement – made the weekend before the election – ruined President George H. W. Bush's bid for a second term.

There's more. In 2000, suddenly, just four days before the election between GOP nominee George W. Bush and Democratic nominee Vice President Al Gore, it was revealed that the former had pleaded guilty to a DUI 20 years earlier (Bush had since given up alcohol altogether and had been sober for more than a decade).

In each case the corrupt media dutifully reported, and top Democrats never once complained that the announcements were being made to "influence the election."

Sources:

DenverPost.com

NaturalNews.com

RT.com

CNN.com

WashingtonExaminer.com