Remember that `vast right-wing conspiracy'?   
      
      
   Well...its back. With bells on!.   
      
      
   ï»¿ The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy: Hillary Clinton's Scandals Finally Catch Up   
   to   
   Mainstream Media - Breitbart   
      
      
   by Ben Shapiro21 Apr 20150   
      
      
      
   In 1998, as the media caught onto the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Hillary Clinton   
   appeared on The Today Show with Matt Lauer to defend her wayward husband. She   
   blamed the Drudge Report and the rest of her political enemies for her   
   husband's travails:   
      
      
   I do believe that this is a battle. I mean, look at the very people who are   
   involved in this - they have popped up in other settings. This is - the great   
   story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is   
   this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband   
   since the day he announced for president.   
      
      
   Now, as Peter Schweizer's book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why   
   Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, hits the   
   market, Hillary is utilizing the same defense while in New Hampshire. Asked   
   specifically about the charges that the Clinton Foundation took cash while she   
   was Secretary of State, and that administration policy magically changed in   
   favor of those who gave the cash:   
      
      
   We're back into the political system and therefore I'll be subjected to all   
   kinds of distraction and attacks and I'm ready for that. I know that that   
   comes unfortunately with the territory. It is I think worth noting that the   
   Republicans seem to be talking only about me. I don't know what they'd talk   
   about if I weren't in the race.   
      
      
   The vast right-wing conspiracy to get Hillary Clinton has apparently evolved   
   to include a huge bevy of formerly left-wing and left-center sources who see   
   Schweizer's book as a legitimate derailing force for Hillary's campaign.   
      
      
   For example, Cameron Barr, national editor of The Washington Post, said that   
   "Mr. Schweizer's background and his point of view are relevant factors, but   
   not disqualifying ones. What interests us more are his facts and whether they   
   can be the basis for further reporting by our own staff that would be   
   compelling to our readers."� Clearly, Barr has been co-opted by the nefarious   
   Koch Brothers.   
      
      
   Then there's Margaret Hartman of New York Magazine, that notorious right-wing   
   outlet, who wrote, "The claims might not be as entertaining as Hillary hurling   
   yet another object at Bill, but if there's any fact to them, we're going to   
   hear about it."� Hartman also noted, "the Times says [Schweizer's] tone is   
   neutral and the book is meticulously researched."�   
      
      
   Over at The Atlantic, David Graham defended Clinton over the allegations he   
   had not yet read, stating that super PACs would be poorly positioned to make   
   Americans aware of Hillary's corruption. But even Graham had to add, "a   
   forthcoming book by Peter Schweizer has excited the political world with   
   allegations of quid pro quos, in which foreign governments gave to the Clinton   
   Foundation and Hillary Clinton, then serving as secretary of state, did them   
   favor - sessentially alleging bribery in foreign affairs."� His anti-Clinton   
   agenda couldn't be more obvious, of course.   
      
      
   And there's Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post, who has never been mistaken   
   for a Republican activist. The media critic wrote of Schweizer's book:   
      
      
   OF COURSE we should be examining the claims made in Schweizer's book. Come on!   
   The most foundational principle of covering a presidential campaign (or   
   anything, really) is trying your damnedest to give people the fullest possible   
   picture of the candidates running to represent them.  The more information you   
   have at your disposal then, the better….We are information-gatherers at   
   heart.   
      
   Our job as reporters and editors and, more broadly as an organization, is to   
   vet all of the information that comes at us to see what should be reported,   
   what shouldn't and what needs to be followed-up on. How then can we (or any   
   media organization) justify turning aside everything in Schweizer's book   
   without a glance.   
      
      
   The good news for Hillary: some members of her beloved media will still come   
   to her rescue. Dylan Byers at Politico is out to defend the fair maiden   
   Hillary at all costs:   
      
      
   The New York Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have made exclusive   
   agreements with a conservative author for early access to his opposition   
   research on Hillary Clinton, a move that has confounded members of the Clinton   
   campaign and some reporters, the On Media blog has confirmed.   
      
      
   As Cillizza razzed, "So, it's not just the Clinton campaign that's unhappy   
   with the deal made by the Times, Post and Fox News. It's "some reporters"   
   too."   
      
      
   At the International Business Times, columnist Howard Koplowitz went even   
   further, vetting Schweizer rather than the claims in Schweizer's book with a   
   piece titled, "Who is Peter Schweizer, "Clinton Cash: Author? 5 Things to Know   
   About Hillary Clinton Book Writer."� Why, it's almost as if Koplowitz cares   
   more about smearing Schweizer than about actually reporting factual claims   
   about a presidential candidate. As though he were part of a vast left-wing   
   conspiracy, or something.   
      
      
   And, of course, Salon.com, which publishes pieces about the value of incest,   
   came to Clinton's defense as well, calling Schweizer's book a "sketchy Hillary   
   "expose." "� The author of the piece, Heather Digby Parton, admits that the   
   topic is well worth looking into and admits further that if the claims of the   
   book are true, Hillary ought to be grilled on them. Then Parton spends the   
   next several paragraphs explaining that no matter what the book says, it must   
   be chock full of lies because Schweizer has written for Breitbart News.   
      
      
   Bad news for Hillary: the VRWC seems to have grown beyond its normal bounds.   
      
   Or maybe, just maybe, Schweizer's claims have legs, and even Hillary's normal   
   allies have been forced to acknowledge that unpleasant fact.   
      
   ---   
   *Durango b301 #PE*    
    * Origin: Check Out Doc's QWK Mail  Via Web BBS > DocsPlace.org  (1:123/140)