Documenting the locals' anti-Clinton agenda 20
For our local "newspapers," she may be gone but she won't be forgotten
What's a biased "newspaper" to do when longtime targets are no longer on the scene? Perhaps like Louisiana Republicans who held President Obama responsible for the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, they'll continue to ignore factual details and continue their hate fest. For instance, I suspect that our locals will blame almost everything that goes wrong in the Trump administration on our departing president whether or not he was actually responsible.
On the other hand, coverage of Hillary Clinton, who hasn't been in office for a number of years, could be troublesome. Given the number of anti-Clinton editorials and columns that have filled their opinion pages for the last couple of years, this could become a major problem for the papers -- it's a lot of newspaper space to fill. Combining syndicated columnists like Pat Buchanan, Rich Lowry and Erick Erickson who have frequently attacked her on a regular basis with near-daily editorials made laying out the editorial page an easy job. Did it matter that today's editorial page was very similar to yesterday's? (In one instance, it was exactly the same.) No, it didn't matter -- all that mattered were the nonstop attacks.
What will they do? I'm not going to lose sleep over this but today's editorial may give us a preview. The editorial tells us "Don't Drop Probe Of Hillary Clinton." Of course it's the Clinton Foundation and the editorial practically begs the incoming president to prosecute her. Yet another Clinton investigation would certainly make their lives easier. Instead of focusing on what Trump was doing or not doing, the "newspapers" could continue its attacks upon the Clintons. (Now in its 25th year!)
Of course if these were real newspapers and they wanted to continue to cover the questionable ethics of "crooked" foundations, they wouldn't need to look beyond our incoming president. Monday's online edition of Forbes carried this from a former tax litigator for the U.S. Department of Justice:
And President-elect Donald Trump is no exception. His private foundation just admitted what the press has been reporting for months: that in 2015 it engaged in what the tax code calls “prohibited transactions” and what the rest of us call self-dealing. More importantly, Trump’s foundation admitted that it had engaged in self-dealing in years before 2015. This will require the filing of additional tax returns reporting those prohibited transactions, and the payment of excise taxes to the IRS on them. It could also require the insiders to repay the foundation, and require the foundation to undo those transactions, or face a 200% excise tax.
No big deal, right?
Wrong. You see, the foundation filed tax returns for earlier years in which it claimed that it had not engaged in self-dealing. The people who signed those returns for the foundation did so under penalty of perjury. And knowingly signing a materially false tax return is a felony that is punishable by a prison sentence and a hefty fine. The foundation’s admission – also made under penalty of perjury – that those earlier returns were false raises a legitimate question about whether the signers knew they were false at the time.
All this was summarized by Sarah Jones in Politicus USA:
Donald Trump’s foundation appears to have done the very thing Trump accused Hillary Clinton of being corrupt over. . . .
Donald Trump repeatedly called the Clinton Foundation the “most corrupt in political history.” Trump also called for it to be shut down, saying they were lining their own pockets (that is, self-dealing, which is what the Trump foundation just got caught admitting it did) and taking care of donors.
Jones then cites David A. Fahrenthold in Tuesday's Washington Post:
But Fahrenthold found that the Trump Foundation took a $150,000 gift from the foundation of Viktor Pinchuk, the fourth richest man in the Ukraine and an oil and gas pipe magnate.
Yes, that’s right – this is the same Pinchuk whose donations to the Clinton Foundation raised “questions” about conflicts of interest. The donation was made as part of an agreement for Trump to speak at a time when he was already a presidential candidate.
Perhaps these revelations are why Trump is no longer interested in going after "crooked Hillary."
If the Intelligencer is so interested in the questionable actions of foundations, why aren't they covering this? A simple answer -- they aren't interested in anything illegal or unethical that Donald Trump does. Real newspapers may care but these are not real newspapers; they're propaganda outlets for the Republican Party.