As our wonderful “neutral” media continue on overdrive while trying to take down President Trump over a meeting with a foreign national to get opposition research information against Hillary Clinton – a meeting he did not attend – Brent Bozell of newsbusters.org reminds us of another President who got millions of dollars – not information but contributions, donations, call it what you will – from foreign nationals years ago, and how the media treated it then.
The President’s name was the same as Donald Trump’s opponent: Clinton.
A key excerpt:
The Washington Post reported in 1998 that “Evidence gathered in federal surveillance intercepts has indicated that the Chinese government planned to increase China’s influence in the U.S. political process in 1996.” Doesn’t that sound like a precedent?
After Clinton was easily re-elected, the DNC was forced to return more than $2.8 million in illegal or improper donations from foreign nationals. Almost 80 percent of that ill-gotten gain came from two sleazy Clinton-connected fundraisers, John Huang and Charlie Trie. Few people remember this scandal because it was buried by those same news outlets that can’t stop talking about Russia.
It’s not as if they didn’t know, either.
Twenty years ago this summer, Congress investigated this “Asiagate” plot. While Sen. Fred Thompson’s hearings produced one embarrassing detail after another about the Democrats. How did the press report these damning developments? They bad-mouthed the hearings as a waste of money and buried them…
President Trump is calling the Russian collusion investigation the biggest witch hunt in US history. Mr. Trump has a major talent for hyperbole – there have been worse witch hunts. But, that said:
-this one is definitely in the top tier, and
-if ever a demonstration of media bias were evident, the juxtaposition of their coverage of Bill Clinton’s illegal receipt of millions of dollars with Donald Trump’s son’s unsuccessful attempt to get negative information about Hillary Clinton should seal the deal beyond any shadow of a doubt.
How do they call themselves journalists? How do they even face themselves in the mirror?
What are the odds of the Special Investigator looking into THOSE instances of Collusion . . . . . . . .
And, how about those pallets of loose cash shipped to Iran. The only question there is how much got ‘mislaid’ in transit.