And the chirping of crickets was heard in the land
I could find no NY Times nor WaPo nor LA Times nor CNN stories that even mention the Hill article from yesterday. Needless to say (but I’ll say it anyway), if the shoe were on the Trump foot the headlines would be screaming.
It’s not that there’s no coverage, but it’s almost entirely from the right side of the press, although the outlet that broke the story—The Hill—could be characterized as moderate. National Review has covered it, as well as the British Daily Mail and in particular the NY Post.
The Post has also published an editorial on the subject that helpfully explains the difference between the older stories from a couple of years ago and the newly-revealed facts:
Peter Schweizer got onto part of the scandal in his 2015 book, “Clinton Cash”: the gifts of $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, and the $500,000 fee to Bill for a single speech, by individuals involved in a deal that required Hillary Clinton’s approval.
The New York Times confirmed and followed up on Schweizer’s reporting ”” all of it denounced by Hillary as a partisan hit job.
But now The Hill reports that the FBI in 2009 had collected substantial evidence ”” eyewitnesses backed by documents ”” of money-laundering, blackmail and bribery by Russian nuclear officials, all aimed at growing “Vladimir Putin’s atomic-energy business inside the United States” in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
The bureau even flagged the routing of millions from Russian nuclear officials to cutouts and on to Clinton, Inc.
Hillary Clinton, again, sat on a key government body that had to approve the deal ”” though she now claims she had no role in a deal with profound national-security implications, and during the campaign called the payments a coincidence.
The Obama administration ”” anxious to “reset” US-Russian relations ”” kept it all under wraps, refusing to tell even top congressional intelligence figures.
And when the Obamaites in 2014 filed low-level criminal charges against a single individual over what the FBI found, they did so with little public fanfare.
(Here’s the two-year-old article in the Times that references the information from the Schweizer book.)
Where will this all go? My guess is that the answer is: nowhere much. I don’t think any smoking gun will be found, although the thing certainly looks mighty suspicious, particularly the lack of information given out at the time by the FBI to Congress.
“I could find no NY Times nor WaPo nor LA Times nor CNN stories that even mention the Hill article from yesterday.” neo
Expecting propaganda outlets to report anything harmful to their narrative/agenda is an exercise in futility.
The MSM can be coerced into reporting it by President Trump making a tweet about it. Trump has the superpower to make the MSM reports on things that they don’t want to be reporting, he should use twitter more often on exposing the democrats instead of having fights with other republicans or some C list celebs.
The last two directors, along with the two AGs, have tarnished the FBI to such a degree that millions, including me, no longer trust the FBI to investigate anything that involves the political class.
I was curious about this too but had a slightly different angle.
I kept an eye on FoxNews, not their opinion shows, but their hard news ones. I figured if the story was the blockbuster that the Right-Wing talking heads were making it to be, at the very least it would be the lede here.
It wast. I checked at the top of the hour a couple of times and I didn’t even hear it mentioned, let alone featured as the lede. Sean Hannity was all over it to be sure but the last time I saw him this excited it was about Sean Rich.
To be fair, FoxNews not treating this like a blockbuster doesn’t mean it isn’t. That would be some sort of logical fallacy. But before one dives into the forensics of a case one wants it to pass a threshold…otherwise you’d be running around Hawaii looking for Obama’s real birth certificate like a freakin’ moron.
Manju:
I see no reason why it should be a “blockbuster” at present. I think, however, it is a substantial story that absolutely should have been covered in some depth by the MSM. Instead it has been ignored.
It’s also one of those stories with a potential to turn into a huge story, a blockbuster, depending on what information emerges over time.
neo-neocon Says:
October 18th, 2017 at 6:42 pm
…
It’s also one of those stories with a potential to turn into a huge story, a blockbuster, depending on what information emerges over time.
* * *
IF I was writing a politico-suspense novel, I would have Comey finagling Mueller into the Special Counsel slot specifically in order to QUASH any information that looks like it might emerge. Investigating Trump would allow him to track down any documents or potential witnesses and leaks about the Clinton/Obama collusion.
Abortion isn’t just about babies.
Posted that comment before I looked at the NYPost story.
“There’s more: Until September 2013, the FBI director was Robert Mueller – who’s now the special counsel probing Russian meddling in the 2016 election. It’s hard to see how he can be trusted in that job unless he explains what he knew about this Obama-era cover-up.”
Never trust, always verify. But when the organs of the DC are involved it appears to be impossible to verify. Trust/verify has become a joke. There is no trust and no trust there will be an honset effort to verify. Broken arrow and there will be no effort to perhaps survive under dire straights. Benghazi was sweeped under the rug. That should have told everyone that there is no hope DC can be reformed.
parker Says:
October 18th, 2017 at 9:44 pm
Never trust, always verify. But when the organs of the DC are involved it appears to be impossible to verify.
* * *
Or as the old fable says, don’t put the fox in charge of the henhouse.
If I were the head of the intelligence committees, I would subpoena Rosenstein, McCabe, Mueller, and Comey to address this, along with anyone else who was connected to this case. We will see what happens.