"A devastating case against a Clinton presidency."

Kim Strassel sums up the Hillary bombshells the press has ignored all week

---

I’ve often told you how highly I recommend Kim Strassel’s Friday Potomac Watch column in the Wall Street Journal. Strassel is an excellent writer and she does a deep dive into things that are happening in Washington that no one else is telling you about. But while I admire Strassel’s reporting skills, and I’m sure she’s worked hard to cultivate sources, the fact of the matter is that most of the media could be culling the same information Strassel comes up with.

They just don’t, either because they aren’t interested or they don’t think it would serve their ideological agenda.

So when Strassel today laid out what she called the “devastating case against a Clinton presidency” that was found in this week’s WikiLeaks document dump, the real service she did for us was to bother pointing out what everyone else in the media could have and should have. It wouldn’t be fair to excerpt as much as I want to - and before to click over and read the whole thing - but here are some choice highlights:

  Worse, Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, as documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show, took special care of donors to the Clinton Foundation. In a series of 2010 emails, a senior aide to Mrs. Clinton asked a foundation official to let her know which groups offering assistance with the Haitian earthquake relief were “FOB” (Friends of Bill) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs). Those who made the cut appear to have been teed up for contracts. Those who weren’t? Routed to a standard government website.

  The leaks show that the foundation was indeed the nexus of influence and money. The head of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Ira Magaziner, suggested in a 2011 email that Bill Clinton call Sheikh Mohammed of Saudi Arabia to thank him for offering the use of a plane. In response, a top Clinton Foundation official wrote: “Unless Sheikh Mo has sent us a $6 million check, this sounds crazy to do.”

  The entire progressive apparatus—the Clinton campaign and boosters at the Center for American Progress—appears to view voters as stupid and tiresome, segregated into groups that must either be cajoled into support or demeaned into silence. We read that Republicans are attracted to Catholicism’s “severely backwards gender relations” and only join the faith to “sound sophisticated”; that Democratic leaders such as Bill Richardson are “needy Latinos”; that Bernie Sanders supporters are “self-righteous”; that the only people who watch Miss America “are from the confederacy”; and that New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is “a terrorist.”

  The leaks also show that the press is in Mrs. Clinton’s pocket. Donna Brazile, a former Clinton staffer and a TV pundit, sent the exact wording of a coming CNN town hall question to the campaign in advance of the event. Other media allowed the Clinton camp to veto which quotes they used from interviews, worked to maximize her press events and offered campaign advice.

Like I said, read the whole thing, but the bottom line is that you are being scammed by this woman, America. And the press are helping her do it, often knowingly. They’re so busy salivating over every salacious accusation against Donald Trump, they’re totally ignoring the things we’re learning every day about just how corrupt and brazen Hillary Clinton really is.

If they succeed at making her president by ripping Donald Trump to shreds, what you’re going to get is four years of this type of corruption being conducted right in the White House, with all the executive power of the president being brought to be to make sure it all accrues to the benefit of the Clintons, their cronies and their financial backers.

It’s fine to say we should protect the Republican Congress to act as a check on her. Of course we should. But the Congress can only act as a check against legislative and spending malfeasance (and as we’ve learned over the past six years, sometimes not even then). It has much less ability to prevent official corruption, especially when attempts to bring it to light via hearings are treated as partisan and illegitimate by a pliant news media determined to protect the person behidn the corruption.

That’s what we’ve got right now. If you really think you need to vote for this woman because of bad things Donald Trump is accused of doing, I hope you understand what you’re going to get. Read Strassel’s column, and learn about things the news media will not tell you. Then consider whether voting for her is really the right thing to do.

Hint: It’s not.

By Dan Calabrese