The Newest Clinton Email Scandal Actually PROVES There’s No Scandal

On Thursday, the New York Times published an article entitled “Emails Raise New Questions About Clinton Foundation Ties to State Department.” Then, we read the article. Let’s just say that not only is there no there there, the article literally proves the exact opposite of what they are trying to say.

The lede paragraph of the article says this:

A top aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department agreed to try to obtain a special diplomatic passport for an adviser to former President Bill Clinton in 2009, according to emails released Thursday, raising new questions about whether people tied to the Clinton Foundation received special access at the department.

That sounds pretty, well, “damning” is perhaps too strong a word, but the very next paragraph admits that the adviser, Douglas J. Band, didn’t get the passport. Think about it, not even an adviser to the Secretary of State’s very own husband, who happens to be a former President, got what he wanted out of the State Department. That’s the very opposite of evidence of quid pro quo. Vox has more detail:

  • Around July 24-25, as a result of complex multisided negotiations, Bill Clinton agreed to travel to North Korea as a kind of official unofficial emissary who the Koreans could regard as a high-level envoy but who the Americans could say was simply a private citizen on a humanitarian mission.
  • Bill Clinton, naturally, wanted to take some staff with him on the trip to Pyongyang.
  • On July 27, Doug Band, a longtime aide to Bill Clinton who headed up an arm of the Clinton Foundation, emailed Huma Abedin asking if he and some other staffers could have diplomatic passports for the purposes of the trip.
  • “The State Department never issued the passport,” according to Lichtblau, because “only department employees and others with diplomatic status are eligible for the special passports, which help envoys facilitate travel.”

If this proves anything at all, it’s that the media is certainly not in the tank for Clinton. Actually, it was Harvard who proved that back in July:

A new report released this week by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy found Clinton has received far more negative coverage than any other candidate in the race thus far. The study was based on an analysis of news statements from CBSFox, the Los Angeles TimesNBC, the New York TimesUSA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.

According to the study, a whopping 84 percent of Clinton coverage is negative. At that time, just 43 percent of Trump coverage was negative. The New York Times article might not be absolute proof that the media is stacked against Clinton, but when people think of the mainstream media, they certainly are at the top of most people’s lists. The New York Times supposedly sets the standard, and apparently the standard in this election cycle is to manufacture controversies that, with the teeniest bit of analysis, actually disprove the controversies. Yes, that’s convoluted and confusing, but that’s the only way propaganda like this works.

Featured image via Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.