You might check to see if pigs are flying, because The New York Times is taking Democrat anointed one Hillary Clinton to task. Big time. In fact, I might characterize it as kinda going off on the Queen in the kind of detail we haven’t quite seen the liberal media apply to the Democrat chosen one.
Via The New York Times:
“Everybody does it,” is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate. But that is Hillary Clinton’s latest defense for making closed-door, richly-paid speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain, and then refusing to release the transcripts.
A televised town hall on Tuesday was at least the fourth candidate forum in which Mrs. Clinton was asked about those speeches. Again, she gave a terrible answer, saying that she would release the transcripts “if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans.”
In November, she implied that her paid talks for the Wall Street firms were part of helping them rebuild after the 9/11 attacks, which “was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists.”
In a debate with Bernie Sanders on Feb. 4, Mrs. Clinton was asked if she would release the transcripts, and she said she would “look into it.” Later in February, asked in a CNN town hall forum why she accepted $675,000 for speeches to Goldman Sachs, she got annoyed, shrugged, and said, “That’s what they offered,” adding that “every secretary of state that I know has done that.”
At another town hall, on Feb. 18, a man in the audience pleaded, “Please, just release those transcripts so that we know exactly where you stand.” Mrs. Clinton had told him, “I am happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same, because every other candidate in this race has given speeches to private groups.”
On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton further complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?”
The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries.
Voters have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups. In July, her spokesman Nick Merrill said that though most speeches were private, the Clinton operation “always opened speeches when asked to.” Transcripts of speeches that have been leaked have been pretty innocuous. By refusing to release them all, especially the bank speeches, Mrs. Clinton fuels speculation about why she’s stonewalling.
Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public — not the candidate — who decides how much disclosure is enough. By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House.
The New York Times raises some solid points here — as you would hope our nation’s Fourth Estate would do on a regular basis to help vet the candidates running for our highest office. Of course, this is the Democrat the NYT endorsed for president, and perhaps they are actually trying to help Hillary Clinton take the air out of this whole controversy — one that on its face, at least, seems to favor contender Bernie Sanders.
While many of us are shocked that The New York Times, of all outlets, is taking the Queen to task in a meaningful way in this competitive election cycle, one Clintonbot actually discounted the NYT editorial as “another attack on her credibility conjured up by the far left and interested media to demonize Mrs. Clinton.” Amazing.
Now, is it too much to ask for The New York Times to actually call Hillary Clinton out on some other important issues as well? Emailgate, for example?Just have to ask, because you never know when pigs will fly again… [Note: This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]