When the moderators were announced for the presidential debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it was hard not to notice that nearly all the moderators had one thing in common: they were liberals. With the exception of Fox News’ Chris Wallace (who’s more of an objective journalist than a conservative ideologue), the rest of the moderators are liberals — NBC’s Lester Holt, CNN’s Anderson Cooper, CBS’ Elaine Quijano, and ABC’s Martha Raddatz.Last night, there was a “Commander-In-Chief Forum” hosted on NBC, which acted more like a town hall event with a moderator. The two candidates never shared the stage.
Hosting the forum was Matt Lauer — who was once listed as a “Notable Member” of the Clinton Foundation Initiative. While Lauer got some flak from liberals for daring to probe about the email scandal the FBI investigated, the FBI’s investigation into Hillary’s Clinton Foundation was one federal investigation Lauer never seemed to have found time to inquire about. (Isn’t it nice, by the way, that the Democrat nominee has so many federal investigations to consider?)
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton answered questions for 30 minutes during NBC’s “Commander-in-Chief forum” Wednesday night, and moderator Matt Lauer failed to ask the White House hopeful a single question about the myriad allegations that she used her position as secretary of state to sell access to major Clinton Foundation donors.Lauer spent more than a third of the allotted 30 minute timeframe probing Clinton about her use of a private email server while sending and receiving classified documents but declined to ask one Clinton Foundation-related query.
From the day she announced her candidacy, Hillary Clinton has been bombarded with questions about her and husband’s apparent global nexus of influence peddling involving million dollar donations from foreign entities to the Clinton Foundation that often coincided with favorable State Department actions while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.
It was only last Thursday that a national Suffolk University/USA Today poll found that fifty-four percent of likely voters said the Clintons “didn’t take appropriate steps to avoid conflict of interest in donations to the Clinton Foundation.”Even 33 percent of likely Democrat voters said the Clintons did not do enough.
And, of course, Hillary Clinton’s conflicts of interest between the Clinton Foundation and her role as secretary of state — not to mention, potential president of the United States — have everything to do with the focus of last night’s forum, which as national security and foreign policy. For example, what is Saudi Arabia expecting in return for the tens of millions they “donated”?#ShockingNotShocking, isn’t it, that notable Clinton Foundation Initiative member Lauer wouldn’t bring up the Clinton Foundation. Speaking of conflicts of interest…
How’s the whole objective journalism thing working out?
[Note: This post was written by The Analytical Economist]