, a writer for The New York Times
occasionally makes a salient point when he writes about foreign policy, but during this election season, he is fully representative of a "journalist/pundit" who projects an aura of objectivity, but is actually is one of the Democrat's trained hamsters. In his column today, Kristof writes:
ONE persistent narrative in American politics is that Hillary Clinton is a slippery, compulsive liar while Donald Trump is a gutsy truth-teller.
Over all, the latest CBS News poll finds the public similarly repulsed by each candidate: 34 percent of registered voters say Clinton is honest and trustworthy compared with 36 percent for Trump.
Yet the idea that they are even in the same league is preposterous. If deception were a sport, Trump would be the Olympic gold medalist; Clinton would be an honorable mention at her local Y.
For the remainder of his column, Kristof provides examples of Donald's lies, exaggerations, and bloviation (he does all of that, for sure) about his life and times as a private citizen and entrepreneur, and argues that these should cause far more alarm than Clinton's outright deception and criminal activity while she was a paid employee of the U.S. Government. That is patent nonsense, but Kristof is a big-time NYT commentator so I guess we just have to take his word for it. Wrong!
Kristof goes through a litany of meaningless comparisons, suggesting that Clinton's blatant, serial lies are (to borrow a descriptive term from Barack Obama) "junior varsity mendacity." Laughably, Kristoff appears to be too thick to recognize that critics like me are going to say, 'Yeah, just like ISIS was a Junior Varsity
It's telling that in his piece, Kristof doesn't even mention the Clinton Foundation (a.k.a. Clinton Global Initiative), not once, not even by indirect reference. He appears to have adopted the willful blindness of all of the media's trained hamsters (along with almost every Democrat*) who have chosen to ignore a "charity" founded by the Clinton's—a "charity" that donates relatively little to those in need (estimates posit about 10 percent of all revenue acquired). Instead, the Clinton Foundation has been a vehicle to enrich the Clintons over the past 15 years (Clinton's net worth went from zero to over $100 million during those 15 years, and she held no job nor did she make any investments that would generate that kind of wealth). This "charity" is really nothing more than a combination money laundering scheme and bribery or influence peddling vehicle that allowed a broad array of foreign entities (that are often inimical to the interests of the United States) to transfer large sums of money to the Clintons ($500K+ speaking fees are not
normal) in return for favorable treatment by the State Department).
In his righteous indignation about Trump's erroneous statement that Muslim's celebrated 9-11 in New Jersey (after all, there we no Muslim's anywhere in the world who celebrated 9-11, were there?) Kristof thinks he's on to something. When he suggests that the evidence is "unclear" about Hillary's serial lies about the cause of the Benghazi terror attack or her blatant lies about her email server, Kristof thinks he's has demonstrated that her dishonesty is small potatos. Fair enough.
But when hundreds of millions of dollars have flowed into an organization formed by Hillary Clinton, managed by Clinton, and her husband, and that the foreign entities who transferred the money to Clinton then received special or friendly treatment, you'd think moral crusaders like Kristof who really, really
value the truth might have an interest. No chance.
The trained hamsters, along with Kristof, outright refuse to investigate, ask probing questions or otherwise expose any wrongdoing associated with the Clinton Foundation. The hamsters refuse to interview the Haitians who claim that they received little of the millions donated for use in their earthquake ravaged country, interview Peter Schweizer, the author of the NYT bestselling book, Clinton Cash,
who meticulously recounts dozens of cases of criminal corruption and influence peddling (with sources and footnotes), refuse to look into the multiple cases in which donations were followed by favorable treatment that in many cases was not in this country's best interest, and refuse to look into the connections between the Foundation and the now-hated Russians.
Until and unless the hamsters of main stream media along with pundits like Kristof spend a little time looking into the Clinton Foundation their moral indignation about Trump is laughable.
There's a lot not to like about Donald Trump, but by comparison with the criminal wrongdoing that is exemplified by the Clinton Foundation, the Donald is the one who is on the "junior varsity."
* An aside: It would seem that the establishment of a worldwide charity, one that helps the downtrodden and "does good" would be a source of pride for Clinton and the Democrats. It's odd, therefore, that the Clinton Foundation wasn't mentioned by Hillary or any other Democrat speaker during the DNC and has been placed in witness protection by the Dems throughout the campaign. I wonder why that is—they should be very, very proud of the Clinton's charitable works, shouldn't they? Unless, of course, they have something to hide.