Documents: Reporters Were Reluctant to Cover Lynch/Clinton Tarmac Meeting

It’s still astounds us how little attention the mainstream media paid to the travesty that was Bill Clinton’s secret tarmac meeting with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch last summer. If the show had been on the other foot – if this had been a Republican scandal in the brewing – it was have been on the front page of every national newspaper for weeks. Especially if it had been followed up with the Republican candidate’s bizarre exoneration…as was the case here.

Now, we’re using the word “astounds” loosely here, because the truth is that we weren’t surprised in the least. Never has the media been so in the tank for a candidate as they were for Hillary Clinton, so it was only natural that they would give her and her husband (and the Obama DOJ) cover. Still, we can’t allow reputation and repetition to quiet our righteous anger; just because the media IS biased doesn’t mean we should become so used to it that we wave it away like nothing happened. We deserve to have a free and independent press. And if that’s too much to ask of the corporate media, then we must at least make sure that their sins are well-publicized.

With that, we turn to documents procured by the American Center for Law and Justice, from which we learn three distinct and equally disturbing things. One, the FBI lied to the ACLJ last year when they first requested documents pertaining to the Lynch/Comey meeting, telling them that no such material existed. It did, it does, and now the ACLJ has it. Two, the DOJ cooked up a whole bunch of talking points for the media – talking points they never really had to deliver because the press never bothered to pursue the story. And three, the press itself, in communications with the DOJ, was embarrassingly blatant in its reluctance to cover the meeting.

In one email, Mark Landler of The New York Times apologetically tells a Justice official that he’d “been pressed into service to write about the questions being raised” by the covert airport meeting. Really? You’d think a reputable journalist would be raring to go when it comes to a story that SCREAMS of Clinton’s interference with an ongoing investigation of this magnitude. This is a true-blue Washington scandal of the highest order, and this reporter acts like he’s writing about a broken water fountain at the local SPCA.

Then there’s Matt Zapotonsky of The Washington Post…Democracy Dies in Darkness, remember?…who says he’d like to stop covering the story (“put it to rest”) but his pesky editors “are still pretty interested” in the story. Gee, it’s nice to know someone at the paper thought it might come to something.

That’s more than we can say for ABC News. In another email exchange, a DOJ press official says, “I talked to the ABC producer, who noted that they aren’t interested, even if Fox runs with it.”

Fantastic demonstration of journalism there, boys. Tell us again why we should take your reporting about the Trump presidency seriously?

About admin