My Response to an Alleged Journalist’s Use of Trump to Excuse Hillary’s behavior

Here’s the original Huffington Post article i was responding to:

Excellent job! You managed to write an article that inadvertantly serves as a metaphor for everything wrong with this year’s presumptive nominees and includes supposed “facts” that were refuted 2 days after you posted.

Is it relevant that Trump may have raped a 13 year-old girl being illegally held by Jeffrey Epstein? Of course it is and based on how hard the mainstream media has gone after Trump in the past few weeks (perhaps they feel guilty about their role in his success), I expect that if the alleged victim has more luck seeing her case officially filed this time around, it will start to gain traction. I could be wrong, but they could just be exercising some caution in waiting to make sure it doesn’t immediately fall apart like the initial filing did in California or if they apply the statute of limitations. It’s also possible this has a little something to do with Bill Clinton, who was also a frequent guest of Epstein’s and even waived his secret service protection for a number of trips on the “Lolita Express.”

HOWEVER, a lack of coverage of the Trump story is absolutely no reason to suggest that the attention paid to Hillary’s emails is somehow uncalled for. In fact, considering everything we know, anyone else would have never been allowed to get this far in a presidential election with possible indictment hanging over her head and it took minutes for reporters to find examples of people who have been punished for far less than she was guilty of. For someone who claims that there was too much coverage of the private server, you seem dreadfully uninformed about it. This investigation has enormous relevence to the election as it goes to her character, decision-making skills, and ability to prioritize national security. She set up the server knowing full well it would mean that classified information would end up being stored on that largely unprotected server because she prioritized keeping her personal email private and couldn’t figure out how to manage two separate accounts. She instructed staff to keep the server secret, had the state department’s firewall taken down when her emails were hitting their spam filter, and instructed lawyers to delete and destroy thousands of supposedly private emails, many of which the FBI were able to recover and identify as classified. Clinton thinks she’s above the law and sadly, she may be correct. You may count yourself among the brainwashed and think that despite the harsh criticism pointing out how unacceptable her behavior was, the fact that they didn’t recommend an indictment somehow washes away the significance of the investigation. That’s crap. Her behavior, whether or not is rises to the level of criminal, is unacceptable for a president.

And that’s what’s really wrong with your article and the elction in general. This race has become a contest over which candidate is the worst. Your article tries to dismiss the importance of an investigation into heinous actions affecting national security because it’s arguably not as disgusting as alleged sex crimes. We’ve got 2 presumptive nominees who are terrible human beings unfit to serve at any level and now it’s a race to the bottom.

Democracy: The illusion of choice

I find it particularly rich that you’re claiming media bias against Clinton after the Guccifer 2.0 Leaks pretty clearly demonstrated that the Clinton campaign and DNC were planting stories with the media’s help. At least you haven’t resorted to everyone’s favorite method of disregarding legitimate criticism of Hillary by dismissing it as sexist. Oh wait… yep, you went there.