Apparently, far left darling Glenn Greenwald is VERY upset that Paul Krugman had the nerve to criticize the unbelievably shoddy (and well-documented) reporting the “liberal” media has been vomiting forth lately about the Clinton Foundation:
IN HIS New York Times column yesterday, Paul Krugman did something that he made clear he regarded as quite brave: He defended the Democratic Party presidential nominee and likely next U.S. president from journalistic investigations. Complaining about media bias, Krugman claimed that journalists are driven by “the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.”
You see, in Greenwald’s opinion, criticizing bad reporting about the Clintons (whom Greenwald despises) is the same thing as trying to cover up their nefarious (but still somehow unproven) evil deeds. What Greenwald neglects to mention is his rambling diatribe against the evils of establishment politics is that all of the reporting on Hillary’s emails and foundation has turned up literally nothing of worth. Yet, somehow, the average voter has been mysteriously lead to believe that something fishy is going on.
Actually, it’s not really a mystery why people believe that Hillary is corrupt. Greenwald literally proves, in the very next sentence, Krugman’s claim that certain journalists start from “the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt” :
While generously acknowledging that it was legitimate to take a look at the billions of dollars raised by the Clintons as Hillary pursued increasing levels of political power — vast sums often received from the very parties most vested in her decisions as a public official — it is now “very clear,” he proclaimed, that there was absolutely nothing improper about any of what she or her husband did.
Is there any doubt in your mind that Greenwald “knows” that Hillary Clinton is corrupt? And that now his readers “know” it’s true as well? You would think that he would lay out the case for why Krugman is wrong but good luck with that. Greenwald specializes in insinuation and confirmation bias. He spends the rest of the article insisting that all of the attention on Hillary is vitally necessary but nowhere in his rant does he even come close to discussing the findings of the numerous investigations that found zero corruption and the error-filled reporting that went along with it.
And, really, why should he? Greenwald is not interested in following the evidence to its natural conclusion that Clinton is not corrupt. Even admitting that there’s no actual evidence of her corruption is too much for him. Rather, he wants people like Krugman to stop pointing out that the constant stream of negative Clinton stories are entirely fabricated; an intentional effort to create a scandal where none exists. Much like Republicans, Greenwald is more than happy to let rumor and insinuations do all the dirty work for him, facts be damned:
Beyond quid quo pros, the Clintons’ constant, pioneering merger of massive private wealth and political power and influence is itself highly problematic. Nobody forced them to take millions of dollars from the Saudis and Goldman Sachs tycoons and corporations with vested interests in the State Department; having chosen to do so with great personal benefit, they are now confronting the consequences in how the public views such behavior.
Greenwald talks of the Clintons as if they were the very first rich people to be in politics and are therefore uniquely corrupt. Leaving aside the laughable premise that they pioneered the mixing of money and politics, Greenwald once again relies on insinuation instead of evidence. Did Saudi Arabia get special consideration because they donated money to a global foundation that saves millions of lives a year? Or have they been our closest ally in the Middle East for decades? Did Goldman Sachs buy access to the Secretary of State? If so, why can’t Greenwald point to any evidence?
Of course, we’re supposed to just “know” it happened but, again, that simply proves Krugman’s point: “Journalists” like Greenwald operate from the premise that Clinton is corrupt. Period. And when they fail to find evidence of this corruption, they claim it’s just more evidence of her corruption.
It’s a perfect cycle of nonsense that Greenwald is only too happy to perpetuate as he continues to nurse his grudge against the Clintons. And if the foundation gets shut down because of shoddy reporting? Tough luck for the millions of HIV patients being kept alive by donated medicine. They should have had the forethought to live Greenwald’s privileged life, safe from the turmoil he encourages.
Featured image by Jeff Zelevansky/Getty Images