CNN and MSNBC confirm Hillary Clinton will not face any charges in email inquiry … Hours after Hillary Clinton held her long awaited interview with the FBI in the name of helping its investigation of a Romanian email hacker, which the media has routinely and willfully misreported as being an “investigation of Clinton” for the past year, MSNBC is now finally reporting the obvious: she’ll face no charges of any kind. -DailyNewsBin
Hillary was subject to an apparently intensive FBI interview on Friday, but now mainstream media is reporting that she won’t be charged with anything.
MSNBC’s Chuck Todd made the announcement during on Saturday afternoon and then CNN also reported it.
Todd wasn’t speculative about his announcement. He claimed certainty.
This is not exactly a dominant social theme in the sense that it is news reporting. But the larger message is certainly thematic.
Despite Hillary’s polarizing personality and politics, and her fairly obvious malfeasance, CNN believes she is going to remain a candidate and quite possibly win the election.
Just recently Rush Limbaugh described the process as follows:
Okay, folks, I’m gonna tell you what I think is actually going on here. I think we are being played in the standard, common, everyday way the Clinton team plays the American people. It has happened, I can’t count the number of times, dating back to when Bill Clinton was in the White House.
Essentially what this is — and the Lynch-Clinton meeting is the latest ingredient — we’re being set up for massive disappointment, depression, and dispiritedness. They’re making it look like, and they have all along, very possible Hillary Clinton could be indicted. They are toying with us. They’re dangling this carrot in front us. “This could be the time. This could be it when we finally get the Clintons once and for all.”
The DailyNewsBin article excerpted above puts this information into perspective:
This information was obvious enough all along to anyone who followed the story accurately, as the FBI had already publicly told the New York Times that she was not even a target of their email investigation.
News outlets knew this all along but decided to play up various misnomers about the story — on cable news in particular — because it seemed to be the only way in which they could get ratings about of Hillary’s otherwise steady and controversy free campaign.
The above is true so far as it goes. We found the following statement in the August 14 New York Times:
F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server are seeking to determine who at the State Department passed highly classified information from secure networks to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, according to law enforcement and diplomatic officials and others briefed on the investigation.
Law enforcement officials have said that Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, is not a target of the investigation, and she has said there is no evidence that her account was hacked. There has also been no evidence that she broke the law, and many specialists believe the occasional appearance of classified information in her account was probably of marginal consequence.
We’ve written previously that mainstream media report seemed more negative about Clinton – and that negativity might be an indication that she was in trouble.
We also reported on Barack Obama’s seeming preference to have Joe Biden run against Hillary.
Either of these scenarios revolved around Hillary voluntarily excusing herself once the pressure of various investigations and lawsuits became too great.
But if these reports are to be believed, Hillary is moving forward. Alternative scenarios are mere speculation.
This would be quite a statement for the establishment to make. The FBI, if it does not indict, will be the subject of enormous criticism.
And if the Department of Justice doesn’t act on an indictment, there will also be a firestorm.
Whether purposefully or not, lack of action regarding Hillary will be seen by a tens of millions as proof of additional US corruption.
Hillary’s ascension and potential presidency would be a powerful signal that the rules have changed when it comes to the public US narrative. And this would tend to have a knock-effect on other elements of US governance, reducing public confidence even further.
Conclusion: A lack of legal consequences for obvious malfeasance on the part of Hillary and her husband will contribute to further polarization and loss of confidence in US civil society. It is, in fact, a signal that society is changing rapidly.