Late yesterday, I wrote:
"Go to the homepage of The Washington Post where the lead story is still "The State Department: Hillary Clinton’s email correspondence contained ‘top secret’ material," which followed on the heels of last night's bombshell revelation by the US State Department that additional top secret mails were found on Hillary's home server, including email correspondence with Obama. Obama has claimed that he didn't know that Hillary was using a private server and that the home server didn't pose a national security threat. Yeah, right.
Now go to the homepage of The New York Times: Currently not a mention of the story. "All the News Fit to Print," or, 'What You Don't Know About Hillary Can't Hurt Her'?"
Something didn't make sense. Well, the cat is now out of the bag.
On the eve of the hotly contested Iowa presidential primary, The New York Times has published an editorial entitled "Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination." The Times editorial board writes:
"Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for Senate and once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm."
Mention of Hillary's explosive email scandal and the possibility of an indictment against her? Toward the end of the editorial, the Times deigns to say:
"Some of the campaign attacks are outrageous, like Donald Trump’s efforts to bring up Bill Clinton’s marital infidelity. Some, like those about Mrs. Clinton's use of a private email server, are legitimate and deserve forthright answers."
That's all? Don't you think that forthright answers should be forthcoming before you endorse a candidate?
The New York Times obviously knows no shame.