Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s first national TV interview aired during Tuesday’s edition of The Situation Room on CNN, and while Brianna Keilar pressed Clinton on her e-mail scandal and tumbling poll numbers, the interview measured up to little more than a stroll in the park. Along with gooey questions about which woman she thinks should go on the $10 bill and who plays a better Hillary Clinton on Saturday Night Live, Keilar came at Clinton from the left on the candidacy of socialist Bernie Sanders and allowed her to pontificate without interruption for over a minute and a half on the work of the scandal-ridden Clinton Foundation.

Friday’s Morning Joe on MSNBC took a strange turn during a discussion of Bill Clinton’s latest comments about the Clinton Foundation scandal when co-host Mika Brzezinski demanded to know from panelist and New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters “why your paper is so interested in Marco Rubio's driveway” as opposed to continuing to dig into allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation.

In a report for Thursday’s NBC Today about Bill Clinton saying he would stop giving paid speeches if Hillary was elected president, correspondent Andrea Mitchell lamented: “The charity has been lauded for its good works but both Clintons are being hounded by questions about potential conflicts of interest from donors and high-dollar speeches.”

Never mind the vast right-wing conspiracy, suggests Michael Tomasky in the June 25 New York Review of Books. What Hillary Clinton needs to concern herself with are 1) a possible vast mainstream-media conspiracy and 2) her and her husband’s propensity for shadiness and avarice.

In a nearly 3,800-word article that’s ostensibly a review of Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash but in classic NYRB fashion is more about issues related to the book in question, Tomasky delves into topics including Clinton Foundation fundraising practices; the Clintons’ whopping income from speechmaking; and how they should clean up their act regarding both so that they don’t impede Hillary’s presidential campaign.

Tomasky also analyzes, and largely endorses, the idea stated in early May by Politico’s Dylan Byers that “the national media have never been more primed to take down Hillary Clinton (and, by the same token, elevate a Republican candidate).” Tomasky specifies one extremely prominent northeastern liberal newspaper that’s “worth keeping an eye on” given its putative record of anti-Clinton reporting.

On Wednesday evening, the “big three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC marked five days since any of networks last covered a Clinton scandal while they combined to ignore news that a Democratic member of Congress has called for an independent review of Clinton’s e-mails, a House committee hearing covered her e-mail scandal, and a report that Bill Clinton took in $26 million from a Swedish group that was lobbying the State Department on Iran sanctions.

The latest network blackout concerning one of the Clinton scandals came to an end on NBC Thursday as a segment on Today by correspondent Andrea Mitchell mentioned an AP story from two days before exposing what appears to be a shell company run by former President Bill Clinton. ABC and CBS continued their streaks of ignoring it with all three having yet to utter a word about an International Business Times article explaining how Clinton Foundation donors received weapons deals with the State Department while Hillary Clinton was overseeing the agency.

Friday's New Day on CNN played up that the Hillary Clinton e-mails revealed by the New York Times "dispute the narrative that has been around for two years that she was trying to cover something up" about the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, as Alisyn Camerota put it. The CNN anchor also wondered, "Isn't this the opposite of what the GOP has been saying about her – that she...tried to keep it secret?"

You know you're in trouble if you're a liberal TV host and a reporter with the far-left Huffington Post demands you receive the same punishment as NBC News anchor Brian Williams: suspension “for six months without pay and his future cast in doubt.”

That's what Denny Dressman called for in an article entitled “The Stephanopoulos Verdict: Nothing Less Than Williams Got.”

In a Thursday column, PBS ombudsman Michael Getler took NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff to task for failing to disclose a 2010 donation to the Clinton Foundation: “It is always a bad idea for a journalist to give money to a political campaign or anything even remotely connected to the activities of a politician or party, or an organization that they might cover. You just shouldn’t do it.”

In the wake of the ongoing controversy surrounding ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos and his failure to disclose $75,000 worth of donations to the Clinton Foundation, and now news of his $105-million contract with the network, Politico decided to tout the “frugal habits of his wife,” actress Ali Wentworth. 

One fringe benefit of the George Stephanopoulos Clinton Foundation scandal in which ABC's This Week host failed to disclose that he donated $75,000 (plus lots of time) to that organization while interviewing "Clinton Cash" author Peter Schweizer  is that it has inspired some really hilarious street art. The poster art appears to be the work of the conservative street artist who goes by the name of "Sabo." Not only was it just the art that served as comedy relief but also where it was located as revealed in a tweet this morning by the Weekly Standard senior writer, Mark Hemingway.


Talking Points Memo editor and publisher Josh Marshall sees a pattern of self-deception among Clinton-loathing conservatives. Marshall acknowledges that Bill and Hillary Clinton routinely “play close to the line” and “refus[e] to play by rules tighter than those applied to anyone else,” but argues that right-wingers fool themselves when they insist that behind those tendencies lies criminality.

“It's never enough for the Clintons' perennial critics to be satisfied with potential conflicts of interest or arguably unseemly behavior,” wrote Marshall in a Tuesday post. “It always has to be more. There have to be high crimes, dead people, corrupt schemes. And if they don't materialize, they need to be made up. Both because there is an organized partisan apparatus aimed at perpetuating them and because there is a right-wing audience that requires a constant diet of hyperventilating outrage from which to find nourishment.”

Marshall commented that “freak show conspiracy theories…inevitably bubble up around [the Clintons], a symbiotic embrace of grievance, aggression and derp. It's painful to admit, but the two sides feed on each other.”