Unless it's to talk about her time as a senator

It's a finger trap. Trump can't direct an actual investigation (and his direct underlings can't stat it) because it'll look like they're attacking political opposition. And she's not really worth attacking anyway.

If they don't it gets the Republican base angry.

Really, not going after her is the winning strategy for Trump. Keeps the base inflamed while not making a major scandal.

Now, if, say the NYTimes or Fox News decided to look into this and found something (either yes, or no, depending on which source you pick--only unexpected results are really going to matter) it could be significant.

But my guess is that they aren't going to want to invest resources when there's other ways to push narratives and sell ads.

So my guess is that this ends up in a grey state where it's plausible but essentially unconfirmable either way.

huh

fuck hillary

she ruined the democrat party

Honestly, I think it really reflects on the state of Journalism today.

Expect 100 op-eds no one is going to read pushing it out or trying to rebut it somehow.

And it won't even matter.

The papers sold their souls in the past couple years and the lines are so solid that no one actually cares anymore.

So many websites came up trying to be objective

As for why people might want Hillary as a speaker. She *did* run for president and is the first woman to do so. Universities like that kind of thing. Even if her speeches aren't worth paying attention to anyway.

They all gave up after realising no one wanted objective news

Objective news is boring, and makes people uncomfortable

No one wants to be uncomfortable

Yeah, I'm not going to say it's only the papers fault.

But there are some that I'd expect to hold a certain line.

Websites like fusion, vice and mother goose became propoganda because propoganda sells

The few websites I trust are The Knife and Newsline

But they tend to a certain level of hyperbole.

I stick to financial papers at this point (CNBC, WSJ, etc). They're not especially objective either, but they do try and prevent their subscribers from losing money reporting falsehoods.

The Knife is the closest thing to objective news as of now

The Knife seems good, but I haven't read too much from there.

Increasingly, I think the reality is that the reality is that you might have to pay for high quality news for applications or acept you'll need to read 3 different papers for a good viewpoint.

And realize where the actual biases tend to lie.

That might be better than a single consolidated source that's lying about being objective though.

Read CNN, Breitbart, and Washington Post, only believe what is common across all three

That works pretty well for me

I'd replace CNN with something else, TBH. They really went under in the past year or so.

The knife is basically that though

They take news stories, see what's common and post the facts

But it's a better idea to do it yourself

Not sure what I'd replace it with. I'm partial to WSJ , but that's subscription and leans right. NYTimes is actually not as bad as some people think, but it is atleast as left as WSJ.

is right

I approve of the 'read many sources' method

The problem is that it's a pain in the ***

But i wouldnt use any of those three listed, maybe washington post sometimes.

CNN is bad on some stuff, but usually they do get things right atleast partially

Same for Breitbart

Breitbart is weird.

Just absorb what is common