Whenever the media screw up--and, let's face it, there's a lot of that going on lately--sympathetic pundits often turn to the old maxim that journalism is simply history's first draft. The implication is that in the heat of the moment, desperate to get the news people need out to the public, reporters will often make mistakes that they later have to correct. What's interesting, however, is that when it comes to covering the White House in the Age of Trump, almost all of those "mistakes" seem to be made in a way that presents the current president in the worst possible light.
If the media were actually being fair, the ratio wouldn't necessarily be fifty-fifty--but it would at least be somewhere in the neighborhood, with some of the goofs falling in Donald Trump's favor. The fact that it's almost always the opposite can only be explained by a systemic bias that has infected reporting ever since Trump won the Republican nomination and then went on to beat Hillary Clinton in what was perhaps the greatest upset in political history. There simply is no other explanation for such relentlessly negative coverage, which could even be construed as--dare I say it?--collusion among journalists to try and take the president down.
Now we've had a chance to get a look at the Inspector General's report, released yesterday, which details the myriad deficiencies in the FBI and the Department of Justice and the methods they used when probing the matter of Hillary Clinton's private email server. Long story short, the IG cited numerous circumstances in which investigators seemed less than enthusiastic about doing their jobs, revealing text exchanges between agents and attorneys that did everything from disparaging Trump voters to making the cynical observation that there was no way anybody was going to do anything that would jam up Clinton or any of the people who worked for her. Perhaps no text summed up the attitude of that investigation more than this one, between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, which left no room for doubt that their motives had little to do with the justice they had sworn to serve:
“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok.
“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.
Their job was to find out what happened with Clinton's server. Instead, they chose to elevate themselves and decide for everyone what was best for the country.
Of course, Strzok and Page weren't the only ones engaging in this kind of behavior--hell, they weren't even the only ones involved in the investigation who were having an affair--and, as the IG report documents time and time again, career professionals who were supposed to uphold the highest standards of integrity instead cut corners, leaked to the media, and based their conclusions not on where the evidence led, but where they wanted it to go.
But in the midst of all this bad behavior, which involved dozens of people in two federal agencies, one common theme emerged: at no time did the bias exhibited by investigators ever go in the direction for Donald Trump.
That isn't an accident.
Like the media, the investigation was staffed by people who favored Clinton. Like the media, they searched for any pretext they could to excuse Clinton's corruption. And finally, like the media, they tried to swing the election to Clinton, later covering up their abuses through selective releases of information.
If that isn't the definition of a Deep State gunning for Donald Trump, I don't know what is.