PRIORITIES: The Media Hug Hillary, But Torch Tom Brady

I’m willing to bet that more Americans have heard or read full reports on the evil, planet-endangering corruption going on inside the New England Patriots’ locker room than have heard about the actual documented instances of quasi-corruption between Bill and Hillary Clinton and their massively influential and affluent family foundation.

Luckily, I’m not the only person who’s noticed the weird double standard between these two instances of high scandal–one involving issues of nukes and national security and there other involving the hardness or softness of balls.

“The transparency standards for an NFL quarterback rising higher than for the Secretary of State surely speaks to the bread-and-circuses quality of 2015 America,” writes Breitbart columnist Daniel J. Flynn. “We expect more from our gridiron heroes than from our nation’s leaders. Perhaps the tizzy over Tom serves as a tacit admission that we also expect more responsiveness to public opinion from 345 Park Ave. than from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.”

To Flynn’s point, Tom Brady came out with a full statement and a delivered a televised news conference within mere hours of the release of the NFL’s investigation into “Deflategate.”

Hillary, on the other hand, waited weeks before giving a lousy statement–taking not a single question–about how she decided to make up her own rules when it came to deleting emails, installing a server in her home, and using her own personal email account to conduct government business.

“No law decrees that a quarterback must turn over his texts and emails to the NFL the way that the Federal Records Act demands that the Secretary of State turn over correspondence to the government,” Flynn writes. “Yet the failure of the four-time Super Bowl winner to share his iPhones, computers, and other gadgets and gizmos with NFL investigator Ted Wells sends the Fourth Estate into a frenzy.”

“If a private citizen doesn’t turn over his iPhone, he can’t play in the home opener. But if a public servant destroys thousands communiques during her tenure as leader of an old-line cabinet department, it acts as no disqualifier for presidential ambitions.”

And just how does such hypocrisy pass and persist for the Clintons?

I can think of two reasons.

1. A completely complicit media, one that cares more about extending the story to sell advertisement than they do about asking questions and uncovering corruption. After all, we are 26 days into Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and she has yet to conduct a single formal interview with any national media organization–which is a new record for her.

2. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan puts it thusly:

The Clintons are unique in the annals of American politics: They are protected from charges of corruption by their reputation for corruption. It’s not news anymore. They’re like . . . Bonnie and Clyde go on a spree, hold up a bunch of banks, it causes a sensation, there’s a trial, and they’re acquitted. They walk out of the courthouse, get in a car, rob a bank, get hauled in, complain they’re being picked on—“Why are you always following us?”—and again, not guilty. They rob the next bank and no one cares. “That’s just Bonnie and Clyde doing what Bonnie and Clyde do. No one else cares, why should I?”

In the video above, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer says the Clintons “seem to operate on a level that’s very different” than any other couple in American politics.

If that’s true, then, as Joseph de Maistre would say, we will get the government we deserve.