In an article published Tuesday by CNN’s Dan Merica, Clinton was wrongly painted by a corrupt media force.

Dan Merica claims there is “nothing to see” in the Wikileaks emails of John Podesta – even though many of them indict Clinton for crimes committed while she was Secretary of State.

Merica instead wanted to point out how “methodical” Clinton seems while running her campaign.

Breitbart News reports:

In Tuesday’s explainer, Merica and Kopan declare that “secret transcripts of Clinton’s paid speeches behind closed doors on Wall Street have failed to turn up any positions widely different than what she says in public.”

He did not mention anything about the consequential cover up of evidence during the investigation of her email scandal, and gave a false excuse as to why the candidate actually committed the crime.

Nor did he mention the many cases of rape her husband has allegedly committed.

Nor the many bribes the Clinton Foundation has been found to have made.

Nor even the contradictory nature of her campaign platform.

Additionally, he left out vital information tied to Clinton’s campaign – or rather some of the mistakes she has personally made.

The reporter failed to mention her confusing stance on foreign policy, such as her plan to create the Trans Pacific Partnership, which was contradicted by Podesta in the Wikileaks emails.

And like her previous candidate Bernie Sanders, it is believed that Clinton is actually opposed to the trade group; however she does aim to open our borders greatly.

Next, her financial policies were contradicted. He said Clinton felt the employees in the federal government were being bought out by bribes, while she openly started supporting the collection of funds from SuperPACs.

Finally, the candidate’s excuse for using a private email server on an unsecured line was explained away as being necessary at the time, and that she had turned over all the relevant information to the case anyways.

Relevant would be the key word there, as she hid many emails from important officials, such as President Barack Obama.

These are just a few examples of the contradictory nature of Merica’s article; one that defends a woman who has to lie her way through a campaign, and woman who makes empty promises which are supposedly appealing to some voters.

Not surprisingly, Dan Merica’s name is mentioned several times in the emails of John Podesta, suggesting a friendly relationship to the candidate and her campaign.

Furthermore, Clinton’s press secretary, Nick Merrill, was found to have called Merica before an interview of Clinton was released, or even mentioned on social media.

According to Clinton’s Chief of Communications, the exchange occurred as a “precaution” to ensure nothing was said about Clinton that she didn’t want said.

Breitbart News reports:

Merrill described a chummy exchange between Merica and Clinton in February 2016: “Dan Merica asked her if she was jealous that she didn’t get [Chris] Christie’s endorsement, to which she responded with a prolonged smile (you could see the gears turning), and then said ‘Dan, I really like you. I really really like you.’ They are basically courting each other at this point.”


Should this article be taken with any actual political relevance, due to its extremely biased nature?

Or is it just another person bought out to protect Clinton from her own mistakes?

Leave us your thoughts in the comments section below.