Media and FBI bias for Clinton disgusts voters
© Getty Images

The Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpJimmy Carter: 'I hope there's an age limit' on presidency White House fires DHS general counsel: report Trump to cap California trip with visit to the border MORE versus Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonGOP struggles with retirement wave Overnight Energy: Trump to revoke California's tailpipe waiver | Democrats propose bill to revoke Trump endangered species rollback | Trump officials finalize rule allowing fewer inspectors at pork plants Mark Mellman: The most important moment in history? MORE debate delivered a spectacle with valid criticisms of both candidates. What caused my unmitigated revulsion more than a ninety minute harangue between a smug woman and a flailing man passing as a test of presidential fitness? The obvious media bias and simultaneous protection of Clinton by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Lester Holt never asked Clinton questions about the immunity deals given to five of her top aides in the email scandal, the huge speaking fees paid to her husband during her tenure as Secretary of State, or the pay for play allegations against her family foundation accepting millions of dollars from foreign governments while she served as the nation’s top diplomat. Those are legitimate questions the public deserves to have answered by a presidential candidate.


The day after the debate, FBI Director Comey struggled in testimony on Capitol Hill to justify the limited immunity given to Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff at the State department. Mills is one of two lawyers who, inexplicably, were allowed to accompany Clinton to her FBI interview despite being witnesses, potential co-conspirators and recipients of limited immunity deals. Comey’s unconvincing defense is they wanted access to Mills’ laptop computer. They could have obtained it through search warrant or subpoena.

Through granting the immunity, they agreed none of the information on Mills’ computer could be used against her. This is one fact among many that demonstrates the FBI investigation of Clinton was anything but fair and impartial. The clear protection of Clinton by this Administration together with Holt’s failure to ask any questions about the numerous scandals nipping at Clinton’s heels like a neurotic border collie herding sheep infuriates me.

Holt riddled Trump with pointed questions on the birther issue, his tax returns, stop and frisk, and his position on the Iraq war. Fair enough. Holt then fact-checked Trump and Holt’s facts were misleading any way you look at it. Stop and frisk has not been declared unconstitutional, Trump’s nuanced answer was much closer to the truth than Holt’s blanket assertion.

Trump’s alleged support of the Iraq war is based on one offhand radio show comment made while he was a citizen. Senator Clinton voted for the war and, judging from her ardent push to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya, learned nothing from her mistake.

Trump exploited the birther issue started by Clinton supporters in her 2008 campaign against Obama. The voters know that and can make up their minds on how important it is. Holt pressed Trump on releasing his tax returns because detractors claim he may be hiding information, why not ask Clinton about the willful destruction of emails under subpoena where undisputedly information was destroyed?

You don’t have to be a Trump supporter to be disgusted by a national debate conducted with such glaring bias against one candidate. Or to be enraged by Holt’s failure to ask hard questions of Clinton, the only presidential candidate in history to be under FBI investigation. It is far more than Clinton’s blatant deceptions that outrage me, it is the fact that they go unchallenged during a televised debate.

Whatever you think of Trump, his alleged sins haven’t undermined the public’s faith in the FBI, the DOJ and the press. Clinton’s corruption and deceit have destroyed the reputations of the FBI, the DOJ and, Monday night, shattered any remaining legitimacy of the mainstream press.

Tammie S. Haynes is an attorney and mediator living in the Houston area. She may be reached at

The views of Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.