As the months pass, it will be helpful to remember every so often which crazy right-wing newspaper was the first to report on Hillary Clinton’s ethically-challenged tenure at the State Department: that Republican mouthpiece known as The New York Times. Because after Clinton has successfully cast the current set of allegations as partisan attacks, it will be easy to forget that it was her precious liberal darlings who threw the first stone.

According to the reports – based in part off of Peter Schweizer’s upcoming Clinton Cash – Bill Clinton helped Russian President Vladimir Putin secure control over a Canadian company while Hillary was secretary of state. It just so happened that Bill was also paid half a million dollars for a speech at this time, sponsored by a Russian financial institution. And it just so happened that several entities with a financial stake in the sale donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation while all of this was going on.

The smoking gun – Hillary trading State Department favors for foreign donations – has yet to be found. And that’s the refrain we’ll keep hearing until all of this blows over. Yes, there is every indication that something was wrong. Yes, there is tons of smoke. But hey, as long as we can’t conclusively prove anything, let’s just move on with the election, shall we?

Clinton may be right when she claims that conservatives and Republicans are out to get her. But if some of the criticism has expanded beyond the facts, it is more than made up for by her army of white knights in the liberal media. If these outlets were more consistent about reporting the facts, conservative writers and congressmen would not be so adamant about exposing the truth. In an era where there is so much talk about white privilege and male privilege and all the rest, Clinton enjoys the greatest protection of all: Democrat privilege.

It’s one thing for the liberal media to paint Democrat candidates as something they’re not. It’s one thing for them to present Republicans as hateful, backwards hillbillies. But it’s quite another to overlook treasonous crimes just because there is a (D) beside the person’s name. The media has already shamed itself with its refusal to investigate the facts behind Benghazi, and it gave the email scandal only as much space as it had to. But if they let damning allegations of quid pro quo at the State Department go unanswered, they are complicit in whatever crimes Clinton may be guilty of.

As Americans, we’ve come to terms with the idea of our politicians being dishonest and corrupt. But if we’ve gotten to the point where our news reporters won’t even cover wrongdoing if it hurts their chosen candidates, we are headed for trouble.