In an attempt to further hinder Donald Trump’s efforts to win the presidency, The New York Times printed decades-old tax returns filed by the GOP nominee.

However, in its attempts to “expose” Donald Trump, the only thing The Times has done is further reveal its hypocritical partisan bias.

Clinton either has a better knack for investing than Warren Buffett and George Soros combined, is one of the luckiest investors in history or was involved in insider trading.

It’s astonishing that a publication concerned with 20-year-old tax returns thinks nothing of the decades-old skeletons in Hillary Clinton’s closet. There are certainly a number to choose from, such as the Whitewater scandal, the cattle futures controversy, and Travelgate, and while all of these were rightfully headaches for Bill Clinton during his time in office, none of them have been litigated by the mainstream media during the 2016 election.

The Whitewater scandal originated in a real estate deal in Arkansas in 1978. Jim McDougal convinced the Clintons to buy 220 acres of riverfront property along with him and his wife, which they transferred to the newly created Whitewater Development Corporation — of which they were all equal shareholders.

The venture eventually failed, costing the Clinton’s $40,000 in net losses. The McDougals and other Clinton associates were sent to prison for fraudulent activity surrounding the corporation, but the Clintons were never prosecuted or found guilty of any wrongdoing.

[lz_jwplayer video=Eu6E8i0j]

It didn’t take long for scandal to strike once the Clintons arrived in the White House.

Travelgate was the first and it had Hillary’s fingerprints all over it. Soon after Bill Clinton assumed office, Hillary Clinton allegedly pushed for the firing of seven official travel office employees. Those employees were then replaced with close Clinton allies.

Following the revelation of the firings and ensuing public outcry, Clinton allegedly gave false statements to investigators about the matter. And in a turn of events that will sound eerily familiar to anyone following the email scandal, her statements were later confirmed to be factually false — but investigators could not prove they were uttered as intentionally false.

[lz_jwplayer video=Swd4aNVc]

Who do you think would win the Presidency?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

As for the cattle futures controversy, it’s surprising The Times has neglected to publish a feature-length expose on the incident, considering their apparent concern with financial honesty. In 1978, Hillary Clinton — who had no real experience whatsoever with financial markets —invested $1,000 in the cattle futures market.

Ten months later she left the market with $100,000 in profits — a 10,000 percent return. Such a return in such a short amount of time is practically unheard of. Clinton either has a better knack for investing than Warren Buffett and George Soros combined, is one of the luckiest investors in history, or was involved in insider trading.

Of course, the problem The New York Times has with Trump’s 1995 tax returns isn’t the nearly $1 billion losses he declared for that year, but the fact that said losses “could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years.”

[lz_related_box id=”212378″]

“Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump’s 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period,” the paper reports.

The New York Times would have the American people believe that the possibility of Trump engaging in legal tax avoidance is not just a scandal, but a scandal that somehow proves a disqualifying turpitude. Numerous incidents of possible violations of the law on Clinton’s part are to be ignored, however.

That The Times is perfectly willing to attack Trump’s legal behavior, while going lengths to ignore or even cover up Clinton’s illegal behavior, proves it is neither a serious publication nor concerned honestly with the character and personal ethics of those who would assume the highest office of the land.