Watching MSNBC's post-election coverage last Tuesday, the dishonest Erebusic duplicity of the politically correct in-studio analysts and pundits was, in a word, nauseating.

Donald Trump, during his five-state primary victory speech, said of Hillary Clinton that: "She's crooked; she'll be a horrible president. She knows nothing about job creation … except jobs for herself."

Unbiased informed individuals would have asked the question: "What did Trump say that wasn't true?" But never let it be said that describes the political punditry. The in-studio analysts were aghast that Trump would dare say such things about Hillary. They even discussed to what extent Trump had hurt his election chances by calling Hillary "crooked." Personally, I think what Trump said of Hillary were the nicest things that could be said of her, but I digress.

I think Brian Williams and Rachel Maddow do a fine job in presenting post-primary election coverage. But I will make no such admission pursuant to their in-studio analysts/pundits.

Hillary Clinton is "crooked," and for those who were either not born yet or who suffer from short memory spans, following are two examples.

TRENDING: Alan Dershowitz sues CNN to halt 'malicious' attacks on innocent people

Let's say for the record that Snopes, the biased, left-leaning, truth-or-fiction site – which has in the past misstated information with respect to my syndicated columns – is this time correct in saying that the former House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation Chief Counsel Jerome Zeifman didn't fire Clinton in 1974.

What is not in question is that Zeifman did say of Clinton: "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her." There is also no question pursuant to Zeifman having said of Clinton: "She was an unethical, dishonest, lawyer." That is a damning indictment of Clinton even if one chooses to question if he alleged that Clinton "conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."

I read Snopes' lengthy "Why Clinton wasn't fired by Zeifman," and much of it was packaged in poli-lawyer speak that dances on the edge of the truth pointing out what was specifically not true but at the same time omitting what was specifically true.

It's a fact that Hillary Clinton and husband were forced to return some $200,000 worth of china, furniture, and other items taken from the White House when they left office.

There is no question Hillary and her husband, the former president, took White House items that did not belong to them. But the spin is not that she/they didn't take the items, it's that she didn't "knowingly" steal them.

Jon Greenberg, writing for Politifact, gave a rather lengthy disquisition that, if nothing else, is one of the best pieces of "she did it but she didn't do it" double talk I've read. ("Viral Image Claims Clintons Stole $200K In Furniture, China, And Artwork From White House," Oct. 1, 2015.) Albeit to be fair he did acknowledge there was a "grain of truth to the claim" of their thievery before launching into "she did it but she didn't do it."

I'm truncating the strenuous details of the claim "she did but she didn't" due to space requirements. What's key is that the argument isn't whether she and her husband took the items, it's that they didn't "steal" them and that they weren't forced to return them under the cloud of impropriety the public understood the situation to be.

Supposedly, the real situation was that persons had given gifts of furniture and china to the White House, and "they never intended their gifts to go to [Hillary and her husband]. They thought they were donating to the White House itself as part [of] a remodeling project in 1993."

The argument presented is: "This is where the questions of provenance get muddy. Some gifts are intended for the government, and must stay in the government's hands, while some are intended for the person[s] [i.e., Hillary and Bill] living in the White House. But it's not always as simple as 'this is mine' and 'that is Uncle Sam's.'"

I argue it is exactly that easy. My late grandmother always said, "Where there's smoke there's fire." From the beginning of her life in college until the moment I'm typing this column, the smoke surrounding Hillary could, euphemistically speaking, cover the Northern Hemisphere.

There is the Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, Susan McDougal, reputable allegations of Hillary personally organizing the coordinated bullying and threatening of the women her husband raped and assaulted. There are the questions and allegations of criminality pursuant to Hillary's magical moment of investing $1,000 in cattle futures and making a dramatic gain of $100,000 – something that raised the eyebrows of even the most seasoned futures investors, but something that was explained away by Clinton and her media.

Her entire political life, from her days in the Arkansas governor's mansion to Fast and Furious to Benghazi to her email accounts, is shrouded in controversy, allegations of wrongdoing, sinister activity, ad nauseum – but it is always explained away.

The shock expressed by the MSNBC analysts shouldn't have been that Trump called Hillary "crooked"; the shock should have been that based on her record that was all he called her.

Media wishing to interview Mychal Massie, please contact [email protected].

