Much to the certain displeasure of the Clinton campaign, a new batch of the former secretary of state's emails was released Wednesday.

The pro-Clinton New York Times started its coverage this way:

A new batch of State Department emails released Tuesday showed the close and sometimes overlapping interests between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department when Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. The documents raised new questions about whether the charitable foundation worked to reward its donors with access and influence at the State Department, a charge that Mrs. Clinton has faced in the past and has always denied.

The anti-Clinton New York Post on the other hand led with this:

Hillary Clinton put the State Department up for sale, with top aides pulling strings and doing favors for fat-cat donors to the Clinton Foundation – including a shady billionaire, according to smoking-gun emails released Tuesday. The stunning revelations include how wealthy contributors seeking influence or prestigious government gigs could fork over piles of cash to get access to Clinton's inner circle, including top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.

To one paper it's an interesting curiosity, one that could just possibly be worthy of further exploration. To the other it's the smoking gun, proof that – as has long been alleged - potentially illegal collusion between a private organization receiving donations from foreign nationals and a senior U.S. public official and her top aides occurred during the time Clinton was the nation's top diplomat.

Anyone who is not a regular consumer of news coming out of the conservative press who finds the story interesting ought to read up on it now. Barring further revelations that are so newsworthy they must be covered, the issue is likely going to vanish from the mainstream press by the end of the weekend.

To cover the just uncovered nexus between the Clinton State Department and the Clinton Foundation, reporters covering the presidential campaign would have to take time out from their day jobs. In case you missed it, that's commenting constantly on Republican Donald Trump's call for supporters of the Second Amendment to prepare to assassinate the former first lady lest she win the election and take away their ability to exercise their constitutional rights.

There are so many things wrong with this it's hard to get them all in. But let's try.

First there's the matter of the anti-Trump bias in the press corps. Once upon time, back when the world was young, reporters who felt conflicted about the subject of their coverage, reporters whose objectivity was questionable, would be reassigned to another story. Nowadays they're encouraged – and by no less a source than the great grey lady of journalism herself. In a recent piece the Times' "Mediator," Jim Rutenberg, not only acknowledged the Trump candidacy has led to objectivity being tossed out the window, he seemed to ratify the fact as good journalism. To do otherwise, he wrote, "would also be an abdication of political journalism's most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be like in the most powerful office in the world."

"It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn't measure itself against any one campaign's definition of fairness. It is journalism's job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history's judgment. To do anything less would be untenable," Rutenberg concluded.

Accordingly, by the new standard, anything Trump says – no matter how ambiguous – is fair game. His comment in North Carolina, which, when taken in context, appeared to mean that only the pro-Second Amendment lobby would be powerful enough to defeat a Clinton Supreme Court nominee who pledged to overturn several recent decisions defining gun ownership as a personal rather than collective right, was spun by the media into a possible call for her to be killed.

The new rules apparently make that OK. Anti-Clinton stories can be buried after they're covered once – so the press can argue its doing its job – while anti-Trump stories can not only be manufactured but kept alive for days by analyses that explore what he actually meant by what he said. For further reference on this point enter: baby booted from rally, Loudoun County, Virginia, into your nearest search engine.

As to political candidates or leaders making statements that arguably encourage violence, how about Clinton's pointed reference to the assassination of Sen. Bobby Kennedy just after he declared victory in the 1968 California Democratic primary as justification for staying in the race against Barack Obama in 2008? Or former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland – now a candidate for U.S. Senate – being caught on tape saying approving things about the unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and all the opportunities it presented? Or, most serious of all, President Barack Obama's 2008 description of the need to "bring a gun" when engaging the Republicans in an electoral battle?

Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections View All 596 Images

Obama, of course, was quoting from "The Untouchables," a gangster film set in his adopted home town of Chicago. But none of these examples, current or not, come up in any analysis of Trump's comment.

The possibility the Clinton Foundation traded political favors for donations, especially donations coming from people who are otherwise barred – even after the Citizens United decision – from making contributions to candidates and campaigns is a big story. If it were a Republican who stood accused of participating in such a scheme it would be covered with the conclusions coming first, followed by the facts. Almost anything could be the smoking gun. In this case, though, even though the smoking gun has apparently been uncovered, the majority of the media is not only willing but eager to give Clinton the continued benefit of the doubt.