There’s a 16th century proverb that says “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”  Basically, it means that treatment should be similar for people in the same circumstances.  Yes, there could be a gender thing here with the gander reference but back then, male-female equality wasn’t exactly in vogue, right Henry the Eighth?

Anyway, I’m wandering.  Today the goose thing illustrates that double standards are unfair and unacceptable.  Except in American politics and journalism, of course.

For two solid years, the federal government investigated Donald Trump and his associates.  No geese involved but Russians were.  Bad Russians who sabotaged Hillary Clinton’s presidential run.  And according to CNN and others, Mr. Trump “colluded” with those nasty Russians and perhaps even drove them to the airport.
 
But along the way, investigators found out that some FBI people were not being fair in the probe, in fact evidence shows certain agents were out to “get” Donald Trump.

Geese everywhere are appalled by that allegation and would like to know what exactly happened.

So would the President and the Attorney General and, therefore, some of the investigators are now being investigated.

Enter the editorial board of the uber-left San Francisco Chronicle which is objecting to finding out if the fix was in during the Russian Collusion probe even though the paper lustily cheered on the investigation of Mr. Trump.
 
The Chronicle had strong suspicions that Trump was guilty of all kinds of things and was not shy about stating that. 

But last week, the newspaper suddenly pulled back on it’s desire to know the truth about public malfeasance editorializing: “Americans should welcome objective examinations of law enforcement and intelligence, but Barr’s record predicts nothing of the kind.  The attorney general has signaled enthusiasm for Trump’s deceptive and self-serving version of events by recklessly accusing authorities of ‘spying’ on his campaign.”

Uh, how does the San Francisco Chronicle know the spying assertion is “reckless?”  Surely, the paper understands that FISA warrants were obtained by the FBI using false information.  And those warrants were used for surveillance on Trump campaign people.
 
It seems to me that disqualifying William Barr from overseeing an investigation into possible FBI corruption is kind of “reckless” itself, is it not?
 
Geese in and around the Bay Area know the Chronicle could not care less about learning the truth about anything that does not fit it’s ideological outlook.

The paper is a political journal, not a vehicle for honest reporting.
 
For some, that statement might seem, well, a bit reckless.  But it’s not.  The San Francisco Chronicle can’t handle the truth.  So it doesn’t even bother to seek it.