Hacked emails about 'journalist' hacks in the tank for Hillary.
Hill’s Shills: Leaks Have Exposed Journalists In Clinton’s Corner
Hill’s Shills: Leaks Have Exposed Journalists In Clinton’s Corner
Last edited:
In the tank.
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Just seen today that yesterday evening news consisted of each network except fox devote 8 to 9 minutes on Trump.
CBS discussed Hillary emails for 30 seconds only because Pence brought it up in a interview. NBC and ABC didn't even mention them. Nothing more to see than that. Basically a liberal agenda and going for ratings because Trump trysts are entertainment.
And of course they spend several minutes discussing how Michelle Obama was "shaken to her core". I can't stop laughing. This is the same person that invites Boyonce and JayZ into the whitehouse. Those hiphop lyrics are more graphic and violent than anything from Trump. But....she is ok with that. smh
CBS discussed Hillary emails for 30 seconds only because Pence brought it up in a interview. NBC and ABC didn't even mention them. Nothing more to see than that. Basically a liberal agenda and going for ratings because Trump trysts are entertainment.
And of course they spend several minutes discussing how Michelle Obama was "shaken to her core". I can't stop laughing. This is the same person that invites Boyonce and JayZ into the whitehouse. Those hiphop lyrics are more graphic and violent than anything from Trump. But....she is ok with that. smh
A cozy relationship between the Clinton campaign and some members of the news media. It's a wonder why the WikiLeaks is getting such scant coverage. They are all about shaping her message and getting Trump.Clinton Campaign Held Off-the-Record Party for Reporters, Anchors, Editors
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Oh I dunno ... I'm not sure I'm say a figure approaching 3 million in the last month alone is exactly "scant" ...
wikileaks clinton - Google Search
wikileaks clinton - Google Search
Here's a pretty interesting read on why the leaked emails shouldn't be ignored by the press, even though the press is thus far pretty much ignoring them. It plainly states why they're being ignored, as... "But who’s going to wade through thousands of emails, when a hot mike on Access Hollywood provides such entertainment?"
The piece won't cause the press to cover them (in no small part because the press is complicit in her campaign, as the leaked emails show unambiguousluy), and it certainly won't change the election, but it will make you wonder "if only..." Some of the things in those emails are damaging enough to derail the campaign. They are jaw-dropping, and as the article notes, sheds a light on how a future Clinton administration would probably function.
It is interesting how the New York Times manages to avoid stories of the leaks, probably because they have three journalists mentioned by name and by correspondence in the leaks. They average 17 stories a day on Trump, and thus far have produced five stories on the leaks. None of those stories have mentioned where Hillary stated that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding ISIS, the emails that show the State Department coordinating with the campaign, nor the coziness of journalists with the campaign (again, that last one, probably because some of those journalists are their own).
Last Tuesday the Washington Post ran two stories on the leaks, neither one of them about the leaks. One story was Mike Pence commenting on them, and the other was Podesta’s remarks on them. They did run an editorial entitled, "Scandal! WikiLeaks reveals Hillary Clinton to be…reasonable," and did an excellent job of cherry picking information to support that headline. Of course, one of their reporters was featured in some of the leaked emails showing where she (the Post's White House bureau chief Juliet Eilperin ) had sent Podesta (and several others in the campaign) a heads up on the fact that he would be mentioned in an upcoming story she was about to do. Didn't want it to catch him "off guard."
Several days ago Clinton’s press secretary Brain Fallon told the press "If you are going to write about materials issued by [Wikileaks], you should at least state they are product of illegal hack by a foreign govt." And that's exactly what the press is doing. It's almost like the fact that they were hacked, probably by the Russians, is way more important than what's in the leaked emails.
We'll probably be getting new leaked emails on a daily basis between now and the election. Just like each day will bring a newly crowned accuser du jour.
The piece won't cause the press to cover them (in no small part because the press is complicit in her campaign, as the leaked emails show unambiguousluy), and it certainly won't change the election, but it will make you wonder "if only..." Some of the things in those emails are damaging enough to derail the campaign. They are jaw-dropping, and as the article notes, sheds a light on how a future Clinton administration would probably function.
It is interesting how the New York Times manages to avoid stories of the leaks, probably because they have three journalists mentioned by name and by correspondence in the leaks. They average 17 stories a day on Trump, and thus far have produced five stories on the leaks. None of those stories have mentioned where Hillary stated that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding ISIS, the emails that show the State Department coordinating with the campaign, nor the coziness of journalists with the campaign (again, that last one, probably because some of those journalists are their own).
Last Tuesday the Washington Post ran two stories on the leaks, neither one of them about the leaks. One story was Mike Pence commenting on them, and the other was Podesta’s remarks on them. They did run an editorial entitled, "Scandal! WikiLeaks reveals Hillary Clinton to be…reasonable," and did an excellent job of cherry picking information to support that headline. Of course, one of their reporters was featured in some of the leaked emails showing where she (the Post's White House bureau chief Juliet Eilperin ) had sent Podesta (and several others in the campaign) a heads up on the fact that he would be mentioned in an upcoming story she was about to do. Didn't want it to catch him "off guard."
Several days ago Clinton’s press secretary Brain Fallon told the press "If you are going to write about materials issued by [Wikileaks], you should at least state they are product of illegal hack by a foreign govt." And that's exactly what the press is doing. It's almost like the fact that they were hacked, probably by the Russians, is way more important than what's in the leaked emails.
We'll probably be getting new leaked emails on a daily basis between now and the election. Just like each day will bring a newly crowned accuser du jour.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The fact that they were hacked by a foreign government does call into question their accuracy and authenticity though ...
Some are no doubt accurate (seed with ones that are in order to establish "cred", then put out the ones that have been altered) ... while others apparently are not:
Dear Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, I Am Not Sidney Blumenthal
Trick is determining which ones are which ... probably a massive undertaking ... particularly without the support of the parties involved who likely have little to no upside to do so.
Guess who was most recently citing the one above that has been shown to be false ?
Some are no doubt accurate (seed with ones that are in order to establish "cred", then put out the ones that have been altered) ... while others apparently are not:
Dear Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, I Am Not Sidney Blumenthal
Trick is determining which ones are which ... probably a massive undertaking ... particularly without the support of the parties involved who likely have little to no upside to do so.
Guess who was most recently citing the one above that has been shown to be false ?
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
There is some degree of irony involved with the existence of this thread.
It seems I remember a time when various folks were cooing, ooohing, and ahhing about Trump's ability - and absolute genius - in getting the press to cover him and carry his message ... truly a thing to marvel at ...
All that "free media" he was getting ...
Probably a good time to remember that sometimes it's a good idea to be careful of what one wishes for ... because you just might get it.
It seems I remember a time when various folks were cooing, ooohing, and ahhing about Trump's ability - and absolute genius - in getting the press to cover him and carry his message ... truly a thing to marvel at ...
All that "free media" he was getting ...
Probably a good time to remember that sometimes it's a good idea to be careful of what one wishes for ... because you just might get it.
Last edited:
If, in fact, that is a fact, then it might call into question the accuracy and authenticity. But not necessarily.
The story above does not call into question the accuracy or authenticity of the leaked emails. It only exposes how one of the emails was altered after the fact for a "news" report. The original, unaltered email is still there, unaltered. There's really no evidence that any of the documents leaked by Wikileaks are forgeries.
Yeah, well, a little more on that, and on Eichenwald. Plus there's this.
It also brings into question her claim that her top secret State Department e-mails weren't compromised. Probably no foreign governments were interested in her State Department e-mails.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
How would you know if they were ?
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
No ... I think that was always in question.
Barring any actual evidence though, it's just speculation ...
Podesta or anyone in the Clinton campaign actually claiming that one or more of them are actually faked or altered would be the first clue. That hasn't happened yet.
That is how I would see it except for some that were on Hillary's server that disappeared.
Evidence? Unless Russia, China or some other foreign country admits gaining access to Hillary's server and TOP SECRET State Department documents, then of course it's just speculation. Hillary did admit she made a mistake but assured all watching the last debate that nothing was compromised and all was secure. "Like it never even happened."