Hill’s Shills: Leaks Have Exposed Journalists In Clinton’s Corner

MickeyW · Oct 12, 2016

The massive trove of emails by Clinton confidant John Podesta released by Wikileaks has exposed journalists from a variety of media organizations who are “with her.”

CNBC chief Washington correspondent and New York Times political writer John Harwood is the most prominent journalist who is cozy in the emails with the Clinton camp. The CNBC anchor is also the one who should arguably be the most embarrassed.

Harwood in several emails to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta showers Hillary in praise. Harwood in one email to Podesta says “[Hillary] was good here” after an event and in another describes her as “pretty strong.”

In another email, Harwood tells Podesta to “watch out” for Dr. Ben Carson.

“Ben Carson could give you real trouble in a general,” Harwood wrote. The CNBC anchor was a moderator of a Republican primary debate and bragged to Podesta in an email exchange about asking Donald Trump, “Let’s be honest, is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?”

Leaks Have Exposed Journalists In Clinton's Corner | The Daily Caller

trouble13 · Oct 12, 2016

I hope your not expecting any of this to be reported in the news

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

ocean515 · Oct 12, 2016

MickeyW said:
The massive trove of emails by Clinton confidant John Podesta released by Wikileaks has exposed journalists from a variety of media organizations who are “with her.”

CNBC chief Washington correspondent and New York Times political writer John Harwood is the most prominent journalist who is cozy in the emails with the Clinton camp. The CNBC anchor is also the one who should arguably be the most embarrassed.

Harwood in several emails to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta showers Hillary in praise. Harwood in one email to Podesta says “[Hillary] was good here” after an event and in another describes her as “pretty strong.”

In another email, Harwood tells Podesta to “watch out” for Dr. Ben Carson.

“Ben Carson could give you real trouble in a general,” Harwood wrote. The CNBC anchor was a moderator of a Republican primary debate and bragged to Podesta in an email exchange about asking Donald Trump, “Let’s be honest, is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?”

Leaks Have Exposed Journalists In Clinton's Corner | The Daily Caller

Since it has become obvious the MSM no longer exists in the business of reporting, what should be done about it?

I've been pondering that question.

History illustrates how a state run media becomes a tool to manipulate and control the population. We have just about reached that point related to what has been considered the MSM.

So what do citizens, or voters, do about it?

It seems to me there is a massive void in the market for a clean source of clear information. But how would that be assured?

All the connected sources claim to be non-political, or unaffiliated, but a little bit of digging proves they are not.

EvaPeron · Oct 12, 2016

MickeyW said:
The massive trove of emails by Clinton confidant John Podesta released by Wikileaks has exposed journalists from a variety of media organizations who are “with her.”

CNBC chief Washington correspondent and New York Times political writer John Harwood is the most prominent journalist who is cozy in the emails with the Clinton camp. The CNBC anchor is also the one who should arguably be the most embarrassed.

Harwood in several emails to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta showers Hillary in praise. Harwood in one email to Podesta says “[Hillary] was good here” after an event and in another describes her as “pretty strong.”

In another email, Harwood tells Podesta to “watch out” for Dr. Ben Carson.

“Ben Carson could give you real trouble in a general,” Harwood wrote. The CNBC anchor was a moderator of a Republican primary debate and bragged to Podesta in an email exchange about asking Donald Trump, “Let’s be honest, is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?”

Leaks Have Exposed Journalists In Clinton's Corner | The Daily Caller

When I heard the liberal news defend this exact question being asked to Hillary and then the exact email having been leaked - saying it was a coincidence, it is then that I knew there would be no hope for ever getting honest reporting from the biased media.

"Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have banned the death penalty. Thirty-one states, including Ohio, still have the death penalty. According to the National Coalition To Abolish The Death Penalty, since 1973, 156 people have been executed on death row and later set free. Since 1976, 1,414 people have been executed in the US. That's 11% of Americans who were sentenced to die, but later exonerated and freed. Ohio and 30 other states should join the current list and abolish the death penalty."

AlbqOwl · Oct 12, 2016

ocean515 said:
Since it has become obvious the MSM no longer exists in the business of reporting, what should be done about it?

I've been pondering that question.

History illustrates how a state run media becomes a tool to manipulate and control the population. We have just about reached that point related to what has been considered the MSM.

So what do citizens, or voters, do about it?

Responsible citizens and voters should absolutely keep beating the drum wherever inappropriate bias and influence exists in the media. Just as we need to be advised when those in government abuse their privileges and power and make sure the public is aware, so should the Fourth Estate be subject to scrutiny and criticism. We should call it to its proper responsibility as our primary line of defense to get the truth of things and shame it when it fails to take that responsibility seriously and/or abuses its power by dishonestly attempting to influence public opinion.

Chomsky · Oct 12, 2016

MickeyW said:
The massive trove of emails by Clinton confidant John Podesta released by Wikileaks has exposed journalists from a variety of media organizations who are “with her.”

CNBC chief Washington correspondent and New York Times political writer John Harwood is the most prominent journalist who is cozy in the emails with the Clinton camp. The CNBC anchor is also the one who should arguably be the most embarrassed.

Harwood in several emails to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta showers Hillary in praise. Harwood in one email to Podesta says “[Hillary] was good here” after an event and in another describes her as “pretty strong.”

In another email, Harwood tells Podesta to “watch out” for Dr. Ben Carson.

“Ben Carson could give you real trouble in a general,” Harwood wrote. The CNBC anchor was a moderator of a Republican primary debate and bragged to Podesta in an email exchange about asking Donald Trump, “Let’s be honest, is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?”

Leaks Have Exposed Journalists In Clinton's Corner | The Daily Caller

How can anyone trust the chain of custody, Mickey?

But regardless, I think:

1] The public will become desensitized, especially as the emails are attacked in general terms of their voracity and tied back to Trump. I believe we're already seeing this for example with Donna Brazile dismissing the emails as doctored.

2] It's likely too little, too late.

humbolt · Oct 12, 2016

Chomsky said:
How can anyone trust the chain of custody, Mickey?

But regardless, I think:

1] The public will become desensitized, especially as the emails are attacked in general terms of their voracity and tied back to Trump. I believe we're already seeing this for example with Donna Brazile dismissing the emails as doctored.

Click to expand...

No one has disproven their veracity, and no one has tied any of it back to Trump. Proof is required, and not innuendo, misdirection and spin. All that flapping of gums and waving of arms by the DNC and Clinton campaign is fun to watch, but it means nothing.

2] It's likely too little, too late.

Click to expand...

There's still nearly 4 weeks until the election. That's a long time in politics. We'll see. The evidence is pretty damning, but then, there's Trump. It's likely he'll step on his own dick a few times between now and then, and if he doesn't, the Clinton media sycophants will try to make it appear so.

eohrnberger · Oct 12, 2016

trouble13 said:
I hope your not expecting any of this to be reported in the news

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

No, I don't. But I'm cautiously, and perhaps foolishly, optimistic that many of these Hill's Shills are going be out looking for another job.
I can't believe that their editors are very happy with them about all this.

Chomsky · Oct 12, 2016

humbolt said:
No one has disproven their veracity, and no one has tied any of it back to Trump. Proof is required, and not innuendo, misdirection and spin. All that flapping of gums and waving of arms by the DNC and Clinton campaign is fun to watch, but it means nothing.

To the bolded: Exactly.

But proof is required of the accuser, not the accused.

These emails were stolen by criminals Russian criminals and obtained by a fugitive in Ecuadorian exile, with no legit chain of custody. Meanwhile, several government agencies have come out claiming the DNC, several other government entities, and several state's election boards have been hacked by the Russians.

And yes, Donna Brazile has denied the legitimacy of the recent emails, and John Podesta has warned of their lacking voracity.

But regardless, the emails were obtained illegally by criminals doing criminal acts, and it's no one's requirement to prove they are honest criminals. That's for the thief's to prove. They don't even have a chain of custody. Nor do we even know who they are. This is how low we have sunk collectively as a nation, that we are willing to accept this.

The emails would never be legit in a court of law. Now if you'd like to make the argument that the court of public opinion has a lower bar than a court of law (this year the bar seems to be in the mud), then fair enough - that's your opinion. But I'm not buying it.

There's still nearly 4 weeks until the election. That's a long time in politics. We'll see. The evidence is pretty damning, but then, there's Trump. It's likely he'll step on his own dick a few times between now and then, and if he doesn't, the Clinton media sycophants will try to make it appear so.

That's fair enough. I doubt he can recover, but yes anything can happen in those four weeks. I may even win the lotto. Alright, that lotto comment was facetious; there's a small possibility he can recover or a black swan event can occur, as always.

Fletch · Oct 12, 2016

Chomsky said:
And yes, Donna Brazile has denied the legitimacy of the recent emails, and John Podesta has warned of their lacking voracity.

So, you would have to believe that some Russian spy made that story up. That seems far more unbelievable than the story itself. Brazile is a long time friend of the Clintons and worked at CNN at the time. The idea that she got wind of a potential question that might give Hillary trouble and passed it on to her team is completely believable. This story is 100% true because it is 100% believable. Attacking the source is just what the Clintons do. Its a distraction.

humbolt · Oct 12, 2016

Chomsky said:
To the bolded: Exactly.

But proof is required of the accuser, not the accused.

Harry Reid didn't offer any in 2012. I'm simply holding to his standard.

These emails were stolen by criminals Russian criminals and obtained by a fugitive in Ecuadorian exile, with no legit chain of custody. Meanwhile, several government agencies have come out claiming the DNC, several other government entities, and several state's election boards have been hacked by the Russians.

And yes, Donna Brazile has denied the legitimacy of the recent emails, and John Podesta has warned of their lacking voracity.

Then they can offer the proof of it.

But regardless, the emails were obtained illegally by criminals doing criminal acts, and it's no one's requirement to prove they are honest criminals. That's for the thief's to prove. They don't even have a chain of custody. Nor do we even know who they are. This is how low we have sunk collectively as a nation, that we are willing to accept this.

I agree, but neither you nor I made these rules. Thank the media and people like Harry Reid.

The emails would never be legit in a court of law. Now if you'd like to make the argument that the court of public opinion has a lower bar than a court of law (this year the bar seems to be in the mud), then fair enough - that's your opinion. But I'm not buying it.

I agree, but again, what you and I think doesn't count for much. Public opinion is swayed by rumor. That's the stock in trade for campaigns these days. If the truth were known, we'd likely revolt.

That's fair enough. I doubt he can recover, but yes anything can happen in those four weeks. I may even win the lotto. Alright, that lotto comment was facetious; there's a small possibility he can recover or a black swan event can occur, as always.

We'll see. I strongly dislike Clinton, and I'm not at all fond of Trump. I had other candidates in mind at the start of this mess, and I'm seriously disappointed at the choice we have. Personally, I'll be fine. But my children and that generation deserve a secure and thriving country in which to make their way through life. That's what's at stake. I'm just a short-timer here on the planet now.

Chomsky · Oct 12, 2016

humbolt said:
Harry Reid didn't offer any in 2012. I'm simply holding to his standard.

Then they can offer the proof of it.

I agree, but neither you nor I made these rules. Thank the media and people like Harry Reid.

I agree, but again, what you and I think doesn't count for much. Public opinion is swayed by rumor. That's the stock in trade for campaigns these days. If the truth were known, we'd likely revolt.

We'll see. I strongly dislike Clinton, and I'm not at all fond of Trump. I had other candidates in mind at the start of this mess, and I'm seriously disappointed at the choice we have. Personally, I'll be fine. But my children and that generation deserve a secure and thriving country in which to make their way through life. That's what's at stake. I'm just a short-timer here on the planet now.

Well, I'm in general agreement with everything else here, except the bolded.

I see no reason for the Dems to play this game, in actuality or especially in political terms.

They should question the accuracy (much as I am here), and leave it up to the publishers to prove the voracity of their posts.

There's no need to get bogged down in this. If I were them, I'd attack the voracity of emails in general, and not get in the mud on specifics. And in political terms (whether rightly or wrongly), I'd tie them to Trump and his relationship with Putin - making special note of Paul Manaforte.

I think some of the Dems are starting to do this, and I think it's a smart strategy.

And I still maintain the public will get desensitized with this, *especially* if the Dems link the emails and attacks to Trump.

Hill’s Shills: Leaks Have Exposed Journalists In Clinton’s Corner

MickeyW

trouble13

ocean515

EvaPeron

AlbqOwl

Chomsky

Social Democrat

humbolt

eohrnberger

Chomsky

Social Democrat

Fletch

humbolt

Chomsky

Social Democrat