WikiLeaks Drops Proof That NYTimes Colluded With Hillary Clinton

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is explicitly claimed in the WL communication.
It is denied by by the email author.
It is contradicted in the book published on the matter.

Tacit admission? IOW made up stuff.
 
7_Sorrows said:
Obviously your capacity for critical thinking and discerning truth from the mainstream media has been diminished
Click to expand...
Can you back that up with a cogent argument? Anything other that the simple idea that my conclusion is different that yours. Anything?
 
Jeanne_S said:
Discount any opinion that doesn’t align with yours,using a lot of words n the process but never really arguing your premise effectively.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.
The threadline on this thread was sized upon by many.

What are the facts?

The is prior commentary in a book published years ago on this correspondence between the NYT and DoS that vitiates the story line of the link. There was communication to protect assets, WL was involved in that communication process. This was done in conjunction with a series of reports that we highly criticlal of the administration, not ones in which the administration was treated with kids gloves to allow for spin, deflection, and distraction. No one has presented any evidence of spin, deflection, or distraction enables by the so-called collusion. In fact no one has presented anything. Even that Hillary Clinton had any involvement in this whatsoever.

The actual story provides a reasonably compelling case that the story as presented here is just FAKE NEWS; holding to that opinion of the matter, in light of the evidence, is reasonable.

Opinions to the contrary have not been supported, nor has the evidence against them been countered. This is a story with no legs published only in the echo chamber. As such those contrary opinon are properly discounted.
 
Last edited:
TENS OF THOUSANDS of documents have been released by Wikileaks, ranging from CIA plans to control Samsung televisions to John Podesta’s emails.

None of these have been discredited, and MUCH of it has been authenticated independently.

Plenty of reason to believe WL on everything they say. They say the NYT sent info to the DoS so they could “get ahead” of the negative reporting, then I believe them.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
They say the NYT sent info to the DoS so they could “get ahead” of the negative reporting, then I believe them.
Click to expand...
You believe them. How sweet.

Whatever the authenticity of their purloined emails, this claim is not in the NYT/SDoS email.
And the claim is contradicted by other evidence.

It seems no more true than smearing Clinton with Vatican Spring or pizza-gate.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
Plenty of reason to believe WL on everything they say. They say the NYT sent info to the DoS so they could “get ahead” of the negative reporting, then I believe them.
Click to expand...
An even better reason, is that the NYT hasn’t denied the allegations.
 
Theo520 said:
An even better reason, is that the NYT hasn’t denied the allegations.
Click to expand...
  1. This is not a story outside of the right-wing echo chamber. I don’t think the NYT acknowledges the story.
  2. As I have pointed out multple times on this thread, the story has been flatly denied by the Times writer.
Sheesh.
 
dvdjs said:
As I have pointed out multple times on this thread, the story has been flatly denied by the Times writer.

Sheesh.
Click to expand...
I just skimmed the thread, didn’t see your link to where the writer denies the material.

Where is your evidence?
Post # will do, if I missed it.

Or are you making stuff up again.
 
Raxus said:
And? If I authored a book saying that the sun was square-shaped, would that instantly make it true?
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but why should you believe the claim made by WL. There is no indepednet supporting evidence?

I think the time line and overall context is significant.

The cable gate story was not supportive of the administration; just the opposite.
The communication with the DOS by the the NYT writer, in collaboration with WL, was revealed years ago; the goal was to give an opportunity to protect assets.

Years later, for whatever reason, WL creates this story, that gets traction on infowars, wnd, gatewaypundit and the like. The story is so well assembled that it doesn’t even comment of the prior publication of similar content nor does it document the spin, deflection, and diversion.

This is about as fakey a piece of fake news as you could ask for. But if it confirms anti-Hillary bias, folks are all in, and don;t want to be bothered with the facts of the matter.
 
Raxus said:
“Evil”. I direct you to the massive sale on tinfoil over in aisle 9…
Click to expand...
I am amazed that a Catholic should show unease with the idea of evil.
1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39
Click to expand...
Would “intrincially disordered” make you feel better?
 
dvdjs said:
Fair enough, but why should you believe the claim made by WL
Click to expand...
Because they have released some CRAZY things that have turned out to be true. I mean, come ON…who believed that Donna Brazile sent debate questions to Clinton? Nobody…until WL released them, and Brazile was forced to admit it.

They haven’t been wrong yet.
 
dvdjs said:
As I have pointed out multple times on this thread, the story has been flatly denied by the Times writer.

Sheesh.
Click to expand...
I just skimmed the thread, didn’t see your link to where the writer denies the material.

Where is your evidence?
Post # will do, if I missed it.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
Because they have released some CRAZY things that have turned out to be true. I mean, come ON…who believed that Donna Brazile sent debate questions to Clinton? Nobody…until WL released them, and Brazile was forced to admit it.

They haven’t been wrong yet.
Click to expand...
You seem to be unable to differentiate between the emails themselves - which I agree that there is no evidence that they make up - and the narratives woven from them. Which in this case, indications are that they have made up.

I have pointed to the narrative about Hilary and the DNC advancing a “Vatican Spring” against the Catholic Church. That narrative has no actual support - even though there WL released an authentic email that, in the cleverest of hands, was woven into a lie swallowed whole by many. Likewise Pizzagate - which involved bizarre decoding of emails.

Just because a story contains a fact, doesn’t make the story true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top