WikiLeaks Drops Proof That NYTimes Colluded With Hillary Clinton

[dvdjs]

Is this a retraction?

 

[dvdjs]

Maybe you are guilty of the same crimes.

What crime do you feel comfortable suggesting that I may have committed?

 

[Theo520]

Is this a retraction?

Yes, now please provide your evidence.
Mea culpa if I missed it, but I don’t see it in the thread though you said it was here.

 

[dvdjs]

Mea culpa

Thanks.

Post # 18 contains the reaction of the denial of Scott Shane, and the link to the book in which this story was told years in advance of the WL “new” story.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

and the narratives woven from them. Which in this case, indications are that they have made up.

I haven’t talked about the narratives. I’ve only spoken about WL, which has proved themselves to be honest and unbiased brokers of information.

The NYT? Not so much.

 

[Theo520]

Thanks.

Post # 18 contains the reaction of the denial of Scott Shane, and the link to the book in which this story was told years in advance of the WL “new” story.

Nope
Don’t see it.

Post 18 may provide some context for some of the communication but it doesn’t dispute the OP link.

 

[dvdjs]

I haven’t talked about the narratives.

Yes that’s true. Strangely enough.

Since this is what the entire thread is about.

Not the email per se. But the narrative woven around it. The idea of collusion to protect and promote Hillary. All of that is extrinsic to the email. And it requires great imagination to get to the narrative form the email.

 

[dvdjs]

Post 18 may provide some context for some of the communication but it doesn’t dispute the OP.

It does.

And the story is that “WL created an online redaction engine so we could take out names of those who might be imprisoned or worse from cables we published. WL agreed on the consultation with State Dept.” @ScottShaneNYT

You can get the whole tweet - includin; that’s just nonsense - by going to twitter. (I haven’t figured out how to link an actual tweet thread.)

 

[Theo520]

Here is the email linked in the OP.
It’s clearly a disclosure of their editorial calendar.
It would read very differently if the purpose was just to check names.

 

[Raxus]

Fair enough, but why should you believe the claim made by WL. There is no indepednet supporting evidence?

They’ve got enough of a track record of being right that I feel safe in believing them for the time being.

I think the time line and overall context is significant.

Those things can be, certainly.

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.

Can you link to something about this, please?

Years later, for whatever reason, WL creates this story, that gets traction on infowars, wnd, gatewaypundit and the like.

“For whatever reason”…why would they craft a lie now?

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.

Why should it?

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.

You don’t agree that it paints Hillary in a really bad light, and by association, the Dems?

 

[Raxus]

I am amazed that a Catholic should show unease with the idea of evil.

Unease? I was pointing out that I do not think that the context of WikiLeak’s action demonstrates “evil” in any way.

Would “intrincially disordered” make you feel better?

There is no intrinsic disorder, maliciousness or evil to what WikiLeaks has done.

 

[Jig_Saw]

I am wondering if there are classes given and people paid to go on social media and make the wild claims like you do that twist and turn and distort the obvious facts.

I always figured they get it from right wing radio and websites and just go on social media for free to make wild claims and twist and turn and distort the obvious facts.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Just you wait till you see the names revealed of the people who are now in the sealed indictments; you will be shocked to the core.

So you saw the indictments before they were sealed?

 

[7_Sorrows]

I have been studying all of this for the last 14-15 years. I believe there are quite a few high profile names within the sealed indictments.

But Trump has only been in office for one year. There indeed might be 1 or more high profile names, but we can’t be certain until we actually know.

 

[dvdjs]

They’ve got enough of a track record of being right that I feel safe in believing them for the time being.

Do they?
I don’t doubt that they publish actual emails that they have stolen. But more than that is required for being “right”.

Can you link to something about this, please?

Way back in post #18 - go google up the twitter thread.

“For whatever reason”…why would they craft a lie now?

Interesting question. What is the point of this release at all?

Why should it?

In order to tell the story completely, lest it appear that they are reporting selectively and deceptively.

You don’t agree that it paints Hillary in a really bad light, and by association, the Dems?

Not at all.

1. A politicians would love nothing more than to cultivate a docile press. Trump invests enormous enrerg onto it and thinks, by his own words, that he has them. But that does not leave the press off the hook.
2. The press would like to balance getting a hard hitting story out with access that allows them to develop a story. The NYT did an interview with Trump on or about New Years Eve. It was widely criticized for its deferential posture, but it did add to what we know about Trump. There is a balance.
3. In this particular case, the NYT, given what it published, can hardly be seen as docile. That may not be clear to those who don’t remember what was published nearly a decade after the fact. If so, go back and read the original articles.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Well, Trump has proved not to be a fool. I am certainly not sorry I voted for him.
Whatever Obama attempted to do, his fight against ISIS and his attempts to improve the economy plodded along with no good results until Trump took power and it was like unleashing the floodgates against ISIS and the stagnant economy.
I am thankful Obama is no longer our president and extremely thankful Hillary will never be president.

 

[Raxus]

Do they?

I don’t doubt that they publish actual emails that they have stolen. But more than that is required for being “right”.

There’s typically little that can be taken out of context in any given e-mail. It either reveals facts, or it doesn’t. I’d still say that I trust them.

Way back in post #18 - go google up the twitter thread.

As far as I can tell, this new information is a different event than what you’re referring to. I’ll read through it again to see if I’m wrong, though.

Interesting question. What is the point of this release at all?

To inform the public of deflection and falsehood. WikiLeaks has no reason to lie.

In order to tell the story completely, lest it appear that they are reporting selectively and deceptively.

Refer to my earlier comment above. I don’t think the two events are the same thing.

Not at all.

A politicians would love nothing more than to cultivate a docile press. Trump invests enormous enrerg onto it and thinks, by his own words, that he has them. But that does not leave the press off the hook.
The press would like to balance getting a hard hitting story out with access that allows them to develop a story. The NYT did an interview with Trump on or about New Years Eve. It was widely criticized for its deferential posture, but it did add to what we know about Trump. There is a balance.
In this particular case, the NYT, given what it published, can hardly be seen as docile. That may not be clear to those who don’t remember what was published nearly a decade after the fact. If so, go back and read the original articles.

There is no way on God’s green earth that the press will ever allow itself to cultivate a docile relationship with Trump. They have mocked him for years, long before he ever even announced he was going to run for President, and they are completely, utterly unfair to him a good 75% of the time, in my estimation. I won’t claim the man is a sterling role model or that he doesn’t do really stupid stuff sometimes, but the lengths to which the press will go to slander and mock and obsess over him is absolutely ridiculous.

I have no problems believing, therefore, that they would in turn have a sycophantic relationship with the Dems and with the Clintons in particular, and extend to them all kinds of favors and allowances that Trump wouldn’t receive from them if he cured cancer tomorrow.

Also: I’m sorry for having been a butt sometimes in my responses. This respectful back and forth is refreshing to the soul, even if we disagree, and I’ll sure work at cultivating it in my conversations with you from here on in.

 

[dvdjs]

There is no way on God’s green earth that the press will ever allow itself to cultivate a docile relationship with Trump

The NYT interview of Trump by Michael Schmidt evoked considerable discussion because his docile posture before Trump.

But all of this is a matter of perspective. There are those who think anything short of “she is evil incarnate and should spend the rest of her life in jail” is unfairly favorable to HRC, and that anything short of " this is the best President ever, with the biggest win ever, and the largest inauguration crowd ever, …" is unfairly negative to Trump.

What is Trump’s perspective? You should read the Schmidt interview. It appears that he knows his game very well and feels comfortable that he has them where he wants them.

 

[dvdjs]

Here is the email linked in the OP.

It’s clearly a disclosure of their editorial calendar.

It would read very differently if the purpose was just to check names.

Yeah. So? …

 

[dvdjs]

There’s typically little that can be taken out of context in any given e-mail. It either reveals facts, or it doesn’t.

This is a shocking statement.
What context is shown by a single email?

Emails from WL did not show pizzagate, not that it mattered.
Emails from WL did not show HRC and the DNC conjuring up a Vatican Spring, not that it mattered.
The email from WL on this matter raised in this thread has precious little factual content as compared to what has been claimed from it.