WikiLeaks Drops Proof That NYTimes Colluded With Hillary Clinton

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps you are trying to infer the collusion was legal?
I would agree, it was legal but unethical.
 
Hint:

Does this have more or less to do with the the DNC than the “Vatican Spring” false meme, also served up through WikiLeaks?
 
We’ve all read the article.

Shows the depths of collusion/love between the NYT (and, by association, much of the rest of the mainstream media) and the Democrat party.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
We’ve all read the article.

Shows the depths of collusion/love between the NYT (and, by association, much of the rest of the mainstream media) and the Democrat party.
Click to expand...
No. No. No. You are missing the point.

You must read and reread the article until your brain goes numb and you become completely oblivious to the depths of collusion/love between the NYT (and, by association, much of the rest of the mainstream media) and the Democrat party. Only when that happens can you be assured that you have read the article a sufficient number of times. 😵
 
Boatswain2PA said:
Shows the depths of collusion/love between the NYT (and, by association, much of the rest of the mainstream media) and the Democrat party.
Click to expand...
Really? And still not getting it?
How is the Democratic Party involved?
 
Last edited:
Second hint:
How many times is the word Democrat or the word party used in the linked article?
 
Boatswain2PA said:
We’ve all read the article.

Shows the depths of collusion/love between the NYT (and, by association, much of the rest of the mainstream media) and the Democrat party.
Click to expand...
NYT has the belief that they ‘make the news’ so they set their editorial agenda well in advance and then source stories that support their agenda. I don’t consider this ethical journalism myself, it leads to increased bias in the writing and outright avoidance of stories that don’t support the agenda…

There was an interesting blog article on it as it relates to science reporting

 
Last edited:
Raxus said:
Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, and was Secretary of State at the time.
Click to expand...
And her and her husband has been 2 of the top 3 Democrats in the nation over the past 30 years, with virtually nothing happening within the Democrat party without their explicit approval (well…except getting beaten by Obama in the primary).
 
  1. For those keeping score: the Democratic Party does not appear in the article at all. Zero time “Democratic”. Zero time “party”. To see this as collusion between the NYT and the Democratic party is Kevin-Bacon imaginative.
Actually it’s worse.
  1. Hillary? Head of DoS, sure, but it’s odd that there is nothing here about Obama, POTUS and leader of the Democratic party at the time. What a wild stretch to suggest that in 2010 that if it is Hillary it was DNC. :roll_eyes:
  2. Did anyone notice the communication was not to Hillary at all, but to a retired Colonel with a distinguished military career, serving as Deputy SOS, appointed by Obama? Of course everyone is suspect now, just by being within six-degrees of separation from Hillary.
  3. Did anyone notice that this is not news at all?
    This collaboration of DoS, NYT, AND WikiLeaks itself was disclosed in a book published in 2011.
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

See also:


This communication with a distinguished public servant helped to insure that while the NYT was going forward with the cablegate story, which was not the least bit flattering to the administration, that it worked with the DoS to insure that assets were not compromised. (I wish Trump had taken precaution to vet his communication with the Russians in the Oval Office.)

This junk story is not in the MSM, but it is being propagated pretty much verbatim by the usual wnd, gatewaypundit, etc. machine. Infowars goes on to claim vindication for its claim that the NYT colluded with HRC and the DNC during the presidential campaign, by a logic that only that site’s followers can accept. This is junk.

But oh how totally irresistible to those locked into that junk food diet.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top