WikiLeaks Reveals Jaw-Dropping Email That Proves Failing New York Times & Hillary Collusion

a reply to: intrptr
First , the grown-up word is government
Second , and you know this , how ?
Third , why ?
There is freedom of the press , right ?

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

First off I'm not a liberal. I have never voted and I will never vote. I'm a conspiracy theorist who has no faith in political theater.

I expect them to do things like that so it doesn't surprise me and I don't care.

a reply to: six67seven

The likes of Hitler & Putin would be jealous & proud.

You mean Joseph Goebbels, head of the Propaganda department for the Third Reich.

He invented the variety show; mixing sports, weather and music with news bulletins, 'programming' that has been developed to a high degree for uS nowadays.

When you turn on television you are watching what he started. Scientists, war technology and police state apparatus weren't the only things captured from war time Germany. But don't take my word for it, check out his speech to the Berlin Radio Convention in 1933...

Archives

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

First off I'm not a liberal. I have never voted and I will never vote. I'm a conspiracy theorist who has no faith in political theater.

I expect them to do things like that so it doesn't surprise me and I don't care.

Fair enough, I can respect that position. Happy New Year to you, all the best in the months to come for you and your family.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Thank you for this thread and all of your posts. I’m glad you are here!

a reply to: Boadicea

Well we know it continued into the campaign season see the aforementioned debate questions.

This was paid back to the media when Hillary's campaign hosted a special event at which the media received the framing for the campaign message. Not to mention all of the other Podesta emails that showed media coming to the campaign for certain stories including having specific phrasing being used at the behest of the campaign.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

To be true the media does tell the gubment which stories it is going with ahead of time to make sure they got what they are supposed to say straight.

It is surely collusion at the highest level.

Well I know they tell the interested parties in advance, but also ask for any comment. Trump gets the same treatment still.

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Wait a second, are you telling me that the media is complicit in a conspiracy to push allow a corrupt politician to lie to their base and convince them of the BS story they are selling!?!?!?

Oh my god, this is shocking!!

Thank god Trump made #fake news a household term, without it the masses would still never question a thing coming from their favorite authority!

Man, you are quick! Picked right up on it.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: intrptr
First , the grown-up word is government
Second , and you know this , how ?
Third , why ?
There is freedom of the press , right ?

About the misspelling of gubment, I do that out of respect for a member that passed away.

The ATS logo has a black line thru it in his memory. He used to spell 'gubment' that way, I do that as my own way of honoring him.

test.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: EvidenceNibbler

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

I'd say I don't care which is a little different.

You don't care if one party tries to subvert the democratic process by illegally obtaining the questions to a debate beforehand, in order to gain the advantage?

Any of you other liberals want to back him up on that?

Do you all think like that?

Of course all the Libs/Leftists think like that.
Why do you think they are so butt hurt that they lost for over a year now and counting?
They #ing cheated and still lost.

a reply to: smurfy

Well I know they tell the interested parties in advance, but also ask for any comment.

Hiding their collusion in plain sight.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Well we know it continued into the campaign season see the aforementioned debate questions.

Yes, the Hillary connections -- both real and imagined, I dare say -- are well established.

My suspicion is that there is far more to it... that Hillary isn't the only one or the most recent one with such dubious (even nefarious!) connections. But that Hillary has been determined to be the fall guy for them all.

And that's just not good enough for me

a reply to: Boadicea

I'm kinda hoping that when she finally goes down she drags a few others with her into the abyss. Still cynical enough to think that none of the ones at the top will ever go down though.

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

Cool but to be fair, the debate situation was actually bad, what is in the OP isn't.

I would imagine team Trump had info on what Breitbart was running.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Boadicea

I'm kinda hoping that when she finally goes down she drags a few others with her into the abyss. Still cynical enough to think that none of the ones at the top will ever go down though.

Me too! Misery loves company, right???

But I'm far more inclined to believe that Hillary has used her previous(?) friendship with Trump to already cut a deal, that she's been singing like a canary and pointing out all the skeletons in the closet, and that she basically and essentially helped him set a trap for the FBI/DOJ and DC critters in general... if so, then I would assume her deal depends on providing real evidence of prosecutable crimes.

I think Hillary was thrown under the bus by certain members of her party and she's gonna get revenge... sweet revenge. I'm still looking and waiting for something to prove me wrong though. I'm willing to change my opinion when I have more information.

I really hope and pray for something like that anyway. Like you, I don't see anyone going down unless someone big and in the know decides to take everyone down with her... or him I guess. I don't care who it is as long as they can get the job done!

a reply to: EvidenceNibbler

It is not uncommon for journalists to discuss certain issues with the government so that they do not publish sensitive or classified info. Something in this email was deemed classifiable, which could have been included in a NYT story, and it is not unreasonable to suggest members of the media would work with the State Department in order to not publish sensitive info.

So I'm not seeing the big deal here.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: intrptr
First , the grown-up word is government
Second , and you know this , how ?
Third , why ?
There is freedom of the press , right ?

It's a common journalistic practice to check up with sources or subjects of a story before publishing. However, this case is different in that the New York Times sets out its schedule for publishing and informs the government of the stories (and therefore leaks) in its possession.

P.S. Anyone else notice in the publishing schedule, the mention of Russia? Looks like they did publish on the Russians after all, which really shouldn't come as a surprise...

a reply to: purplemer

Yes, you did very well!
Thank you, and Happy New Year!

a reply to: visitedbythem

Thank you and the same to you. All the happiness in the coming year..