Mainstream Media Collusion with Hillary Clinton's Campaign
These reporters and networks have been named in the WikiLeaks to have colluded with the DNC or Hillary campaign during the 2016 election cycle:
ABC – Cecilia Vega
ABC - David Muir
ABC – Diane Sawyer
ABC – George Stephanoplous
ABC – Jon Karl
ABC – Liz Kreutz
AP – Julie Pace
AP – Ken Thomas
AP – Lisa Lerer
AURN – April Ryan
Bloomberg – Jennifer Epstein
Bloomberg – John Heillman
Bloomberg/MSNBC – Jonathan Alter
Bloomberg – Mark Halperin
Buzzfeed – Ben Smith
Buzzfeed – Ruby Cramer
CBS – Gayle King
CBS – John Dickerson
CBS – Norah O'Donnell
CBS – Steve Chagaris
CBS – Vicki Gordon
CNBC – John Harwood
CNN – Brianna Keilar
CNN – Dan Merica
CNN – David Chailan
CNN – Erin Burnett
CNN – Gloria Borger
CNN – Jake Tapper
CNN – Jeff Zeleny
CNN - Jeff Zucker
CNN – John Berman
CNN – Kate Bouldan
CNN – Maria Cardona
CNN – Mark Preston
CNN – Sam Feist
Daily Beast – Jackie Kucinich
GPG – Mike Feldman
HuffPo – Amanda Terkel
HuffPo – Arianna Huffington
HuffPo – Sam Stein
HuffPo – Whitney Snyder
LAT – Evan Handler
LAT – Mike Memoli
McClatchy – Anita Kumar
MORE – Betsy Fisher Martin
MSNBC – Alex Seitz-Wald
MSNBC – Alex Wagner
MSNBC – Andrea Mitchell
MSNBC - Beth Fouhy
MSNBC – Ed Schultz
MSNBC – Joe Scarborough
MSNBC – Mika Brzezinski
MSNBC – Phil Griffin
MSNBC – Rachel Maddow
MSNBC – Rachel Racusen
MSNBC – Thomas Roberts
National Journal – Emily Schultheis
NBC – Chuck Todd
NBC – Mark Murray
NBC – Savannah Gutherie
New Yorker – David Remnick
New Yorker – Ryan Liza
NPR – Mike Oreskes
NPR – Tamara Keith
NY Post – Geofe Earl
NYT – Amy Chozik
NYT – Carolyn Ryan
NYT – Gail Collins
NYT – John Harwoodje
NYT – Jonathan Martin
NYT – Maggie Haberman
NYT – Pat Healey
PBS – Charlie Rose
People – Sandra Sobieraj Westfall
Politico – Annie Karni
Politico – Gabe Debenedetti
Politico – Glenn Thrush
Politico – Kenneth Vogel
Politico – Mike Allen
Reuters – Amanda Becker
Tina Brown – Tina Brown
The Hill – Amie Parnes
Univision – Maria-Elena Salinas
Vice – Alyssa Mastramonoco
Vox – Jon Allen
WaPo – Anne Gearan
WaPo – Greg Sargent
WSJ – Laura Meckler
WSJ – Peter Nicholas
WSJ – Colleen McCain Nelson
Yahoo – Matt Bai
Sources:
- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12063
- http://www.dailywire.com/news/7777/5-emails-showing-dnc-was-coordinating-press-aaron-bandler
- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11409
- https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/
The following is a link to a spreadsheet of the emails, etc. compiled by DefNotHillDawg at Reddit; "media collusion" starts on line 132 and continues through line 283.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DgwLHAC5mk9Ghblc6O7AXzxX5dNLlMg0hHUn-D_Ay7I/edit#gid=0
Published on October 16, 2016
LOL! CNN Tells Viewers “IT’S ILLEGAL” To Read Wikileaks Emails…So They’ll Tell You What’s In Them
Wow! CNN host Chris Cuomo tells viewers it’s ILLEGAL to read the Wikileaks emails, but if you watch them, they will tell you what they say. And no…he’s not kidding!
Mainstream Media Tells Viewers It's ILLEGAL To Read The #PodestaEmails
"Watch CNN tells viewers it is illegal to read the wikileaks Hillary emails"
"CNN Attempts to Scare Viewers - Says It's Illegal to Read Wikileaks Podesta Emails"
1. Hillary cheated in debates: DNC head Donna Brazile caught giving MORE debate questions to Hillary
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/39807
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478
“Re: From time to time I get the questions in advance"
"I rarely hear it. I'll send a few more. Though some questions Roland submitted"
"One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash"
"Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint."
Here is video proof of the question Donna Brazile sent. In the video, you can SEE Hillary looking down at her script to answer the question. Notice how Hillary has an extremely detailed response citing a dozen different things. Wow... Yet another scripted Hillary moment, pretending to be organic.
This is the second instance where there is proof of Donna Brazile giving debate questions to Hillary's team. She tried hard to defend herself the first time in a cringe-worthy interview with FOX's Megyn Kelly. Donna claimed she was "being persecuted" for being asked about leaking the question to Hillary so she could cheat.
A day before this new leak, Donna Brazile wrote on Twitter, "Please God, let this end soon"
Shortly after this revelation came out, Donna Brazile (awaiting her resignation) wrote this on Twitter: "Thank you @CNN. Honored to be a Democratic Strategist and commentator on the network. Godspeed to all my former colleagues."
CNN wrote, "We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor."
Remember, Donna Brazile worked for CNN and the first debate question was released through CNN. The network that has been caught colluding with the Hillary campaign and in their own words, "doing everything [they] can to give [Hillary] a free ride" has no room to take the high road here.
Assuming she is fired from the DNC (based on news, it seems likely as she was already fired from CNN), this would be the second head of the DNC to be fired in less than a year due to extremely unethical collusion with Hillary's campaign. The first (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) was hired by Hillary herself after she was fired by the DNC. Maybe Donna Brazile will follow suit.
2. CEO of Google (parent company) working for Hillary Campaign
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262
“Cheryl, I have put together my thoughts on the campaign ideas and I have scheduled some meetings in the next few weeks for veterans of the campaign to tell me how to make these ideas better. This is simply a draft but do let me know if this is a helpful process for you all. Thanks !! Eric"
"The campaign headquarters will have about a thousand people, mostly young and hardworking and enthusiastic. Its important to have a very large hiring pool (such as Chicago or NYC) from which to choose enthusiastic, smart and low paid permanent employees. ... Any outer borough of NYC, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Boston are all good examples of a large, blue state city to base in."
"b) The Voter - Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them. In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify, meet, and update profiles on the voter."
"e) Analytics and data science and modeling, polling and resource optimization tools - For each voter, a score is computed ranking probability of the right vote. Analytics can model demographics, social factors and many other attributes of the needed voters. Modeling will tell us what who we need to turn out and why..."
Eric Schmidt the CEO of the parent company of Google was working for the Hillary Campaign. Actually working for them. Eric Schmidt's contact was Cheryl Mills, one of the people who got immunity during the FBI's criminal investigation into the private email server.
He proceeds to send over a several page long document written personally by him. Since both Cheryl Mills and Eric Schmidt used google this email was verified by the google servers with DKIM.
Schmidt gave advice on everything even the location to place Hillary's campaign headquarters. The selection of which ultimately followed the suggestions of the head of Google.
The Hillary campaign headquarters was placed in New York the first suggestion of the consulting advice provided by the Google CEO.
Far more disturbingly. Schmidt talks about: "b) The Voter - Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them. In 2016 smart phones will be used to identify, meet, and update profiles on the voter."
This is bad. Schmidt proposed creating a database of voters which collects "ALL THAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THEM". Google knows a lot, probably too much about everyone.
Eric Schmidt speaks and writes exactly as an employee of the Hillary Clinton campaign would. "Who we need to turn out and why" - this is something a Hillary campaign employee would write in an internal document, a hundred percent. This is truly shocking and very scary.
And remember, Google has visited the White House 427 times during Obama's presidency, averaging more than once a week! This is more than any other company by a large margin.
Google is also actively censoring articles and websites that could hurt Hillary's chances of winning.
3. Disney, ABC head is colluding with Hillary's campaign
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10545
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18636
“Bob Iger is the Chairman of Disney and a great guy. He wants to be helpful. What is the best way to put you two in touch? Hope you're very well."
"Also, I saw Bob Iger on Saturday who said he's had a couple of good talks with you."
Bob Iger is the CEO of Disney, which also owns ABC News and ESPN. According the Conservative Review, "WikiLeaks shows that when it comes to Disney and ABC News, liberal media bias comes from the very top."
The first email expresses Bob Iger's interest in taking an active role in the campaign, and the second email is a follow-up email from 2 months later showing that Iger met with Podesta and that discussions went well.
Bob Iger helped host a Beverly Hills fundraiser that cost $100,000 cover charge for hosting couples.
He has also given over $400,000 to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats since 1999.
George Stephanopoulos who works for ABC used to work for the Clintons and has donated over $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
4. Media collusion: "I have been very aggressive defending her and avoiding any criticism"
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36689
“I have been very aggressive defending her and avoiding any criticism while she was under attack but this is now going very wrong and when I read the NYT story that reconfirms my view, never publicly stated, that some of the people around her---not you but others---are dumber than bird shit when it comes to modern public opinion and modern politics."
"I could write a column listing one by one the corporate clients of many of Hillary's closest advisors and many Democrats would puke. I have researched this, and it is appalling, and these are people attuned to making money from whomever writes their checks"
There are some people now working for her who consider her a profit center for their income and not a cause or a mission that they believe in. They almost certainly carry with them an incredible jealousy that Obama has always harbored towards Bill Clinton and a condescending attitude towards Hillary Clinton.
A long email from Brent Budowsky, who is a journalist but clearly views himself as one of the main advisers of John Podesta.
Some of Clinton's people are "dumber than bird shit" according to this journalist. Who was Budowsky thinking about here? Neera? Huma? Philippe Reines?
Budowsky has "researched" the Democrat corruption but he would not act like a journalist if it is detrimental to Democrat party interests.
5. Media collusion: journalist upset by sticking up for Hillary
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36354
“I must tell you, John, when I see things like this, there are moments when I think her candidacy was just not meant to be . I went out on a limb for her today, which very few Democrats who are not paid by her have done recently as visibly and strongly as I did today, and if I knew this kind of thing was coming I would never have done it in a million years."
"A Clintonian triangulation against liberals at this particular moment in her political life is not the shrewd strategy I would propose."
This "journalist" sounds upset that he is not getting paid to stick up for Hillary. Because AFTER ALL he is in the media and should be FAIR AND UN-BIASED. Wow...
He is also trying to talk strategy and offer political advice as a journalist to the head of her campaign. Media collusion!
Hillary's Damage Control Isn't Working
March 12, 2015
FRONT PAGE MAG - Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's efforts to douse the growing furor over her possibly illegal private email system are not going well.
The Obama White House, which claims the president knew nothing about Clinton's surreptitious email system, unceremoniously threw the former cabinet member under the bus this week.
“Frankly, the secretary’s handling of her own personal email and the maintenance of [her] personal email inbox is something that I’m not going to comment on and not particularly interested in,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest.
President Obama, who reportedly detests the Clintons, may himself have played a role in revealing Hillary's email misbehavior. That Obama didn't know about the secret email system is simply too fantastic to believe. The president may have been holding the email saga back as a trump card, waiting for the best time to crush his former rival for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Of course, there is a certain poetry to one ruthless, venal Saul Alinsky disciple undermining another.
Many conservatives who watched the press conference at the United Nations on Tuesday in which reporters asked genuinely probing questions challenging Clinton's version of the facts about her James Bond villain-like email setup are now experiencing schadenfreude. Hillary has gotten away with so much premeditated deception for so many decades that observing her being vigorously cross-examined by journalists is a surreal, cathartic experience for many. It is therapy for the conservative soul.
Her hypocrisy knows no bounds. Remember it was in 2007 that then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused George W. Bush's administration of using “secret White House email accounts” and secret wiretaps and military tribunals.
“You know, our Constitution is being shredded,” she said then.
Hillary, as Americans have come to know, is a shameless, prolific, pathological liar, probably even more than her impeached husband. But who would have thought that after so long in the public eye doing damage control, spending so long cleaning up after Bill Clinton's seemingly unending "bimbo eruptions," she would be so inept at handling what might otherwise not be a career-ending scandal? It now seems the email imbroglio could very well be the straw that broke the camel's back.
At the press event Mrs. Clinton continued to deceive and misdirect.
After admitting it would have been better if she had used government email for official correspondence, she claimed she had “fully complied with every rule” and that she was going “above and beyond” in directing the State Department to release many of her emails.
“No one wants their personal emails made public and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy.”
The problem with this statement is that when she was at Foggy Bottom Clinton made it clear that State Department employees were to use official government email. She even had an ambassador pushed out who violated this rule.
Particularly outrageous was her claim that a desire for convenience drove her to use her personal email account for both official business and personal matters.
“I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two,” she said.
In fact, just last month Clinton said she carried two electronic devices around with her.
At a high tech conference in Silicon Valley Clinton was asked if she preferred iPhones or android cellphones.
She replied, “iPhone, OK, in full disclosure — and a Blackberry.” The New York Times added that at the same event she also acknowledged using two kinds of iPads. “I don’t throw anything away. I’m like two steps short of a hoarder.”
At the UN she said some of the emails she erased contained “personal communications from my husband and me.” Yet on Sunday a spokesman for the former president said Bill Clinton had “sent two emails in his life.”
Mrs. Clinton's aides added that more than 100 government employees knew she was using private email.
One of them was President Obama. Josh Earnest acknowledged that Obama and Clinton emailed each other. Obama did not know that Clinton's emails were not being collected by the government, Earnest said.
Although Clinton has refused to hand over for inspection the private email server she keeps in her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., at the UN she expected to be praised for her supposed efforts at transparency because she released about half of the tens of thousands of emails in question.
She bragged that she took the "unprecedented" step of handing over to the State Department for review about 55,000 printed pages of email. “For any government employee, it is that government employee’s responsibility to determine what’s personal and what’s work related. I went above and beyond what I was requested to do.”
This admission in itself raises thorny new issues. How did she decide in recent weeks which records to make available to congressional investigators and for Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) requests? And didn't the FoIA law require that her emails be made available at the time they were created?
Clinton made the argument that she complied with applicable rules because she sent emails to “government officials on their State or other dot gov accounts so that the emails were immediately captured and preserved.” She failed to explain how emails sent to those who didn't work for the government had been archived.
“Once the American public begins to see the emails, they will have an unprecedented insight into a high government official’s daily communications,” Clinton said, again as if expecting to be applauded.
The chairman of the select congressional committee on the deadly Benghazi fiasco that happened during Clinton's watch was not impressed by her remarks. “Because Secretary Clinton has created more questions than answers, the Select Committee is left with no choice but to call her to appear at least twice,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.).
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy argues that Clinton has broken the law by "hoarding" emails that are the property of the U.S. government.
"This is no longer a mere political issue, much less a partisan issue. It is now a black-and-white law-enforcement issue: Mrs. Clinton is withholding records that belong to the public and there is probable cause to believe she made a prosecutable false statement to the government in claiming to have surrendered all records of official business to the State Department."
If Clinton fails to "voluntarily surrender her [Internet] server" the Department of Justice should take custody of it, he writes.
Meanwhile, plenty of Democrats have been criticizing Clinton. Some want to make sure she doesn't go unchallenged during the primary elections that get underway less than a year from now.
Likely presidential candidate Martin O'Malley made sure to take a jab at Clinton. The former Maryland governor said on MSNBC that if he were president he would expect his secretary of state to use government email. "Well sure, it would be important to me."
Zephyr Teachout, who sought the Democratic nomination last year for governor of New York, said Clinton "shouldn't have done it. She should come forward and give a press availability on it. Just as a matter of leadership, she should address it directly ... This is why we need a primary, to force debate both about policy and leadership style."
Former South Carolina Democratic Party chairman Dick Harpootlian is tired of Clinton's scandals.
"There's always another shoe to drop with Hillary. Do we nominate her not knowing what's in those e-mails? If the e-mails were just her and her family and friends canoodling about fashion and what they're going to do next week, that's one thing. But the fact that she's already turned e-mails to the Benghazi committee because she was doing official business on it means she's going to die by 1,000 cuts on this one."
Democratic National Committee member Boyd Brown was similarly wary of Clinton's still unannounced candidacy.
"The closer we get to 2016, the more the electorate pays attention, which we're now seeing with foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation and in Hillary's undisclosed emails," Brown said. "These are problems that raise real leadership and transparency concerns, concerns that can be addressed in caucuses and primaries, but would go ignored in a coronation process."
Party leaders in his home state feel "shaky" and Clinton, he said. "Folks are remembering why they pushed back in 2008, and a candidate with the right message and retail politics could pick the lock Clinton thinks she has on the party faithful."
So the pundits in recent years may have been wrong. Hillary Clinton may not be inevitable. There may be no coronation next year. Perhaps she won't even secure her party's nod for the White House next year. Her candidacy may implode long before then.
Maybe America has a future after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment