Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP
Options
Comments
-
Comey was Director of the FBI. As such he probably couldn't stop leaks from within the CIA.0
-
-
Peregrinus wrote: »
To my lasting regret, he hasn't admitted that. He's said that he had decided to fire Comey even before he got the advice from Rosenstein, but not that his reason for doing so was "to help end the investigation".InTheTrees wrote: »Pretty amazing. The whole story has changed again. Its looking like its possible that he's committed obstruction of justice by admitting he fired Comey to help end the investigation.
Unfortunately for Trump, his deputy press secretary said exactly that. As they speak on behalf of POTUS, since he didn't publicly retract it then we must take it as being his position0 -
Again, to my regret (I'm doing a lot of regret these days) she didn't say exactly that. What she said was:Unfortunately for Trump, his deputy press secretary said exactly that.
"We want this to come to its conclusion, we want it to come to its conclusion with integrity. And we think that we've actually, by removing Director Comey, taken steps to make that happen."
In other words, removing Comey will speed up the investigation, not cut it short.
Plus, while her statement is somewhat ambiguous, I wouldn't read her as saying that this was the reason Comey was fired; more that this was a likely outcome of firing Comey, which is an important difference.
Apparently he has contradicted her. He thinks firing Comey will prolong the investigation, not enable it to move more quickly to its conclusion.As they speak on behalf of POTUS, since he didn't publicly retract it then we must take it as being his position0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Interesting.Hank Scorpio wrote: »
There's a problem here, though, isn't there? The just-fired director of the FBI was ostensibly just fired because he made public statements about ongoing investigations into Hillary Clinton.
Obviously the newly-appointed director, whoever he or she may be, is unlikely to make the same mistake. That would preclude any public statement either that the President of the United States is being investigated, or that he is not.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Interesting.
There's a problem here, though, isn't there? The just-fired director of the FBI was ostensibly just fired because he made public statements about ongoing investigations into Hillary Clinton.
Obviously the newly-appointed director, whoever he or she may be, is unlikely to make the same mistake. That would preclude any public statement either that the President of the United States is being investigated, or that he is not.
He needed an "official" reason to fire him which wouldn't look as bad in the public eye. This was admitted by Trump himself in an interview yesterday on cnbc I believe. The real reason is he refused to say in the hearing that Trump wasn't under investigation, and Trump had enough.0 -
And you don't classify this reason as suspect?Hank Scorpio wrote: »He needed an "official" reason to fire him. This was admitted by Trump himself in an interview yesterday on cnbc I believe. The real reason is he refused to say in the hearing that Trump wasn't under investigation, and Trump had enough.0 -
-
Hank Scorpio wrote: »He needed an "official" reason to fire him which wouldn't look as bad in the public eye. This was admitted by Trump himself in an interview yesterday on cnbc I believe. The real reason is he refused to say in the hearing that Trump wasn't under investigation, and Trump had enough.
Lets say we accept Trump is not under investigation, which is a more than likely possibility. It is well established principle that persons doing the investigation do not comment on who is under investigation. As Comey said while being questioned if I start saying X is not being investigated and then say no comment on y it is clear that y is being investigated. Its not Comey's fault he was asked a question that he could not answer and say in public the President is not under investigation. So to fire him for that is very wrong, as it sets a standard that in future any FBI director, will be in a very difficult position if he goes to the hill to answer questions. Following well established principles can lead to being fired.
At present there are many statements as to why Comey was fired, none really add up, but while it is accepted the President can fire Comey, the way it has been handled is shambolic.
My own view I do not believe that Trump himself asked Russia to get involved, (he may have been happy to know that Russia was meddling). I do believe that persons close to Trump may have. But like any of these things it is not the original issue that leads to the downfall it is the botched cover-up.0 -
Advertisement
-
Seems everyone is very excited this morning becasue Trump has come out and said it was his decision to fire Comey.
Some see bundling, a WH is chaos and more fuel to the conspiracy theory.
Or else you could think of this as POTUS coming out with this statement to protect Rosenstein (who both Dems and Reps see as a decent DOJ official) .
Rosenstein may have been feeling the heat and not liking it , and now POTUS has taken some of the heat off him.
And look folks calm down im not saying theres nothing to the Russia - WH conspiracy link.
Id just like to see the quality of reporting, analysis and journalism on all of this stuff improve.
The main stream media are so quick to fly off with presenting their one-dimensional agendas that any sort of quality or informative analysis is being lost.0 -
This tweet has been deleted now.
What did it say?0 -
Really Interested wrote: »Lets say we accept Trump is not under investigation, which is a more than likely possibility. It is well established principle that persons doing the investigation do not comment on who is under investigation. As Comey said while being questioned if I start saying X is not being investigated and then say no comment on y it is clear that y is being investigated. Its not Comey's fault he was asked a question that he could not answer and say in public the President is not under investigation. So to fire him for that is very wrong, as it sets a standard that in future any FBI director, will be in a very difficult position if he goes to the hill to answer questions. Following well established principles can lead to being fired.
At present there are many statements as to why Comey was fired, none really add up, but while it is accepted the President can fire Comey, the way it has been handled is shambolic.
My own view I do not believe that Trump himself asked Russia to get involved, (he may have been happy to know that Russia was meddling).I do believe that persons close to Trump may have. But like any of these things it is not the original issue that leads to the downfall it is the botched cover-up.
Bold part - That's my view as well.
The first paragraph is erroneous, it's in black and white in the link I posted, Feinstein and Glassley were briefed on who was under investigation by Comey, and it's clear from the statement Trump wasn't. I agree it was handled badly.
"On Tuesday, the President’s letter said that Director Comey told him he was not under
investigation. Senator Feinstein and I heard nothing that contradicted the President’s
statement. Now Mr. Comey is no longer the FBI director. "
The whole collusion angle boils down to Wikileaks and Julian Assange. When people say Russia hacked the election that's exactly what they are referring to, not RT or some other filler nonsense the Intel agencies were pointing at.
I think it's far far more likely that Assange acted alone, the guy isn't stupid and if there were tracks between him and Trump people, they'll never find them. This is evident even in the Intel summaries, they don't even know how or when Wikileaks got the dumps, let alone connections with Trump associates.
How would a Trump person actually collude with the Russians? That's what I want to know. The only thing I can think of is they contacted the Kremlin to hack the DNC but that's just ridiculous.
Also worth noting is this whole Russia hacking thing is based on a 3rd party with Ukrainian ties called Crowdstrike who have been discredited due to reports they published which have since been proven false and misleading.
Flynn has questions to answer, but beyond that, it's all noise imo. Another question is why didn't the DNC let the FBI examine their server.0 -
Hank Scorpio wrote: »Not really, according to Feinstein as of a few days ago there's no evidence of any collusion with campaign people and now we know according to that statement, Trump isn't one of the people under investigation.
That is what some people have been saying all along but since there is such pining desire to impeach Trump some people are under the illusion that some form of charges will be brought against Trump or Flynn. It's crazy how misled the public have been over the Russian allegation.
From my understanding there is only evidence that Russia hacked the server but even that is quite difficult to definitively proove. However, it's generally accepted that Russia hacked the DNC server but there is no evidence linking any of Trump's campaign team to collude with Russia.
There was also a suggestion that the Democrats were afraid of releasing the findings of the investigation early due to the lack of evidence supporting their position on this matter and the fact that they want a fresh investigation only backs up that narrative.
Some Republicans want an independent investigation now too. If the current investigation hasn't discovered any evidence what possible additional evidence could be obtained under a new investigation?
It just feels like a waste of time to be pursuing an investigation that the intelligence community is already failing to uncover tangible evidence from. Trump and Putin collusion belongs in the conspiracy theories forum at this point.
It also doesn't help when the likes of Adam Schiff goes around calling people Russian agents who don't agree with his conspiracy theories.0 -
But, if so, by giving the "official" reason that he did, hasn't Trump made it impossible for the next Director to comment on whether Trump is under investigation?Hank Scorpio wrote: »He needed an "official" reason to fire him which wouldn't look as bad in the public eye. This was admitted by Trump himself in an interview yesterday on cnbc I believe. The real reason is he refused to say in the hearing that Trump wasn't under investigation, and Trump had enough.
You can't have a protocol whereby the FBI can confirm that someone isn't under investigation, but can confirm that they are under investigation. Under such a protocol, "no comment" amounts to tacit confirmation that someone is under investigation, which would fly in the face of the whole tenor of the Rosenstein memo.0 -
Kitsunegari wrote: »That is what some people have been saying all along but since there is such pining desire to impeach Trump some people are under the illusion that some form of charges will be brought against Trump or Flynn. It's crazy how misled the public have been over the Russian allegation.
From my understanding there is only evidence that Russia hacked the server but even that is quite difficult to definitively proove. However, it's generally accepted that Russia hacked the DNC server but there is no evidence linking any of Trump's campaign team to collude with Russia.
There was also a suggestion that the Democrats were afraid of releasing the findings of the investigation early due to the lack of evidence supporting their position on this matter and the fact that they want a fresh investigation only backs up that narrative.
Some Republicans want an independent investigation now too. If the current investigation hasn't discovered any evidence what possible additional evidence could be obtained under a new investigation?
It just feels like a waste of time to be pursuing an investigation that the intelligence community is already failing to uncover tangible evidence from. Trump and Putin collusion belongs in the conspiracy theories forum at this point.
It also doesn't help when the likes of Adam Schiff goes around calling people Russian agents who don't agree with his conspiracy theories.
The media are in bed with the Democrats, ironically enough this was shown to be true with the email leaks during the campaign. Schiff is a disgusting individual.0 -
Hank Scorpio wrote: »The media are in bed with the Democrats, ironically enough this was shown to be true with the leaks during the campaign.
Which Media are in bed with Democrats?0 -
Hank Scorpio wrote: »Bold part - That's my view as well.
The first two paragraphs are erroneous, it's in black and white in the link I posted, Feinstein and Glassley were briefed on who was under investigation by Comey, and it's clear from the statement Trump wasn't.
"On Tuesday, the President’s letter said that Director Comey told him he was not under
investigation. Senator Feinstein and I heard nothing that contradicted the President’s
statement. Now Mr. Comey is no longer the FBI director. "
The whole collusion angle boils down to Wikileaks and Julian Assange. When people say Russia hacked the election that's exactly what they are referring to, not RT or some other filler nonsense the Intel agencies were pointing at.
I think it's far far more likely that Assange acted alone, the guy isn't stupid and if there were tracks between him and Trump people, they'll never find them. This is evident even in the Intel summaries, they don't know how or when Wikileaks got the dumps.
How would a Trump person actually colluded with the Russians? That's what I want to know. The only thing I can think of is they connected the Kremlin to hack the DNC but that's just ridiculous.
I accept the contents of the link, i accept the fact that Comey more than likely told the Senators in private that Trump was not under personal investigation, but I also accept that he can not say so in public, as he knew the next public question would be Pence is not under investigation, was Flynn etc. until he had to say no comment in public which then becomes a yes.
There are a number of different issues all possibly connected.
The first did Russia interfere with the election, by covert or overt means. My view is they tried both and succeeded with for example planting real and fake news. I see no evidence that they compromised the voting machines. Is this an issue with America well that is really up to the USA.
The second issue did any person in the USA other than the President ask or get involved with one above, again if they did this may or may not be treason or it may just be taking advantage of a political situation for advantage of your guy, again an investigation may say yes interference but may or may not show that US persons involved in the election may or may have requested same, knowledge of it in my opinion is not illegal, only active involvement more than just taking advantage of a situation.
I find the third issue interesting in light of a comment of yours, "the guy isn't stupid and if there were tracks between him and Trump people, they'll never find them" interesting view. Either he had no involvement or he is so clever he covered his tracks. If he had no involvement, then let them search away, if no evidence than its all over the US can come up with plans to thwart possible future attempts to say an election by any foreign power, and that's the end of it. My issue is that Trump is making such a mess of it that as I said his interference with the investigation could be what gets him.
Watergate it was the cover-up, Clinton it was did he lie under oath. The break-in and the sex not the issue it was the cover-up0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »But, if so, by giving the "official" reason that he did, hasn't Trump made it impossible for the next Director to comment on whether Trump is under investigation?
You can't have a protocol whereby the FBI can confirm that someone isn't under investigation, but can confirm that they are under investigation. Under such a protocol, "no comment" amounts to tacit confirmation that someone is under investigation, which would fly in the face of the whole tenor of the Rosenstein memo.
He didn't say it directly, what he said was he was going to fire him anyway. I don't think the Rosenstein letter made much of a difference, but it's still better than if Trump fired him outright.
Yes it might not bode well for the future, but his position has become almost untenable and at the foundation of the hysteria there is simply no evidence. I can understand why he did it.0 -
This isn't a simple binary. Suppose I'm the FBI. I'm investigating links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government or its agencies. Am I investigating Donald J. Trump? Formally, no. Am I conducting investigations, the outcome of which could be charges against Donald J. Trump? Yes, very much so.Really Interested wrote: »Lets say we accept Trump is not under investigation, which is a more than likely possibility.
Police agencies, of which the FBI is one, don't investigate people. They investigate incidents, crimes or possible crimes. In the course of the investigation they may identify various people as suspects, or persons of interest, or potential witnesses, and the people who are in one or more of those frames may vary from time to time as the investigation proceeds.
I don't know for sure, but in police parlance the question "Are you investigating Donald J. Trump?" may be shorthand for "in the course of your investigation, have you applied for a warrant to tap Donald J. Trump's phone, search his home or office, obtain records or documents identified on the basis of their connection with him?" The answer to that question might be "no" (or it may be "no, not yet") but you could still be looking at lots and lots of material that mentions Donald J. Trump, listening to conversations that include Donald J. Trump, etc. You may even be interviewing Donald J. Trump. And in the end of the day you may charge Donald J. Trump.
My suspicion is that Trump's attempt to have his (personal) name publicly cleared is misplaced. The more he demands to know whether he's being investigated, the more people will assume he thinks there is reason to investigate him. He's not going to get an affirmation of innocence from the FBI; police forces rarely explain or defend decisions not to prosecute people (a point made by Rosenstein in his memo).
In an alternative universe where Donald Trump had a titter of wit, his line would be to welcome the investigation, because "I have nothing to hide, and the sooner and in more detail these scurrilous allegations are thoroughly investigated by a reputable competent special prosecutor who is beyond political influence, the sooner my spotless reputation will be publicly vindicated, and the American people can get back to loving me like Mommy should". Even if, in this universe, Trump did have something to hide, he should not try to hide it by appearing to impede the investigation, like someone who has something to hide.0 -
Advertisement
-
Which Media are in bed with Democrats?
Most of the TV networks were shown to be colluding during the campaign with the DNC trying to get Hillary elected, even major publications like the New york times were allowing them to edit articles. Forgetting that, can anyone dispute the main networks in the US don't have a heavy liberal bias? On TV, Fox is the only one that is conservative leaning.0 -
Where have they shown to be colluding, what investigation or reports have come to this evidence based conclusion?0
-
Peregrinus wrote: »This isn't a simple binary. Suppose I'm the FBI. I'm investigating links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government or its agencies. Am I investigating Donald J. Trump? Formally, no. Am I conducting investigations, the outcome of which could be charges against Donald J. Trump? Yes, very much so.
Police agencies, of which the FBI is one, don't investigate people. They investigate incidents, crimes or possible crimes. In the course of the investigation they may identify various people as suspects, or persons of interest, or potential witnesses, and the people who are in one or more of those frames may vary from time to time as the investigation proceeds.
I don't know for sure, but in police parlance the question "Are you investigating Donald J. Trump?" may be shorthand for "in the course of your investigation, have you applied for a warrant to tap Donald J. Trump's phone, search his home or office, obtain records or documents identified on the basis of their connection with him?" The answer to that question might be "no" (or it may be "no, not yet") but you could still be looking at lots and lots of material that mentions Donald J. Trump, listening to conversations that include Donald J. Trump, etc. You may even be interviewing Donald J. Trump. And in the end of the day you may charge Donald J. Trump.
My suspicion is that Trump's attempt to have his (personal) name publicly cleared is misplaced. The more he demands to know whether he's being investigated, the more people will assume he thinks there is reason to investigate him. He's not going to get an affirmation of innocence from the FBI; police forces rarely explain or defend decisions not to prosecute people (a point made by Rosenstein in his memo).
In an alternative universe where Donald Trump had a titter of wit, his line would be to welcome the investigation, because "I have nothing to hide, and the sooner and in more detail these scurrilous allegations are thoroughly investigated by a reputable competent special prosecutor who is beyond political influence, the sooner my spotless reputation will be publicly vindicated, and the American people can get back to loving me like Mommy should". Even if, in this universe, Trump did have something to hide, he should not try to hide it by appearing to impede the investigation, like someone who has something to hide.
I should have said "currently under investigation" or more correctly maybe "a person of interest" as of course a person or person not currently under investigation may or may depending on what is found become the subject of the investigation.
Again is goes with out saying that being under investigation does not equal guilt of any criminal activity.
I agree with what DT should do, and maybe he has nothing to hide, not being guilty does not always mean not protecting others. That is what may lead to the problem.0 -
ThisRegard wrote: »Where have they shown to be colluding, what investigation or reports have come to this evidence based conclusion?
Well none, as the allegations are still under investigation, if there is no evidence then none will be found.0 -
ThisRegard wrote: »Where have they shown to be colluding, what investigation or reports have come to this evidence based conclusion?
In the Wikileaks emails. These are just some ones off reddit, I've posted huge lists in the past to the same question but it would take me ages to find the posts, there's literally hundreds of examples. CNN were asking the DNC what questions to ask Trump and so on.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikileaks-dnc-and-cnn-colluded-on-questions-for-trump-cruz/article/2606651
DNC and CNN colluded on questions for Trump, Cruz
Clinton Staff hosts private “off-the-record cocktail party” with 38 “influential” reporters, journalists, editors, and anchors (from 16 different mainstream media outlets including CNN, NBC, CBS, NYT, MSNBC, & more) with the stated goal of “framing the race”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5953 (see attachment)
John Podesta hosts a dinner with reporters: I’m “Cooking for 30 of your reporter friends”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4543#efmAAGABu Full list of media guests: https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12063
Donna Brazile (CNN contributor at the time, and current DNC Chairman now) leaked a CNN town hall question to Hillary’s staff: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205#efmAD-AMa
Fox News leaked Town Hall question to Clinton campaign: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/21526#efmAJiAOE
Hillary Clinton reads directly from script during Phone Interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4274#efmAEcAWc Video: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786158412119707648
Clinton campaign and the New York Times coordinating attack strategy against Trump: https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4664
New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich gives Hillary veto power: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDV1DWd
Glen Thrush, POLITICO's chief political correspondent and senior staff writer for POLITICO Magazine, sends John Podesta an article for his approval. Writes: "Please don't share or tell anyone I did this. Tell me if I ****ed up anything": https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681#efmAByAEV
Boston Globe colludes with Clinton campaign to give Hillary a “big presence”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4180#efmAJhALE
John Podesta receiving drafts of New York Times articles before they’re published: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844
Ad for Hillary Clinton secretly pitched by ‘right-leaning’ Heat Street ‘journalist’ Louise Mensch: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5740#efmAMvAUe
More media collusion: NYT and AP “helpful” to Clinton campaign: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5502
Brent Budowsky (writer for The Hill and Huffington Post) warns John Podesta about possible Hillary attacks and that not talking to the press is killing her support: “I’m not going to raise this publicly, but..”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6453#efmARBAUVAVJAXBAfNAhWAkaAl4
Huffington Post contributor Frank Islam writes to John Podesta in email titled “My blogs in the Huffington Post”, says “I am committed to make sure she is elected the next president.” “Please let me know if I can be of any service to you”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5988#efmADmAE6AF-AG1
Clinton staff “Placing a story” with Politico / New York Times: “place a story with a friendly journalist” “we have a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico” “we should shape likely leaks in the best light for HRC”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7524#efmA14A2IA3AA36A9fA-kA-6BAICwpCx4
Clinton staff “placing a story with a friendly at the AP (Matt Lee or Bradley Klapper)”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272#efmBKsBMU
MSNBC's Meet The Press host and Political Director for NBC News, Chuck Todd, hosted a dinner party in 2015 for Clinton Campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/13686
Leading pro-Hillary personalities Jessica Valenti, Jamil Smith, and Sady Doyle "worked with" the campaign: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18566
Clinton staff appearing to control the release times of Associated Press articles: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8460
Clinton staff colluding with New York Times and Wall Street Journal to paint Hillary’s economic policies in a “progressive” light: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9007#efmAcTAdS
CNBC panelist colluding with John Podesta on what to ask Trump when he calls in for an interview: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7710#efmAakAd6AjgAlR0 -
If your suggestion is that Trump is trying to impede an investigation that might disclose wrongdoing not by him but by his associates or by people that he cares about, I'm afraid that in itself would be a crime on Trump's part.Really Interested wrote: »I should have said "currently under investigation" as of course a person or person currently under investigation may or may depending on what is found become the subject of the investigation.
Again is goes with out saying that being under investigation does not equal guilt of any criminal activity.
I agree with what DT should do, and maybe he has nothing to hide, not being guilty does not always mean not protecting others. That is what may lead to the problem.0 -
Hank Scorpio wrote: »He didn't say it directly, what he said was he was going to fire him anyway. I don't think the Rosenstein letter made much of a difference, but it's still better than if Trump fired him outright.
Yes it might not bode well for the future, but his position has become almost untenable and at the foundation of the hysteria there is simply no evidence. I can understand why he did it.
Hardly untenable given few people saw this firing coming. Or even expected him to resign.
Lack of evidence was fine. They are the investigative branch and there was interference by the Russians which needs a full investigation where ever it happens to lead. There is evidence for that and gathering that is always going to be tough. His main issues (interference in the decision to prosecute and inserting himself into the election) were old news at this point.
As to why Trump is under suspicion, he publicly invited them to hack the dnc which while it may have been largely in jest it is still incredibly inappropriate for a presidential candidate to say (please attack foreigners, now to run for highest office...), his team lied about dealings with the Russians-again could have been for purely monetary reasons but we are not exactly seeing a high level of morality here, he hired Flynn in spite of being told it was a dumb idea repeatedly. Either because he didn't care or because he is stupid. Finally there is his ridiculous defense of the Russians when the incident happened. Going above beyond to guarantee they were not involved as well as claiming he had proof. Again stupidity could be a reason.
Adding them together an investigation has to happen that is also seen as being fair. Firing the head of it (instead of trying to set up an independent investigation first or shifting the decision to fire elsewhere so it can be seen to not involve the Russian investigations) and the Nunes incidents obviously fail this. Hence the continued need for investigation.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »If your suggestion is that Trump is trying to impede an investigation that might disclose wrongdoing not by him but by his associates or by people that he cares about, I'm afraid that in itself would be a crime on Trump's part.
Which if History teaches us anything is exactly what may happen in this case.0 -
Hank Scorpio wrote: »In the Wikileaks emails. These are just some ones off reddit, I've posted huge lists in the past to the same question but it would take me ages to find the posts, there's literally hundreds of examples.
Clinton Staff hosts private “off-the-record cocktail party” with 38 “influential” reporters, journalists, editors, and anchors (from 16 different mainstream media outlets including CNN, NBC, CBS, NYT, MSNBC, & more) with the stated goal of “framing the race”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5953 (see attachment)
John Podesta hosts a dinner with reporters: I’m “Cooking for 30 of your reporter friends”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4543#efmAAGABu Full list of media guests: https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12063
Donna Brazile (CNN contributor at the time, and current DNC Chairman now) leaked a CNN town hall question to Hillary’s staff: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205#efmAD-AMa
Fox News leaked Town Hall question to Clinton campaign: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/21526#efmAJiAOE
Hillary Clinton reads directly from script during Phone Interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4274#efmAEcAWc Video: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786158412119707648
Clinton campaign and the New York Times coordinating attack strategy against Trump: https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4664
New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich gives Hillary veto power: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213#efmDV1DWd
Glen Thrush, POLITICO's chief political correspondent and senior staff writer for POLITICO Magazine, sends John Podesta an article for his approval. Writes: "Please don't share or tell anyone I did this. Tell me if I ****ed up anything": https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681#efmAByAEV
Boston Globe colludes with Clinton campaign to give Hillary a “big presence”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4180#efmAJhALE
John Podesta receiving drafts of New York Times articles before they’re published: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/844
Ad for Hillary Clinton secretly pitched by ‘right-leaning’ Heat Street ‘journalist’ Louise Mensch: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5740#efmAMvAUe
More media collusion: NYT and AP “helpful” to Clinton campaign: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5502
Brent Budowsky (writer for The Hill and Huffington Post) warns John Podesta about possible Hillary attacks and that not talking to the press is killing her support: “I’m not going to raise this publicly, but..”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6453#efmARBAUVAVJAXBAfNAhWAkaAl4
Huffington Post contributor Frank Islam writes to John Podesta in email titled “My blogs in the Huffington Post”, says “I am committed to make sure she is elected the next president.” “Please let me know if I can be of any service to you”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5988#efmADmAE6AF-AG1
Clinton staff “Placing a story” with Politico / New York Times: “place a story with a friendly journalist” “we have a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico” “we should shape likely leaks in the best light for HRC”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7524#efmA14A2IA3AA36A9fA-kA-6BAICwpCx4
Clinton staff “placing a story with a friendly at the AP (Matt Lee or Bradley Klapper)”: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272#efmBKsBMU
MSNBC's Meet The Press host and Political Director for NBC News, Chuck Todd, hosted a dinner party in 2015 for Clinton Campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/13686
Leading pro-Hillary personalities Jessica Valenti, Jamil Smith, and Sady Doyle "worked with" the campaign: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18566
Clinton staff appearing to control the release times of Associated Press articles: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8460
Clinton staff colluding with New York Times and Wall Street Journal to paint Hillary’s economic policies in a “progressive” light: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9007#efmAcTAdS
CNBC panelist colluding with John Podesta on what to ask Trump when he calls in for an interview: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7710#efmAakAd6AjgAlR
I will engage with any HC discussion you want in a different thread, but why do supporters of Trump always say "a but Hillary" is is transparent.
But as an aside is it illegal for a US media to help in electing a person.0 -
Advertisement
-
Really Interested wrote: »I will engage with any HC discussion you want in a different thread, but why do supporters of Trump always say "a but Hillary" is is transparent.
But as an aside is it illegal for a US media to help in electing a person.
He asked me a question about the media and collusion in fairness and to show evidence.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement