In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots
"More insidious and subtle, but even worse, was what Newsweek and its Clinton-adoring writer Kurt Eichenwald did last night. What happened — in reality, in the world of facts — was extremely trivial.
One of the emails in the second installment of the WikiLeaks/Podesta archive — posted yesterday — was from Sidney Blumenthal to Podesta. The sole purpose of Blumenthal’s email was to show Podesta one of Eichenwald’s endless series of Clinton-exonerating articles,
this one about Benghazi. So in the body of the email to Podesta, Blumenthal simply pasted the link and the full contents of the article. Although the purpose of Eichenwald’s article (like everything he says and does) was to defend Clinton, one paragraph in the middle acknowledged that one minor criticism of Clinton on Benghazi was possibly rational.
Once WikiLeaks announced that this second email batch was online, many news organizations (including The Intercept, along with the NYT and AP) began combing through them to find relevant information and then published articles about them. One such story was published by Sputnik, the Russian government’s international outlet similar to RT, which highlighted that Blumenthal email. But the Sputnik story inaccurately attributed the text of the Newsweek article to Blumenthal, thus suggesting that one of Clinton’s closest advisers had expressed criticism of her on Benghazi. Sputnik quickly removed the article once Eichenwald pointed out that the words were his, not Blumenthal’s. Then, in his campaign speech last night, Trump made reference to the Sputnik article (hours after it was published and spread on social media), claiming (obviously inaccurately) that even Blumenthal had criticized Clinton on Benghazi.
That’s all that happened. There is
zero suggestion in the article, let alone evidence, that any WikiLeaks email was doctored: It wasn’t."
Hmmm...
the article i posted was retweeted by Wikileaks. the source of emails and government corruption, YET people like this OP are going to take the word of a unapologetic Hillary propagandist over Wikileaks.
think about that
GOVERNMENT GOOOOOOOD
INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST BAAAAAAAAD
Quote:In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots
"More insidious and subtle, but even worse, was what Newsweek and its Clinton-adoring writer Kurt Eichenwald did last night. What happened — in reality, in the world of facts — was extremely trivial. One of the emails in the second installment of the WikiLeaks/Podesta archive — posted yesterday — was from Sidney Blumenthal to Podesta. The sole purpose of Blumenthal’s email was to show Podesta one of Eichenwald’s endless series of Clinton-exonerating articles, this one about Benghazi. So in the body of the email to Podesta, Blumenthal simply pasted the link and the full contents of the article. Although the purpose of Eichenwald’s article (like everything he says and does) was to defend Clinton, one paragraph in the middle acknowledged that one minor criticism of Clinton on Benghazi was possibly rational.
Once WikiLeaks announced that this second email batch was online, many news organizations (including The Intercept, along with the NYT and AP) began combing through them to find relevant information and then published articles about them. One such story was published by Sputnik, the Russian government’s international outlet similar to RT, which highlighted that Blumenthal email. But the Sputnik story inaccurately attributed the text of the Newsweek article to Blumenthal, thus suggesting that one of Clinton’s closest advisers had expressed criticism of her on Benghazi. Sputnik quickly removed the article once Eichenwald pointed out that the words were his, not Blumenthal’s. Then, in his campaign speech last night, Trump made reference to the Sputnik article (hours after it was published and spread on social media), claiming (obviously inaccurately) that even Blumenthal had criticized Clinton on Benghazi.
That’s all that happened. There is zero suggestion in the article, let alone evidence, that any WikiLeaks email was doctored: It wasn’t."
Hmmm...
i posted this already. just fyi
but yup. basically Eichenwald writes a misleading article complaining about misinformation while broadcasting his own misinformation.
Quote:the article i posted was retweeted by Wikileaks. the source of emails and government corruption, YET people like this OP are going to take the word of a unapologetic Hillary propagandist over Wikileaks.
Ah I see you already posted it.
Quote:it's just more of the same nonsense from the Clinton campaign that anything Wikileaks says is from Russia, SO BE SCARED OF IT
meanwhile Wikileaks is providing REAL insight into the corruption of our government. Ya man, believe Hillary and her lap dogs.
Were you just not paying attention in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s?
Nobody here believes Hillary. You keep building up that straw man.
However, the nativity in trumpettes is astounding. All of a sudden 4 dead in Bengazi and arming opposition forces is the greatest sin you've ever seen. As though this is all brand new. You know Americans in embassy's were killed in higher number's under George Bush. Where were you then? You know we armed Iran under Reagan. Where was the outrage then? Al Queda was created by the USA. Where's the outrage there?
But no, this is all Hillary's fault. LOL
Grow up.
Quote:or it just means Trump's people pulled an article from the internet thinking it was accurate and it turned out to be wrong
the idea that Sputnik was misleading on purpose and had it sent straight to Trump to repeat is pretty unlikely. if they knew it was misinformation, they should have known that it would only take a hour at least before somebody noticed the mistake.
And that's OK?
![[Image: what-are-you-talking-about.jpg]](http://www.pwnfitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/what-are-you-talking-about.jpg)
You basically just said that you are A-OK with a National Enquirer president, so long as it's your flavor of lunacy!
I mean, don't get me wrong--- I was laughing my Heineken off when he repeated the lie that Ted Cruz was part of a conspiracy to kill JFK...
But now this is serious. You don't want a moron and his yes men lackey's assigned to be Commander in Chief!
Quote:Were you just not paying attention in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s?
Nobody here believes Hillary. You keep building up that straw man.
However, the nativity in trumpettes is astounding. All of a sudden 4 dead in Bengazi and arming opposition forces is the greatest sin you've ever seen. As though this is all brand new. You know Americans in embassy's were killed in higher number's under George Bush. Where were you then? You know we armed Iran under Reagan. Where was the outrage then? Al Queda was created by the USA. Where's the outrage there?
But no, this is all Hillary's fault. LOL
Grow up.
What the [BAD WORD REMOVED]!! Did you just reach back into history to justify wrong with wrong and brush it off like no big deal? And you have the nerve to tell someone to grow up? This is just sad no matter who you support.
Quote:And that's OK?
You basically just said that you are A-OK with a National Enquirer president, so long as it's your flavor of lunacy!
I mean, don't get me wrong--- I was laughing my Heineken off when he repeated the lie that Ted Cruz was part of a conspiracy to kill JFK...
But now this is serious. You don't want a moron and his yes men lackey's assigned to be Commander in Chief!
I never said it has my approval. Im just differentiating fact from fiction. The author says it's proof Russia is tampering. The basis for that argument is so broad that the same logic could be used in saying the very existence of Sputnik and RT is proof of "tampering" by Russia with elections.
Quote:Were you just not paying attention in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s?
Nobody here believes Hillary. You keep building up that straw man.
However, the nativity in trumpettes is astounding. All of a sudden 4 dead in Bengazi and arming opposition forces is the greatest sin you've ever seen. As though this is all brand new. You know Americans in embassy's were killed in higher number's under George Bush. Where were you then? You know we armed Iran under Reagan. Where was the outrage then? Al Queda was created by the USA. Where's the outrage there?
But no, this is all Hillary's fault. LOL
Grow up.
The difference between you and me is I recognize all those past sins of this country and am trying to progress. You are still voting for the same old same old.
Quote:The difference between you and me is I recognize all those past sins of this country and am trying to progress. You are still voting for the same old same old.
What you in Trumps life makes you believe even for a second he will change that?
Honestly I do believe he will make our country not great! And would be the worse than Andrew Jackson. America is already great to me.
Quote:What I Trumps life makes you believe even for a second he will change that?
Honestly I do believe he will make our country not great! And would be the worse than Andrew Jackson. America is already great to me.
Just a hunch. There are no guarantees but there is no doubt a greater chance of Trump leaning more towards non-interventionist than Hillary. With Hillary there is literally 0 chance of her not arming somebody we shouldn't.
There is 0 chance of her voting down TPP. Trump is talking about ideas completely different from the status quo. Nobody even close to the presidency was talking about how NAFTA and free trade are [BLEEP] this country.