05-25-2022, 09:58 AM
(05-23-2022, 02:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Passing information of this sort on to a legitimate investigative reporter is not the same as Trump passing something on to "breaking-news" Hannity. (Remember what I have said about the assymmetry of the MSM and Fox?)
Yes it is. Especially when what you got was the piece that the reporter penned (your link above and below in the text box).
Quote:From the Clinton campaign's side, there is risk the reporter will investigate and find nothing, and so report nothing, or report the signals anomaly--which does exist--adding that nothing, as yet, was found to explicitly connect Trump with Russia, as the campaign perhaps hoped. Which is what happened in the brilliantly informative article that the Slate reporter published a month before the election.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html
Lol, you do realize that the article that you've linked to IS the article in question, right? This IS the article written based on the information that Mook passed along after Clinton okayed him to do so.
So let me get this straight.....your point is that it was risky for the Clinton campaign to pass this information along to the reporter because the reporter could investigate and find nothing and report nothing, or find no connection to Trump as they had hoped...and you cite the actual article that was published that the MSM ran with and pushed out to its viewers, and that Hillary Clinton TWEETED about as proof? <----Notice the Clinton failed to mention in anyway that the this was still an ongoing investigation and that it was incomplete and therefore hard to evaluate the findings.
Bahahahaha! Thanks for proving my point. It sounds to me like it wasn't a risk at all, and they got EXACTLY the reaction that they were hoping for. Thanks for making this reply an easy lay-up for me.
Quote:Were the Clinton's adopting a Trump trick? Perhaps. But they were clearly not as good at it, and could not expect the press amplification the other side regularly gets. For that you need reporters willing to place party over journalistic standards.
Ah, no. They were masterful at it and it got EXACTLY what they wanted with the help of a reporter who placed party over his journalistic standards.
This is how it went for the Clintons.....
1. Take information from an incomplete, inconclusive, and still on going internal investigation and
2. Pass it along to a reporter who
3. Writes a highly suggestive article that details the current information, only mentioning at the end of a VERY long piece that "It’s hard to evaluate the findings of an investigation that hasn’t ended" and "We don’t yet know what this server was for" as a way to preserve his "journalistic integrity." Article is then
4. Mentioned in a tweet by the person who fed the reporter the information and is
5. Picked up and reported on by an overzealous and overeager media who reports it as fact because they hate Trump.
You're a smart guy, but you really need to open your eyes and expand your sources beyond what the MSM feeds you. We need well thought out and researched people like you on the Independent side. C'mon on over, it's quite refreshing when you break out of the dichotomy of the two party system. Sure you might have to **gasp** agree with Republicans sometimes, but the feeling of being true to your beliefs instead of twisting, spinning, and bending them to stay aligned with one party is worth it.
In our world, Trump can be an ego maniac, narcissistic, asshole AND have been smeared, spied on, and conspired against at the same time. BOTH can be true. It's not either/or.
