The weird part is everyone forgetting in a week or two...
The media is on the side of the wealthy, because that's the whole reason they bought the media in the first place.
This isn't the first time, been happening since newspapers were cutting edge. It's the natural result of deregulating journalism. So ething both parties do at almost every opportunity.
All the shit going on now with the media can be traced back to Slick Willy in the 90s.
It's not like the Clintons are poor though
But her supporters were, VS the billionaires class backing the Republicans
I dunno. Between Hilary emails and Steele Dossier, I feel like MSM is afraid of being used in manipulation schemes.
Whether by foreign agents or even Trump campaign leaking information themselves, baiting media to release a bland report full of already public information just so he can change the narrative back to Government and MSM colluding against him or whatever BS he wants to spew.
If there is any little reported or good stuff, they can now just research and find their own story and leave out the whole "hack "
Robert could have dumped this stuff anywhere.
It baffles me that Americans don’t properly fund their public broadcaster
Can probably be traced back to the Hearsts in the 1940s.
I'm perpetually out of the loop. Did Trump's emails get leaked?
If I’m tracking properly, they got hacked and then the internal data was given to the media, and the media hasn’t released anything. Because it benefits them to support Trump.
Or because there is literally nothing worth reporting. I guarantee if there was some juicy stories, they would come out.
No, they specifically didn’t get leaked. And that’s the story. Trump’s team got hacked, and the hackers sent the emails to the news outlets. The outlets protected Trump, and refused to publish the emails.
Which is in stark contrast to what happened when Hillary’s emails got sent to the news outlets. The outlets were clambering to be the first to publish them.
Almost as if the outlets have a strong bias…
it appears not to be emails.
also, clinton was using a private email server for government business, illegally. Those emails were subpoenaed and then she had them deleted and wiped…it’s quite different.
leaked confidential material from inside the Donald Trump campaign, including its report vetting JD Vance as a vice presidential candidate. So far, each has refused to reveal any details about what they received.
i think if there was a story they’d cover it. but if it’s just campaign information, there would be no point except to just try to harm him.
They did not wipe all the emails. Her team sorted through to send only the ones which were subpeonaed, which is what you are supposed to do.
And the DNC hack is what the original post probably meant, but people mix all this stuff up. Those were published on Wikileaks and generated super productive controversies, such as pizzagate.
And it isn't illegal per se to use private email. It's extremely common, but should be cracked down on. A big problem with it is age. Try telling your grandma she has to use a different email when she contacts you about certain topics.
Lock them emails up came the cry from the C suite and the editor asked what he should run instead.
I worked in small and medium sized print media for a few decades. Very loosely around 1998 you’d still see the newest, greenest, most eager-to-please editor be able to tell the owner or C’s to fuck right off if there was an attempt to break the wall between the money and the news. It was just assumed and known really - because while few examples happened, for the most part management or money would never even think of doing it.
By the early 2000s, while print was still king and only just preparing to completely fuck up internet advertising and kill the industry, the wall cracked a bit. “It’s the beginning of the end” many would say while others said they were just ads on the front above the fold. The former was correct.
And now we have a media landscape run by the money, for the money.
WIKILEAKS released Hilary's emails. Not the media.
WikiLeaks is a shell now, almost non-existent. For years it's been little more than a Twitter account, but even that hasn't posted since June.
False. The Clinton emails were first released under FOIA by the State Department, not by WikiLeaks. You're mixing it up with the Podesta and DNC email archives, which incidentally contained dirt on Trump as well.
Much like wikileaks, media outlets claim to be impartial third parties and have annoynmous drop boxes for whistleblowers.
It's probably not that hard, last times Trump was hacked (that I recall) was from his password in the LinkedIn breach.
Jesus Christ, I can't believe how dense people are being about this. First of all, they weren't Hillary Clinton's emails, they were John Podesta's emails. Second of all, and more importantly, the, "Mainstream Political Media," didn't publish those emails, Wikileaks did.
In 2016, Russian hackers got Podesta's emails, Wikileaks published them, and the media reported on them once they were already exposed. In 2024, Wikileaks is functionally dead, so Iranian hackers sent them directly to mainstream media outlets. Mainstream outlets don't want to deal with the legal issues associated with releasing hacked information, so they sit on them.
This isn't some conspiracy by the media to ensure Trump wins. This is a direct result of 20+ of allowing our government to persecute whistleblowers and leakers.
I disagree, the "media" is trying to get trump elected. When I say media, I mean 80% of the mainstream publications. Some are insanely left, so much so that it looks like a parody (looking at you Huffington Post). But here is why I suspect that is so:
- Trump is great for getting outrage clicks from all sides. The people who love him, to see the liberal tears. And the people who hate him because they're worried about America's future and are actually crying.
- They are mostly owned and/or ran by the 1%. See here. https://sh.itjust.works/post/20890256 They're probably being promised tax breaks and lots of other shit. They forget that no one wants to live in a 1% utopia of either being their slaves or living in a rich HOA with libertarians as the president.
Don't give Assange a pass for being a leaker. He had Republican emails in 2016 and choose not to leak them.
I'm like...80% sure that's not true. I don't remember any story about GOP emails, and I can't find any reporting on it now.
That being said, I'm not giving Assange a pass. At the time he was getting Podesta's emails from Russian hackers, he was declining to publish a cache of Russian government documents. It's possible that dropping those leaks was part of his negotiations to get the Podesta emails, or that he had just developed a strong anti-U.S. bias after being imprisoned in an embassy for 4 years, but that's still no excuse for violating the Wikileaks' founding principle of holding all power accountable. Also, beyond the bias problems, I think the sexual assault allegations against Assange are credible, and he should have been prosecuted in Sweeden. Wikileaks was a very flawed organization, and Assange is a complete piece of shit.
However, the U.S. didn't want to prosecute Assange for the Podesta hack, or Russian espionage, or sexual assault. They wanted to prosecute him for telling the world that the U.S. military murdered two Reuters journalists. For all of Wikileaks flaws, they did some important work, and there's no one willing to do that work now that they're gone. A great example of that is all these legacy media groups sitting on Trump's emails but being too scared to publish them.
Was trump found to be running a private email server for government classified business? Because that's what the issue with Hilary was. As much as I despise trump, the situation isn't equivalent. Also, WikiLeaks leaked Hillary's emails, not the media. Basically everything stated in the original post is incorrect.
Nah, he just had a bunch of classified government documents stashed in a bathroom.
Which he should have gone to prison for.
Right, but that's not related to these emails as far as anyone knows.
If I recall that case was dismissed without prejudice, which means they can fix the bullshit issue Judge Cannon came up with to delay things, re-indict him and ideally convict his ass. Can't use executive privilege as a defense (no matter how strained) for shit you do after you leave office. That'll kick up a mountain of idiots on Xitter screaming about "double jeopardy" despite not knowing how any of that works though.
Assuming of course he doesn't get reelected and pardon himself or some equally absurd bullshit.
No, you're thinking of GW Bush
https://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html
Trump just had his daughter and son in law do it for him
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/us/politics/jared-kushner-ivanka-trump-private-emails.html
Like I said to someone else here already:
False. The Clinton emails were first released under FOIA by the State Department, not by WikiLeaks. You're mixing it up with the Podesta and DNC email archives, which incidentally contained dirt on Trump as well.
If Trump knew how to use email, you know he'd be sending classified information from his yahoo account.
You're correct about Wikileaks, but you are conflating the scandal around Hillary's emails (she maintained a private email server while she was Secretary of State, and deleted many of those emails when she was meant to retain them) with the Podesta emails (which the user in the image incorrectly identifies as Hillary's emails). The hacking of Podesta's emails is actually very similar to the hack of the Trump campaign, except there's no Wikileaks or equivalent organization willing to publish them this time.
LoL, for as much as you "despise trump", you sure feel compelled to "defend" him by creating your own false equivalence, getting the facts wrong, and by ignoring the entirety of actions Trump and his family committed while in office. It's almost like you don't really despise him at all...
I'm not defending him, I'm saying we need to be better. There are enough valid criticisms, like millions of them. We don't need to make false equivalencies.
Eh, that's about par for the course at this point...
Idiot Junior tweeted his own e-mails where the campaign arranged Russian interference for sanctions relief, and it got lost under the ten thousand other high crimes, treasonous acts, and outright efforts toward a coup d'etat.
Any news that doesn’t publish his emails is not fair or balanced.
Who's they?
The New York Times, I believe. They got sent the research document the GOP did on Vance's vulnerabilities by a state-level actor, probably Iran. They alerted the campaign and didn't release it.
The FBI and most major media corporations hid the hunter biden laptop scandal from the public during the 2020 elections. CNN, ABC, NPR, twitter, Facebook and more colluded with the FBI to claim the incident was fake, despite eyewitness accounts confirming much of the information. Twitter banned users for spreading "misinformation". The FBI quietly admitted the laptop was real after the election. No apologies were issued, many news networks issued no correction.
Whose side is the media on again?
Don't get me started on how some CNN/NPR listeners I knew thought kyle Rittenhouse shot first at black protestors even up to the the conclusion of the trial...
Let's talk about Hunter Biden's laptop. The laptop became a focal point of political controversy in the United States during the 2020 presidential election. The story began in October 2020 when the New York Post published an article claiming to have obtained a copy of a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden. The laptop reportedly contained emails, texts, and other documents that raised questions about Hunter Biden's business dealings, particularly in Ukraine and China.
The laptop was allegedly left at a repair shop in Delaware, and after it was never picked up, the shop owner reportedly turned it over to the FBI and made a copy of the hard drive, which was later given to Rudy Giuliani, former President Donald Trump's personal lawyer.
The story sparked a massive political debate. Republicans and Trump supporters argued that the contents of the laptop suggested potential corruption involving Joe Biden. Democrats and many media outlets, however, were skeptical of the timing and the origins of the laptop story, suggesting it could be part of a disinformation campaign, possibly linked to foreign interference.
So here's what always bothered me about this story. Why was it left in a repair shop in Delaware and never picked up? Super secret super personal documents on a laptop without a password or any encryption is just dumped at a random repair shop and never picked up? And the owner hand delivers it to Giuliani?
And why should we care? Biden has never had his family working in his administration like Trump did. Most Republicans can't name a single cabinet member of the current administration but they can name Hunter and Jill so that's who they go after. How are his alleged crimes even relevant?
As far as Kyle Rittenhouse goes, why are you defending a kid who drove an hour to bring an automatic weapon across state lines to enthusiastically hunt down liberal protestors (in kinder words than he put it.) You're clearly not here in good faith if you're spreading the falsehood that what he did was in self defence or in any way defendable.
what constitutes as hiding? Here is CNBC asking Biden about Hunter during the debate with Trump on Oct 22, 2020. From what I've read the main hurdle was Rudy Giuliani himself (link)
the Wall Street Journal and Fox News — among the only news organizations that have been given access to key documents — found that the emails and other records don’t make that case. Leaving aside the many questions about their provenance, the materials offered no evidence that Joe Biden played any role in his son’s dealings in China, let alone profited from them, both news organizations concluded.
The lack of major new revelations is perhaps the biggest reason the story has not gotten traction, but not the only one. Among others: Most mainstream news organizations, including NBC News, have not been granted access to the documents. NBC News asked by email, text, phone call and certified mail, and was ultimately denied.
The first story about the Hunter Biden laptop appeared in the New York Post, a conservative tabloid. One of the bylines was that of a former producer for Fox News pundit Sean Hannity.... The Times also reported that the Trump campaign initially shopped the story to the Wall Street Journal, hoping that a mainstream news organization would validate their assertions that the documents hinted at corruption.
An NBC News correspondent asked Bobulinski for an interview and for copies of documents in his possession, but he declined. “All of your questions will be answered on Tucker Carlson tonight,” Bobulinski wrote on Oct. 27.... NBC News has sought to obtain the documents on the alleged Hunter Biden laptop, but has been rebuffed. An NBC News correspondent sent a letter two weeks ago to Giuliani, seeking copies of the materials. His lawyer, Robert Costello, granted the correspondent the opportunity to review some Hunter Biden emails and other materials in person. The materials included copies of Hunter Biden identification documents that appeared to be genuine. But without taking possession of the copies, it was not possible to conduct the sort of forensic analysis that might help authenticate the emails and documents.
I know it's weird for twitter to take it down, but remember this was a time when they only allowed verified information.
What exactly was the scandal?
