And that’s EXACTLY the point.
Getting in bed with Faux News is one thing but getting together with a so-called legitimate news organization???
I smell a rat.
Purdy also told Sullivan that the arrangement with Schweizer "is no different than the way we treat information from any other source. "
Yes, I believe Karl Rove is counting on it.
So I’m not sure what the point was…lots of innuendo, but not much actual dot-connecting.
The innuendo IS the point.
1 Like
Yes of course NYT. That’s why you printed the article saying you had bought dirt on a particular Presidential candidate. You always do that when you come to such an arrangement?
There is an interesting line in the article:
“Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown”
Yeah, like enough people actually bother with discerning.
She never said any “mysteriously” disappeared. She said she turned over what belonged to State, that she reviewed all of them with her staff, and that she deleted those that were personal. She told everything and hid nothing and it’s still not good enough for you to refrain from trying to make it into something. No wisdom there.
Just what is so “exclusive” about a story & so-called research that is available to the Washington Post, Fox News’ audience and any rube that buys Schweizer’s book? Seems to me that reporting it as an “exclusive” is the first of many probable falsehoods the NY Times is foisting with this story.
I guess the New York Times doesn’t understand why folks like myself are dismayed. It’s not the terms of the deal that’s troublesome, it’s that the New York Times has any deal with this guy. And the reason the New York Time made a deal with this joker is because it’s click-bait and click-bait is good for business.
This and the reappearance of Judith Miller jogged my 72 year old brain and I cancelled my subscription for the NY Times!
That Uranium story was originally reported, by the same reporter, by the NYT in 2008. It was debunked by Forbes as being full of errors at the time. Essentially, the NYT’s bogus story appeared in the book so they grabbed it and republished it with the same errors in it. Susie Madrak at Crooks & Liars has this covered.
You didn’t read what I wrote correctly. I didn’t say Clinton said the emails had disappeared. It’s what her enemies are insinuating. Every email she sent to a government email address should still be on a government server. Even if she deleted some official emails from her account, they’re still on those government servers.