No Consequences for Reporters Caught Colluding with Hillary…


Colleagues yawn while star reporters like Thrush and Leibovich cooperate with Clinton campaign


Decades before social media and email, a remarkable but unsung Bronx housewife named Ruth Goldstock told her grandson, “Never put anything in writing that you wouldn’t want on the front page of The New York Times.”

These days, that wise advice applies to private communications by everybody in the entire country except elite journalists and news executives.

Elsewhere in America, when emails that the author assumed would never see the light of day became public he suffers some form of consequences—you know, stuff like plummeting poll numbers, possible jail time or forced resignation. This goes for everybody from Hillary Clinton and the former head of Sony Pictures on down.

But if you’re a Politico or New York Times scribe or CNBC anchor John Harwood and hacked emails emerge that reveal you outright colluding with Hillary Clinton campaign—by giving advice or providing the communications director “veto” power over what to include from your interview with the candidate or allowing campaign chair John Podesta veto power over your stories—that is another matter.

Your media friends will not censure you or even scold you—in fact, they don’t bother to contact you directly. Instead, you can hide between a crafty spokesman who won’t even answer specific questions but acts like he’s the publicist for some elusive Hollywood star and that a journalist determined to ask standard pointed questions is actually pining to profile him for Vanity Fair.

That was essentially the response from Politico spokesman Brad Dayspring when this columnist asked to interview reporter Glenn Thrush about his newly revealed emails. Dream on, he replied, emailing me: “I want to play third base for the Yankees.”

Hacked emails reveal that Thrush has apologized to campaign chairman John Podesta for writing a “shitty” story that embarrassed the operation. In another email, Thrush called himself a “hack” and promised to let Podesta approve parts of his story on the campaign’s fundraising efforts.

“No worries Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u,” he wrote. “Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fucked up anything.”

In multiple email exchanges, Politico spokesman Brad Dayspring, who would not even give out his own phone, did not answer a single factual question about Thrush. But did call him one of the “top political reporters in the country.”

Really? Top reporters theoretically treat both sides equally. Has he ever given Republicans advance copies of stories? If so, who?

When Daily Caller reporter Alex Pfeiffer made similar inquiries to Dayspring about Thrush he was also stonewalled. The flack proceeded to question Pfeiffer’s objectivity because he had called Thrush a “fucking joke” on Twitter. But again ignored specific questions.

Ironically, Pfeiffer’s bon mot was in response to Thrush tweeting something that illustrated his own rank bias. Thrush said that he would not have written one of his stories if he could have known it would end up helping the Trump campaign.

Dayspring followed the same game plan when it emerged in another hacked email that Politico investigative reporter Ken Vogel sent an entire draft of his story to the DNC communications director for approval.

Dayspring is good at his job. But Washington Post media blogger Erik Wemple is an even better Politico flak catcher.

Having attacked his D.C. rival for years, Wemple actually defended Vogel in a lengthy post, headlined, “Leave Politico’s Ken Vogel Alone.”

The self-appointed media ethics policeman certainly left Vogel alone.

Nothing in the article indicates Wemple tried to contact him directly. Instead, he just quoted Politico’s official statement verbatim.

“Politico’s policy is to not share editorial content pre-publication except as approved by editors. In this case the reporter was attempting to check some very technical language and figures involving the DNC’s joint fundraising agreement with the Clinton campaign. Checking the relevant passages for accuracy was responsible and consistent with our standards; Sharing the full piece was a mistake and not consistent with our policies. There were no substantive changes to the piece and in fact the final story was blasted out by the both RNC and the Sanders campaign, and actually prompted Politifact to revise its rating on the issue in question.”

Wemple called the response “excellent.”

Well, by the standard of skillful sophistry, it was “excellent.”

Notice that Politico did not even apologize. It just called Vogel’s action “a mistake.”

Reporters are supposed to accord that kind of eliding of responsibility by public officials considerable skepticism. Vogel did not make a “mistake.” And, if his action was “not consistent” with POLITICO policies, why was he not disciplined or reprimanded? Ditto for Thrush.

But the most curious thing was Politico’s insistence that even though policies were violated in reporting, the final product was excellent—objective and hard-hitting. Imagine how well a parallel rationale would fly from anybody else.

Suppose a boxing promoter busted for fixing the fight said, “Well, this guy would have won anyway, he threw better punches than Joe Frazier. It was a great fight.” Or if somebody indicted for insider trading said he would have bought the same stock anyway.

The New York Times displays similarly situational ethics.

Hot shot New York Times magazine writer Mark Leibovich, himself embarrassed by a leaked email in which he told Hillary Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri she “could veto what you didn’t want” from his interview with the candidate and omitted at her request dicey comments about Sarah Palin, recently defended his actions. But from the safe confines of his computer.

Leibovich claimed he recently did the same kind of thing with Trump—unlike just about every politician or organizational official in Washington does—refuses to answer questions about his self-serving spin. The voice-activated phone system won’t connect callers to Leibovich—even though just about everybody else, including the bureau chief, can be reached the same way.

An actual person who subsequently answered the main phone line started interrogating a caller—where do you work? what is this about?—who asked to be connected to the great man himself.

Alas, saying more or less the following did not do the trick. “What difference does it make who I am? Maybe I work at the ape house at the National Zoo. At the very least I’m a reader, right? Isn’t the Times supposed to be accountable to readers?”

Of course, consequence free journalism extends way beyond newly-revealed emails.  In August, Washington Post scribe Janell Ross outright lied about Donald Trump—not shaded things or omitted things but outright lied—in order to depict him as some kind of crypto-racist. On the same day that Trump disavowed Duke on “Good Morning America” Ross wrote he had not done so in 48 hours, contradicting the paper’s own fact checker.

Asked to justify herself by this columnist, Ross said the claim was was merely her perspective and quickly hung up. Moral of the story: hot shot journalists don’t need to worry about anything they put in writing—privately or publicly—even when they outright lie about Donald Trump.

Ruth Goldstock was a remarkable woman. Born the same year as Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Rosa Parks, she had the kind of qualities—beauty, charm, intelligence—that if my grandmother’s life had taken a different course she might have ended up a significant public figure herself. But even she could not have anticipated how far down the toilet journalistic standards would eventually go.

Thrush, Vogel and Leibovich ignored multiple inquiries. But maybe their journalism peers ought to start making them.


Sexual assault claims against Trump full of holes

OCTOBER 14, 2016

Details surrounding the sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump are raising doubts that the claims are credible:


LMFAO they got debunked already? I swear the media is becoming communist propaganda.

Trump ahead in new poll 2%

its surprisingly easy to debunk these, whats up with that ?
Levi Martin

YouTube former Miss Universe owner defends Trump.
Mark Prendergast

Sorry USA, no more male presidents for you. #FalseRapeAllegationEquality
JohnSmith FakeName

I have not paid any attention to these claims because the timing is to perfect, with ZERO lead up until now. Therefore I am completely ignoring these allegations because they look like lies.

NYT Gave Hillary Veto Power On Quotes!


WikiLeaks emails show reporter agreed to let Clinton campaign cut quotes before story ran

by Brendan Kirby | Updated 11 Oct 2016 at 12:46 PM

Hillary Clinton spent time in summer 2015 with The New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich and made a crack about 2008 Republican presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

But the remark didn’t make it into the long profile. Leibovich agreed to give the Clinton campaign veto power over the statements she made.

“These exchanges were pretty interesting … would love the option to use.”
The revelation comes in Part III of a massive email release from WikiLeaks.

Leibovich evidently gave the campaign the ability to ax quotes as part of a deal for access. Representatives from The Times did not immediately respond to an inquiry from LifeZette.

Leibovich emailed campaign Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri on July 7, 2015, to try to lobby for a batch of quotes.

“These exchanges were pretty interesting … would love the option to use,” he wrote.

The Palin shot came during a discussion between Clinton and Leibovich in which the Democratic candidate for president discussed having eaten moose stew in Alaska. “So that’s why I always got a big kick out of Sarah Palin with all of her, ‘We’re cooking up some moose stew here,'” she said.

But Palmieri told Lebovich that Clinton did not want the Palin quote to appear, and it did not. Instead, the passage in a story titled “Re-Re-Re-Reintroducing Hillary Clinton,” read: “She had seen a few in her day, she told me. ‘I’ve eaten moose, too,’ she said. ‘I’ve had moose stew.'”

The Clinton camp also objected to using a quote in which the candidate said that “gay rights has moved much faster than women’s rights or civil rights, which is an interesting phenomenon somebody in the future will unpack.”

The email exchange also indicates that Palmieri misunderstood the terms of the agreement. She wrote that she thought the campaign would be able to pick the quotes that would be used. Leibovich responded, “I wanted the option to use all — and you could veto what you didn’t want. That’s why I selected the 5 or 6 I sent to you…The moose is good, but I’d really love to use the other things I sent, too. They were all on point. Sorry for mis-communique here, but do you think you can check?”

Palmieri seemed satisfied.

“Pleasure doing business!” she wrote.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE…WikiLeaks Email: Team Hillary Feared ObamaTrade Backlash

Ann Coulter: Stunning New Development!!! Media Calls Trump Racist


Annoyed at federal judge Gonzalo P. Curiel’s persistent rulings against him in the Trump University case (brought by a law firm that has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches by Bill and Hillary), Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said that maybe it’s because the judge is a second-generation Mexican immigrant.

The entire media — and most of the GOP — have spent 10 months telling us that Mexicans in the United States are going to HATE Trump for saying he’ll build a wall. Now they’re outraged that Trump thinks one Mexican hates him for saying he’ll build a wall.

Curiel has distributed scholarships to illegal aliens. He belongs to an organization that sends lawyers to the border to ensure that no illegal aliens’ “human rights” are violated. The name of the organization? The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association — “La Raza” meaning THE RACE.

Let’s pause to imagine the nomination hearings for a white male who belonged to any organization for white people — much less one with the words “THE RACE” in its title.

The media were going to call Trump a racist whatever he did, and his attack on a Hispanic judge is way better than when they said it was racist for Republicans to talk about Obama’s golfing.

Has anyone ever complained about the ethnicity of white judges or white juries? I’ve done some research and it turns out … THAT’S ALL WE’VE HEARD FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS.

The New York Times alone has published hundreds of articles, editorials, op-eds, movie reviews, sports articles and crossword puzzles darkly invoking “white judges” and “all-white” juries, as if that is ipso facto proof of racist justice.

Two weeks ago — that’s not an error; I didn’t mean to type “decades” and it came out “weeks” — the Times published an op-ed by a federal appeals judge stating: “All-white juries risk undermining the perception of justice in minority communities, even if a mixed-race jury would have reached the same verdict or imposed the same sentence.”

In other words, even when provably not unfair, white jurors create the “perception” of unfairness solely by virtue of the color of their skin.

Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck’s entire career of springing criminals would be gone if it were generally accepted that we can’t question judges or juries based on race or ethnicity. Writing about the release of Glenn Ford, a black man convicted of robbing a jewelry store and murdering the owner, Scheck claimed that one of the most important factors in Ford’s death sentence was the “all-white jury.”

On the other hand, the evidence against Ford included: His two black friends telling police he’d shown them jewelry the day of the murder, another Ford acquaintance swearing he’d had a .38 in his waistband — the murder weapon was a .38 — and the gunshot residue on Ford’s hand. His conviction was overturned many years later, on the theory that his black friends had committed the murder, then framed him.

So we know 1) the “real killers” were also black; and 2) any jury would have convicted Ford on that evidence.

Here’s how the Times described Ford’s trial: “A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury in Louisiana in 1984 and sentenced to die, tapped into an equally old and painful vein of race.”

I have approximately 1 million more examples of the media going mental about a “white judge” or “all-white jury,” and guess what? In none of them were any of the white people involved members of organizations dedicated to promoting white people, called “THE RACE.”

Say, does anyone remember if it ever came up that the Ferguson police force was all white? Someone check that.

I don’t want to upset you New York Times editorial board, but perhaps we should revisit the results of the Nuremberg trials. Those were presided over by – TRIGGER WARNING! – “all white” juries. (How do we really know if Hermann Göring was guilty without hearing women’s and Latino voices?)

The model of a fair jury was the O.J. trial. Nine blacks, one Hispanic and two whites, who had made up their minds before the lawyers’ opening statements. (For my younger readers: O.J. was guilty; the jury acquitted him after 20 seconds of deliberation.) At the end of the trial, one juror gave O.J. the black power salute. Nothing to see here. It was Mark Fuhrman’s fault!

In defiance of everyday experience, known facts and common sense, we are all required to publicly endorse the left’s religious belief that whites are always racist, but women and minorities are incapable of any form of bias. If you say otherwise, well, that’s “textbook racism,” according to Paul Ryan.

At least when we’re talking about American blacks, there’s a history of white racism, so the double standard is not so enraging. What did we ever do to Mexicans? Note to Hispanics, Muslims, women, immigrants and gays: You’re not black.

Other than a few right-wingers, no one denounced now-sitting Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for her “wise Latina” speech, in which she said “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

But Trump is a “racist” for saying the same thing.

Six months ago, a Times editorial demanded that the Republican Senate confirm Obama judicial nominee Luis Felipe Restrepo, on the grounds that “[a]s a Hispanic,” Restrepo would bring “ethnic … diversity to the court.”

You see how confusing this is. On one hand, it’s vital that we have more women and Latinos on the courts because white men can’t be trusted to be fair. But to suggest that women and Latinos could ever be unfair in the way that white men can, well, that’s “racist.”

The effrontery of this double standard is so blinding, that the only way liberals can bluff their way through it is with indignation. DO I HEAR YOU RIGHT? ARE YOU SAYING A JUDGE’S ETHNICITY COULD INFLUENCE HIS DECISIONS? (Please, please, please don’t bring up everything we’ve said about white judges and juries for the past four decades.)

They’re betting they can intimidate Republicans — and boy, are they right!

The entire Republican Brain Trust has joined the media in their denunciations of Trump for his crazy idea that anyone other than white men can be biased. That’s right, WolfI don’t have any common sense. Would it help if the GOP donated to Hillary?

The NeverTrump crowd is going to get a real workout if they plan to do this every week between now and the election.

What do Republicans they think they’re getting out of this appeasement? Proving to voters that elected Republicans are pathetic, impotent media suck-ups is, surprisingly, not hurting Trump.


Poll: 70 percent of Americans believe news media is intentionally biased

Screen Shot 2015-07-06 at 10.59.42 AM

Only 70%? The other 30% must be brain dead or …… the media.

One other interesting find in this survey: Only 19 percent of Americans say the First Amendment goes “too far” in the rights that it guarantees. Last year, 38 percent said it went too far, meaning support for the First Amendment has grown. That’s a major shift year to year. I believe Garland impacted that significantly.

“Poll: 70 percent of Americans believe news media is intentionally biased,” Washington Examiner, July 5, 2015 (thanks to DJW);

Nearly three quarters of Americans believe the news media reports with an intentional bias, according to a new survey.

The 2015 State of the First Amendment Survey, conducted by the First Amendment Center and USA Today, was released Friday. It shows that only 24 percent of American adults agree with the statement that “overall, the news media tries to report the news without bias,” while 70 percent disagree.

When the question was asked last year, 41 percent agreed, a 17-point difference.

“These are discouraging results for those of us who have spent our careers in journalism,” Ken Paulson, president of the First Amendment Center, wrote in an op-ed for USA Today on Thursday. “In 23 years in newsrooms, I saw consistent and concerted efforts to get stories right. Clearly, the public’s not convinced.”

CNN’s Jake Tapper blasts critics: ‘I can’t help it if the entire Democratic field is white’

BY BARBARA BOLAND | 07/05/15 6:57 PM

“Do I get points for interviewing Cruz, Carson and Rubio?”
Greek premier: Bailout vote a ‘brave choice’

BY ROBERT KING | 07/05/15 6:39 PM

He said that Greece is willing to negotiate with European officials again on a new agreement.
Iran deal, Supreme Court, guns, and 2016 candidates: Sunday morning show roundup

BY BARBARA BOLAND | 07/05/15 6:21 PM

Gov. Chris Christie called the efforts of Sen. Rand Paul to end bulk data collection on Americans “wrong.”
Sanders not surprised Congress flocks to ‘establishment’ Clinton

BY ROBERT KING | 07/05/15 5:58 PM

Sanders called Clinton “the candidate for most members of Congress and the Democratic establishment.”
European leaders call for summit after Greece vote

BY ROBERT KING | 07/05/15 5:29 PM

Officials are expected to regroup on Tuesday to discuss what to do with the debt-riddled country.

The survey suggests that controversies this year that engulfed national news anchors Brian Williams of NBC and George Stephanopoulos of ABC may have had a deep impact on public trust in media. It also floats the idea that the public has had a negative reaction to news coverage of the racially-charged events in Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore, Md.

Other findings in the survey:

• Only 19 percent of Americans say the First Amendment goes “too far” in the rights that it guarantees. Last year, 38 percent said it went too far, meaning support for the First Amendment has grown.

• 38 percent agree that business owners should be required to provide services to same-sex couples, a 14-point drop from 2013, when the question was first asked.

• 35 percent say the government “should be allowed to deny issuing license plates to a group who intends to display a Confederate flag on the plates,” while 56 percent oppose the idea.

– See more at:

Sharpton’s debt issues resurface amid his political rise


The Rev. Al Sharpton has made a remarkable rise to national prominence, from community organizer to President Obama’s consultant, amid a long and lesser-known history of debt and tax obligations totaling millions of dollars.

Sharpton and his for-profit businesses owe more than $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens, according to The New York Times.

And his influential nonprofit group, National Action Network, the Times said, appears to be in a similar situation, saddled with years of unpaid travel and hotel expenses while apparently staying afloat by not paying federal payroll taxes for employees.

The newspaper also suggested that Sharpton is not paying enough or fast enough to reduce his obligation to the state of New York, a situation he sharply refuted Tuesday.

The 60-year-old civil rights leader told that he has an agreement with the government to repay his personal and business-related taxes and that his payments are on time.

“We have a signed agreement,” he said. “And what is in the agreement has been kept. We’ve been up to date. This is the most bogus story in the world.”

He also made clear that the roughly $1 million raised at New York event to celebrate his 60th birthday, on which The Times reported, will go toward repaying his debts.

Sharpton also argued that his work ethic and determination are above reproach but acknowledged his shortcomings as an administrator.

To be sure, Sharpton has come a long way since his days as a robust preacher and activist working the streets of Brooklyn in a jogging suit.

The low point in his career likely came in the late 1980s when he accused a New York prosecutor of being part of a group of white men that abducted and raped teenager Tawana Brawley, an allegation that proved to be false.

The much slimmer and well-tailored Sharpton now has a show on MSNBC. He appeared on the streets of Ferguson, Mo., to appeal for justice and calm in the aftermath of a white police officer in August fatally shooting unarmed black teen Michael Brown.

More recently, Sharpton was at the White House when Obama announced that Loretta E. Lynch, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, who is black, would be his nominee to be the next U.S. attorney general.

And he has served as an informal adviser to New York Mayor Bill de Blasio.

“I have the support of the black community,” said Sharpton, who was on standby to fly back to Missouri should a grand jury announce whether to indict the officer in the shooting. “President Obama and (New York Gov. Andrew) Cuomo aren’t doing me a favor.”

He said that his rise to prominence has also increased his pay and that he is negotiating a deal with government officials to clear his debt by offering them 50 cents on the dollar.

“I’ll write a check tonight,” Sharpton said.

The Time also reported that Sharpton, a Democrat and former mayoral and Senate candidate, also had a history of delinquent rent payments to his friend, Bishop E. Bernard Jordan.

Sharpton asked why he would be responsible for back payments at the Jordan’s Brooklyn rental home in 2006 when he had separated two years earlier from his wife, who remained in the home while he lived in a Manhattan apartment.

“What is new is this story?” Sharpton asked.