Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Bombshell: Wikileaks Exposes Proof Hillary Clinton & New York Times Colluded To Spin & Divert

Written by:

Published on: January 1, 2018

Wikileaks has released new information in the form of emails that definitively prove the Clinton campaign and The New York Times colluded to deceive the American people during the 2016 election.

Wikileaks tweeted out the bombshell on Saturday.

“New cable shows New York Times “reporter” Scott Shane handed over Cablegate’s secret country by country publication schedule to the US government giving the State Department (then headed by Hillary Clinton) up to a week in advance to spin the revelations or create diversions.” Wikileaks tweeted.

Jay Syrmopoulos reports:

TRENDING ON SONS OF LIBERTY MEDIA

The Times was one of five newspapers that obtained an advance copy of all leaked cables, which began being released on November 28, 2010. WikiLeaks made the specific cables, selected by the newspapers and redacted by their journalists, available on its website.

The New York Times initially covered the story in a nine-part series spanning nine days, with the first story published simultaneously with the other outlets.

The New York Times was not originally intended to receive the leak, allegedly due to its negative portrayal of Julian Assange, but The Guardian decided to share coverage, citing earlier cooperation while covering the Afghan and Iraqi war logs.

The Guardian, a British publication, was revealed to have been the source of the copy of WikiLeaks documents given to The New York Times in order to prevent the British government from obtaining any injunction against the publication to stop the release.

Ironically, instead of having any semblance of journalistic integrity, Times “reporter” Scott Shane emailed Philip J. “P.J.” Crowley, who at the time was the United States Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs—operating under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—to give the U.S. government a timetable of the WikiLeaks cable releases.

This would subsequently allow for the State Department to prepare in advance for the publication of such incendiary documents—and formulate exactly how to spin the revelations ahead of time.

Of course, we know that Hillary Clinton is the queen of spin, and actions like this from propagandists, not reporters, only enable people like Clinton to have time to concoct talking points, distort reality and often lie right in the face of the American people.

Donald Trump has referred to this type of thing as “fake news,” and Wikileaks Julian Assange has gone further stating that this is nothing more than “news outlets” being “opportunistic snipers” printing “weaponized text.”

In February 2017, Assange gave an interview in which he spoke out about the difference between the mainstream media and Wikileaks.

“What is special about WikiLeaks is that it’s not just another damn story, it’s not just another damn journalist putting their damn byline, advertising themselves and their position on another damn story,” said Assange.

In speaking to the rise of the “fake news” mantra, Assange spoke to the audience in Sydney, Australia and warned them of who the target of their “weaponized” “news.”

“WikiLeaks is very happy that there is a narrative about fake news out there because we have a perfect record of having never got it wrong in terms of authentications,” Assange said.

“When the narrative of fake news came out and was then taken off effectively by the neo-liberal press and pushed around,” Assange continued. “I could see exactly where that was going. I was rather happy about it.”

“You’re not reading pre-weaponised knowledge,” he said of the organisations’ millions of documents. “When you read a newspaper article, you are reading weaponised text that is designed to affect a person just like you.

“I think that is the real beauty of WikiLeaks… it is that sea of information, that treasure, that intellectual treasure, that rebel library of Alexandria you can go into.”

CNET added:

So what if that “pristine” information is private correspondence allegedly from one of Hillary Clinton’s top aides, released a month before the election? Does freedom of information take on a new meaning when that information is timed to have the maximum impact?

“Sources don’t give you stuff unless it’s going to have impact,” Assange said.

“The real value in WikiLeaks is it is a wonderful library that you can trust… But the library has to be marketed. And so the scandal-generation business, which we’re also in — I view that as a kind of marketing effort for what is much more substantial, which is our archive.”

And as for the timing of the Podesta emails?

“We try and maximize the value of the information to readers. So that’s publishing it at the moment when they most want to read it, when they most want to know what it contains. And that’s definitely before an election rather than after election.”

This demonstrates how the corrupt in the media work hand in glove with the corrupt in the people’s government.

News organizations are there to report the truth, not distort it to protect the guilty.  Public servants are elected and placed into position to serve the people, not manipulate, deceive or seek to control them.

Sign-up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media

Don't forget to like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Send this to a friend