Three news outlets were recently leaked confidential material from inside the Trump campaign, but have chosen not to reveal any of the details about what they received.
Their decisions stand in marked contrast to the 2016 presidential campaign, when a Russian hack exposed emails to and from Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta.
And why would self respecting journalists listen to them about this? Journalists aren’t supposed to let themselves just get strong armed by governments who don’t want them talking about certain things.
I think real journalists are in incredibly short supply, along with agencies willing to print what should be said. Think of all the ridiculous titles, pointless exaggeration, opinion, clickbait, and all the rest in popular media. Couple that with right wing billionaire media owners and getting the unvarnished truth becomes the exception and not the rule.
Literally none of the emails you just referenced were released by media outlets.
From the first link: “A previously secret trove of emails released Tuesday by the House Oversight Committee…”
From the second link: “The Florida Supreme Court ordered the release of 528 pages of emails sent between partisan political consultants and state officials…”
From the third link: “The email exchange between GSA officials and Harrison is one of more than 100 pages of emails and documents newly released by the GSA…”
The Clinton campaign emails were also published by Wikileaks. Once they were published, the media reported on them, but they had no hand in releasing them.
Because, when the FBI investigates a crime, in this case a computer crime, they advise the witness, in this case the media, to keep everything confidential. They do this to not compromise their investigation.
And, media lawyers know that the use of stolen material exposes them to charges and law suits.
That didn’t seem to matter to them much in previous incidents.
These were leaked, it says they may have come from a hack, so the “crime” portion is even less defined than the previous releases like Clinton’s, which absolutely came from a hack but nobody seemed to care.
I haven’t read anything reporting that. Do you have some news source that I don’t? Also, they would have been complete fools to ask the feds when they don’t need the feds’ permission to publish things.
It’s more probable that the DOJ told them to STFU, and their lawyers thought that was a good idea.
Really? They’re fine with releasing HRC’s emails but draw the line when it comes the the Republican campaign?
They released these.
and these
Or even these
The article says this too:
So why would the DOJ tell them to keep quiet?
And why would self respecting journalists listen to them about this? Journalists aren’t supposed to let themselves just get strong armed by governments who don’t want them talking about certain things.
I think real journalists are in incredibly short supply, along with agencies willing to print what should be said. Think of all the ridiculous titles, pointless exaggeration, opinion, clickbait, and all the rest in popular media. Couple that with right wing billionaire media owners and getting the unvarnished truth becomes the exception and not the rule.
I wonder what happened to the guy that published those emails.
Literally none of the emails you just referenced were released by media outlets.
From the first link: “A previously secret trove of emails released Tuesday by the House Oversight Committee…”
From the second link: “The Florida Supreme Court ordered the release of 528 pages of emails sent between partisan political consultants and state officials…”
From the third link: “The email exchange between GSA officials and Harrison is one of more than 100 pages of emails and documents newly released by the GSA…”
The Clinton campaign emails were also published by Wikileaks. Once they were published, the media reported on them, but they had no hand in releasing them.
Ironically that’s poetically why they’re not releasing them. They already had their hand slapped once.
Because, when the FBI investigates a crime, in this case a computer crime, they advise the witness, in this case the media, to keep everything confidential. They do this to not compromise their investigation.
And, media lawyers know that the use of stolen material exposes them to charges and law suits.
That didn’t seem to matter to them much in previous incidents.
These were leaked, it says they may have come from a hack, so the “crime” portion is even less defined than the previous releases like Clinton’s, which absolutely came from a hack but nobody seemed to care.
Wikileaks published first. Then US media wrote a story about their story.
I haven’t read anything reporting that. Do you have some news source that I don’t? Also, they would have been complete fools to ask the feds when they don’t need the feds’ permission to publish things.