NYT makes no mention of aquisition of the SOS Clinton emails they published...

Not just not who, but no mention altogether. Hmmmm.

NYT gets a hold of 27 pages of unpublished emails between HRC and other government officials and from Sidney Blumenthal, all Blumenthal related, and publishes them online. This moments before the Benghazi Committee subpoenas S. Blumenthal. Coincidence? Beyond unlikely.

Oddly, the NYT makes no mention of anything related to acquisition. Only that they are "selected". Selected from what? (by whom?) and at one point refer to them as "obtained".

They make no mention of from where they came. No mention at all. Not only not who but also nothing even similar to "anonymous source", not "source we cannot disclose", etc. Nothing. They just skip it completely. Oops, just forget that part readers!

But what if there are readers that are curious. Did the source request be to kept anonymous? Is the sender unknown? Or did someone send it and had no desire to have their identity kept private but the NYT just opt not to add it? NYT completely skips it, which means it could be any of those answers but we have no idea. If someone wants to know anything about how they were acquired they will not find it in the paper that published them.

Why not?

Here are the 3 NYT pieces:

An odd but typical one that suggests there's something wrong with someone you've worked with sending you intel from a country of national interest to the U.S.

The summary of what was in the emails.

And the actual emails. This is the first time these have been published.

If the paper is under obligation not to disclose their source, why would they not reveal that obligation? Is it an error? Several people on Twitter have asked the writers why no mention, 1 responded to one of the commenters but without answering the question, nor was anything added later. So you can cross possible oversight off the list of possible explanations.

It's an understatement to say something's not quite right here.

Elijah Cummings, the leading democrat on the Select Benghazi Committee says it was Gowdy, head of GOP Benghazi committee, who sent them. Why does the NYT make no mention of anything related to aquisition what-so-ever? If Elijah Cummings is correct and it was Gowdy, then the NYT is protecting Trey Gowdy from current and future scrutiny of motive, helping him with his latest Benghazi charade. How does the release serve Gowdy? It makes it look like he has a reason to subpoena Blumenthal, but the fact is he's known about Blumenthal's emails for almost a year.

NYT gets called out for their sloppy & yellow journalism w/ Schweizer story

Newsweek, NBC, ABC, Newsmax and others don't agree with the NYT insinuated charges. "Sloppy journalism" "doesn't hold up" "insinuates scandal where there is none" "peppering their story w/ innuendo for a juicy pay to play story". Way to go NYT.

Needless to say the story produced by the NYT on Schweizers "Clinton Cash" insinuation of wrong doing by SOS Clinton reads like every other piece they write on the Clintons, full of innuendo and insinuation, misleading facts and omitting others.

It took the NYT a few days after getting their goods from conservative activist, Peter Schwiezer, for them to print the Uranium/Clinton story, so at least they fact checked some of Schweizer's details before publishing his POV. But they failed to even find out how the approval process works, so basically, they just re-wrote Schweizer's story.

Did everyone agree with the NYT and Schweizer's insinuations that were very close to accusations? Fox, yes. The typical haters, yes.. lots of accusations to make (Morning Joe, Chuck Todd, the rest of the clowns). Occasionally adding their own random theories. But not everyone agreed:

Obviously camp Clinton disagrees: This excerpt from the debunk.

Relying largely on research from the conservative author of Clinton Cash, today’s New York Times alleges that donations to the Clinton Foundation coincided with the U.S. government’s 2010 approval of the sale of a company known as Uranium One to the Russian government. Without presenting any direct evidence in support of the claim, the Times story — like the book on which it is based — wrongly suggests that Hillary Clinton’s State Department pushed for the sale’s approval to reward donors who had a financial interest in the deal. Ironically, buried within the story is original reporting that debunks the allegation that then-Secretary Clinton played any role in the review of the sale.

As reported by Media Matters, NBC News says "The NYT story doesn't hold up", ABC also agrees, the NYT doesn't hold up.

Newsweek pretty much captures it all:  [Schweizer's book] "reads like a hatched job", and speaks to the painfully poor logic of the entire book.

Disparate facts are treated like a logical series of events—a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this," another argumentative fallacy. 

The other person NYT smears in the deal is Frank Guistra, long-time philanthropist, recipient of last year's first ever Dalai Lama humanitarian award. He had something to say too. He describes the NYT article as:

 "an attempt to tear down Secretary Clinton and her presidential campaign. If this is what passes for investigative journalism in the United States, it is very sad."

Very sad indeed.

Then Howard Dean calls out the NYT for the story, saying their political writers are "sloppy" and "substituting news for judgement". 

Even the NYT own Jack Krugman calls the NYT out.

Gene Lyons, who wrote about flawed NYT reports of Whitewater chimes in: Media Insinuates Scandal where there is None.

New Republic calls NYT out for "peppering their story w/ innuendo" for a "juicy pay to play story" (that amounts to yellow journalism but we already know that's how NYT rolls).

Hell, even NEWSMAX comes to the defense of the Clinton Foundation.

We know how the NYTimes reacts to obvious flaws in their Clinton reporting. They double down. Triple down and then some so I'm sure they'll have more nonsense to report shortly.

NYT randomly defends author of anti-Clinton book on Twitter.

So a few days ago NYT made an exclusive deal for material from anti-Clinton book. Media Matters called it out, as did a few others. Twitter got a little twittery, (barely, it was like me and 5 others, lol), and others and I called out that the NYT didn't divulge his anti-Clinton bias in their intro of him.

Media Matters make the first claim that Peter Schweizer has connections to the Kochs and before the NYT has even written an article on the book they made a pre-release exclusive deal to get, a NYT political editor tweets that the author isn't linked to Koch. (Quite a defense too! Um... ?)

Why is the NYT defending an author of a book? Either it's a defense of their deal with a right-wing political activist, or maybe they have a vested interest in people taking the author seriously, and if all is on the up and up then neither of those 2 things should be an issue, so why defend?

Here's the NYT defending the interwebs accusation of the author of the latest anti-Clinton conspiracy book:

Well then, I guess the NYT writer speaks at Citibank events and says to never let up on their adversaries.. something like that, weird analogy in the first place.

https://vine.co/v/e7jvWLwgT31

NYT makes a deal for opposition research directly from conservative hit-piece writer...

Politico: Fox and NYT Makes Deal with Conservative Writer for Clinton Dirt

Here's the round up so far (and it's only been a day since one of their writers tweeted about their oppo research deal with the conservative hit piece author.

Not affectionate toward HRC, Daily KOS reports: NYTimes takes stenography from GOP hit book

Very unfond of Hillary Clinton, liberal blog 'Crooks and Liars', says, No matter what you think of her, this is something larger

Politico reports: NYT/FOX make a deal for anti-Clinton research

National Memo reports: Murdoch Empire colludes with "liberal media" to promote "Clinton Cash"


NYT Responds on Deal with Conservative Writer for Clinton Dirt, with an odd single sentence statement.

Esquire magazine weighs in: The day political journalism died and the people killed it

MediaMatters runs down who the author actually is, and what he does...and puts together a list of *some* of Schweizers lies and inaccuracies (smears).

Salon reports: The right's new expose just went mainstream, NYT got hooked

But would the NYT really spread serious allegations that are totally false. Yes. And its pretty bad. Here's a recent notable one. 

 

NYT pushed lies about chemical weapons in Syria for which there was no proof.

 

But more often they leave out information in order to insinuate or draw improper conclusions:

 

Here's a good example: Issa sent a letter directly to Hillary asking about her email and she ignored it!  

 

Orrrr, Issa sent a broader letter to 18 agencies and didn't hear back from Clinton. Which do you think the times wrote and which do you think is true. Well, NYT Clinton writers don't look at the big picture, only what looks juicy.

 

Nothing new, tons of similar garbage in March in their very busy month, got called out back then as well:

But surely these are professionals. Yeah, no, they're not.

 

And it's always good for business when they can write right-wing hit pieces on the Clintons... here's one of the NYT hit-piece writers bragging that he got on drudge (with his story that proved false)

 

Today on the campaign trail in fact, someone asked SOS Clinton about the book, after answering Clinton then noted Republicans are all about her and not the issues. She was then mocked by NYT writter Maggie H. But it turns out, it Maggie's own paper came to the same conclusion that Hillary had. Top of the imagine, the NYT 2 days ago. Bottom half of image, NYT Maggie twittering derisively about SOS Clinton.

 

 

NYT delivers full talking points from anti-Hillary super pac

NYT parrots right wing talking point from anti-democrat super pac 'America Rising'...

What more could an anti-Hillary super pac want. Someone delivering their message for free to over a million people in what most people consider to be an honest news source. They struck gold with the NYT.

The NYT all month has been spreading rumors, baseless accusation, and doubling down on deceptive stories, but they times they go even farther. This writer, who's original email piece was debunked, delivers the talking points from anti-Hillary super pac, America Rising.

[Anti-Clinton memes: Calculating, secrecy]

NYT delivers full anti-hillary pac talking points here...

Like many of the anti-Clinton GOP meme words written through their articles, the NYT slips them in by finding quotes from others. This one he takes them directly from the super PAC America Rising. From the NYT, March 3rd, 2015

Unfortunately, Clinton's own political calculation and desire for secrecy, as evidenced by her exclusive use of email accounts...   -Talking point from anti-Hillary super pac, America Rising, delivered by the NYT 

There was NO reason a journalist would need to include their statement on "calucation" and "secrecy", that has nothing to do with journalism. If this was about a law suit they needed to delivery the information regarding the plaintiff, and that's it. The NYT is pushing these on purpose. Make no mistake about it. 

On their website the Superpac brags that they can change media narrative:

Our work influenced the 2014 elections. Bloomberg said we “rattled Democrats who were not used to losing the media’s story lines” in 2014.

We’re also looking forward to influencing the 2016 elections. The Washington Post and CNN have called America Rising the leading group on the right preparing for a Hillary Clinton candidacy and the earliest sustained effort to begin defining future Democratic presidential contenders. Follow our Hillary Clinton coverage here.

And the NYT is either falling for it or purposefully spreading their message in the hopes of influencing the 2016 elections, it's hard to believe it's not the latter.

Edit: Let's go back in time to NYT delivering other anti-Clinton group propoganda: Whitewater.

"The mainstream media (to which we mail ClintonWatch regularly) is now beginning to parrot much of the information and analysis we break."
-- ClintonWatch, November 1993

"Citizens United has been a powerful force behind the exposure of the biggest story to hit Washington D.C. since Watergate."
-- Citizens Agenda, February 1994