Russian spies vs. “Crooked” Hillary’s press corps
WASHINGTON, July 27, 2016 — A leader of America’s mainstream media, the New York Times, is outraged. Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump pleaded with Russia’s intelligence service to do what President Obama’s FBI cannot or will not.
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” said Trump of Hillary Clinton’s deleted, and likely incriminating, State Department emails.
As if the first part of Trump’s statement wasn’t mocking enough, he added, “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
Our so-called free press was forced to report on the 20,000 emails Russian hackers already retrieved from the computer servers at the Democratic National Committee, which WikiLeaks posted on its website.
With the story out there, it could not be ignored.
We discovered that DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who has since resigned) conspired with fellow committee members to rig their party’s presidential selection process in favor of Hillary Clinton.
And thanks to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spy-guys, we know the conspiracy included an anti-Semitic Southern strategy to use Bernie Sanders’ Jewish heritage and atheism to smear him with “my Southern Baptist peeps,” wrote DNC Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall.
“Mr. Trump’s call was an extraordinary moment at a time when Russia is being accused of meddling in the United States’ presidential election,” said the Times gloomily.
Conservative author Andrew Klavan made a profound observation on a recent podcast (The Andrew Klavan Show). He said when leaked information is damaging to conservative Republicans, it’s the facts that are of paramount importance to the press. When damaging information is leaked concerning liberal Democrats, it’s the source of the leak that is of supreme significance to our media.
That’s why the revelation that Planned Parenthood sells body parts of aborted babies to companies involved in tissue research—against federal law—was viewed by the media as irrelevant compared to the fact that an anti-abortion organization secretly recorded Planned Parenthood executives making these disgusting side deals.
Similarly, the New York Times isn’t all that alarmed by revelations the DNC rigged its 2016 presidential primaries or that anti-Semitic plots were hatched in the party’s executive offices, merely that the source of the information is Putin’s very competent brand of, well, investigative cyber journalists.
Reporters that scooped the Gray Lady and her lesser, feeble, media imitators.
In 1923, the Times’ Moscow correspondent, Walter Duranty, described lowly Soviet functionary Joseph Stalin as displaying:
“judgment and analytical power not unworthy of Lenin. It is to him that the greatest part of the credit is due for bringing about the new Russian Union, which history may regard as one of the most remarkable Constitutions in human history. Trotsky helped him draw it up, but Stalin’s brain guided the pen.”
In 1931, as Soviet dictator Stalin launched a genocidal famine in the Ukraine, Duranty reported, “There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be.”
He insisted Russia’s “enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin’s program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding.”
Duranty’s brand of journalism earned the Times a Pulitzer Prize in 1932, with the Pulitzer committee noting Duranty’s “dispassionate, interpretive reporting of the news from Russia,” adding that his dispatches were “marked by scholarship, profundity, impartiality, sound judgment and exceptional clarity.”
Today, Walter Duranty is remembered as a Stalinist stooge with a typewriter and a press pass.
Last January, the New York Times’ editorial board crowed:
“Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the Democrats to present a vision for America that is radically different from the one that leading Republican candidates offer—a vision in which middle-class Americans have a real shot at prosperity, women’s rights are enhanced, undocumented immigrants are given a chance at legitimacy, international alliances are nurtured and the country is kept safe.”
That may be the kind of “dispassionate” and “interpretive” idolatry that earns Pulitzers, but Americans are better off trusting Vladimir Putin’s inquisitive spies than Hillary Clinton’s compromised stooges with laptops and press passes.