Racheal was doing no more than attempting to garner some credibility for herself by exposing a lie.
On Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 12:21:08 AM UTC-5, Kamakazee wrote: > > Desperate much? > > She thought she had it. The smoking gun that would prove someone in > Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to steal the 2016 election. > But, when a forged NSA document sent to Rachel Maddow turned out to be just > more bad information from more anonymous sources, it left the crusading > MSNBC host feeling a bit "triggered." As such, she opened her show last > night with the following segment: > > *“Somebody, for some reason, appears to be shopping a fairly convincing > fake NSA document* that purports to directly implicate somebody from the > Trump campaign in working with the Russians in their attack in the > election." > > > > “This is news, because:* why is someone shopping a forged document of > this kind to news organizations covering the Trump-Russia affair?*” > > > > Not surprisingly, *Maddow uses the discovery to imply that someone within > the Trump administration is intentionally planting fake information* in > an attempt to discredit her show. She goes on to imply that similar > efforts may have caused the recent firing of *3 'journalists' at CNN* > <http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-26/three-cnn-employees-resign-over-russia-collusion-fake-news-retraction> > > who simply couldn't be bothered with verifying the anonymous tip they > received. > > Here are more details of Maddow's show from the *Daily Caller* > <http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/06/someone-sent-rachel-maddow-fake-nsa-documents-alleging-trump-russia-collusion/> > : > > *On June 7, an unidentified person sent documents to an online tip line > for Maddow’s show*, she said. > > > > *That was two days after The Intercept published legitimate NSA documents > that were stolen by Reality Winner,* a contractor for the agency. > > > > *And that's where Maddow's faux-outrage breaks down*. > > You see, if it's clear that Maddow received her forgery *after* the > intercept published their documents then there's really no 'there' there. > *Pretty > much anyone with an internet connection could have simply taken the Reality > Winner documents from The Intercept website and used them create a forgery > to send to Maddow. * > > Of course, Maddow knew that her whole story was bullshit unless she could > convince her viewers that the forgery she received was created before The > Intercept published it for the world to see. If she could prove that, then > she could insist the forged document must have come from someone on the > 'inside.' > > So, she decided to get 'technical' and take a look at the "metadata" on > the document she received. As it turns out, the "creation date" on the > document she received was roughly 3.5 hours *before* The Intercept > published their Reality Winner story. See, it's all laid out right here on > this lovely timeline graphic. *Checkmate, Mr. Trump!* > > > <http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2017/07/07/2017.07.06%20-%20Maddow%201.JPG> > > > > Except, not. Ironically, by stretching the truth in an attempt to prove > that her story was in any way relevant, *Maddow unwittingly proved > exactly the opposite.* > > > As *The Intercept* > <https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07/rachel-maddows-exclusive-scoop-about-a-fake-nsa-document-raises-several-key-questions/> > > has subsequently pointed out, the *"creation date" on the document > received by Maddow* (see the timeline above) *perfectly matches,* to the > exact second, t*he "creation date" on The Intercept's Reality Winner > document. * > > Why? Because that is the exact time in which The Intercept created their > document and published it to their cloud server. > > All of which simply proves that Maddow's source didn't have a sneak peak > at the Reality Winner documents...*they actually used The Intercept > document as their source for creating their forgery.* > > > Now, we could be wrong here...but, if the Trump administration wanted to > dupe Rachel Maddow we suspect they could have gotten their hands on clean > copies of the Reality Winner docs without having to lift them from The > Intercept's website. > > > > <http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2017/07/07/2017.07.06%20-%20Maddow%202.JPG> > > > > So, what seems more likely to have happened here is that Maddow's staff > could easily tell the "NSA document" was a forgery from the start and > simply ignored it at first. Afterall, she received the document on June 7th > and is just now deciding to talk about it a month later? Unlikely. > > But, when 3 journalists from CNN lost their jobs for publishing fake news, > *Maddow > saw an opportunity to launch a whole new narrative attacking the Trump > administration by alleging that they're planting fake intelligence reports > with the media.* Never let a good crisis go to waste...as they say. > > Edward Snowden summarized the situation the best in a series of tweets: > > Maddow's lawyerly defense of why her implication was wrong is > disappointing. Such caution should come prior to raising alarm on national > TV. > > > > When the media's credibility is under attack, *rushing stories out before > checking facts and contacting the subject is hard to comprehend.* > > > > That said, journalism is hard and mistakes happen. When they do, as in > this Maddow case, *apologies should be frank and unequivocal.* > > > > When we start getting economical with facts, we lose. This important story > was mangled by needlessly injected an unsupportable conspiracy. > > > > *Each time the media gets a prominent story wrong right now, I wince. More > than egg on a famous face, it risks a generation's trust in news.* > > > > *If our most famous journalists are so proud they can't admit to what is > now an obvious error, how can they hope to hold the public trust?* > > > > Most folks can't read three different papers every day. If we don't set > the highest standard, many give up and say the truth is unknowable. > > > > *That is the twilight of an age.* > > > > > > > Still, we do feel badly for the liberal 'journalists' of the world...*all > the embarrassing fake news stories of late means that they may have to > actually start doing their jobs *rather than just blindly running stories > from 'anonymous sources.' > > > <http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user230519/imageroot/2017/07/07/2017.07.06%20-%20Maddow%202.JPG> > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
