Good Morning BDT! (And good to see you here across the street!) I had watched the clip before I read Kam's article, but I too believe that Ray Maddow's intent was much more than met the eye.
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 8:06 AM, btdt100 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- -- 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.
