Not unlikely U.S is source of leak not Russia. Total media blackout. NYT, Bloomberg, CNN, WaPo, ect.
538 has a 3.1 popular vote margin and in the last 24ish hours Trump has gone from 80/20 to 60/40. Many sides manipulating information, so both amplify their candidate. Going to be very close
I have been getting updates via a fucking uncharged fugitive seeking asylum from my country and reading updates via RT (Russian News). I feel sick to my stomach and I am very cynical.
NYT is covering the Wikileaks emails:
http://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/wikileaks
Also, are you confusing CNN firing a commentator with the NYT? Donna Brazile was not 'a staff member' at CNN, they paid her to go on TV and babble, not as a reporter. She acted in bad faith, but she wasn't in a journalistic role.
I am not contending there is a blackout-- that was an over reaction, but all major networks are barely mentioning much of the disclosures or even showing HRC in that bad of a light. If this was Gary Johnson-- who most people dont know; would ve surprised if state dept & WL werent front page.
Bloomberg, CNN, NYT, WaPo, CBS, NBC are running with blatant propaganda. Just because I find HRC to be a dangerous, doeNt mean I support T.
The state dept/FBI are releasing data dumps on a former senator & secretary of state as well as pursuing her investigation of criminal activity. None of these papers allude to that scary fact, or the scarrier fact that there is a schism internally as well.
Comcerned.
There is a blackout, it's just not a 100% blackout.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
If they don't give good placement to something scandalous from the released messages, then you have an argument.
Either this or these agencies are secretly controlled by Putin.
FBI was a hero to Democrats and a villain to Republicans a couple months ago and now it flipped. So the FBI probably isn't controlled by either party.
No, they wouldn't have, because the FBI can't indict anyone; indictments are sought by Justice Department prosecutors (who don'the work for the FBI) and issued by grand juries (who also don't work for the FBI.) All the FBI can do is investigate, conduct lawful arrests, and provide information to prosecutors who decide whether and when to prosecute (including seeking indictments.)
Well, and conduct politically motivated information releases, though that isn't a legal option, as it violates the Hatch Act.
And the FBI is, in fact, controlled by a Republican. This is a matter of simple, undisputable fact.
And that's a Republican whose naked political manipulation has been criticized not only by Democrats, but by numerous Republicans, including, among other notables, former Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales, and by others with no love of Democrats, like conservative icon, Fox News legal anlayst, and Libertarian Party member Judge Andrew Napolitano.
> And they would have let General Petraeus (who was a potential Republican primary candidate) off instead of bringing charges against him
Again, that's Justice Department prosecutors, not the FBI. Plus, that kind of blatant political manipulation that is likely to get you fired or forced to resign is a one-time-only thing that only works well if you do it right before the election. If a partisan Republican -- especially working in a Democratic Administration -- was going to do it, they do just what Comey did, do it close enough to the general election that it would have an effect, but not so close that it wouldn't have time to get plenty of play in the media and magnification through partisan propaganda outlets.
They sure are all out to get her it seems.