ASSANGE RT's ANOTHER BOMBSELL -- POLITICO CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT GLENN THRUSH ADMITS TO PEDOSTA THAT'S HE'S BECOME A HACK

ASSANGE RT's ANOTHER BOMBSELL -- POLITICO CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT GLENN THRUSH ADMITS TO PEDOSTA THAT'S HE'S BECOME A HACK ( pizzagate )

submitted 2017-09-18T23:06:57 by quantokitty

Relevancy: The relevancy is that Julian Assange IS #pizzagate. It was this email drop that started the snowball down the hill. Podesta is a major player in that leak. Without the leak, we'd never know he carried around a map that seemed pizza-related handkerchief.

Julian Assange does it again. How are we missing these things? Today he retweeted this:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788612978782396416

The entire email is here:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12681#efmABjAEV

From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-04-30 21:50 Subject: Re: sorry to bother...

OTR: No problems here On Apr 30, 2015 3:00 PM, "Glenn Thrush" gthrush@politico.com wrote:

No worries Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u Please don't share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fucked up anything

Yeah, don't share or tell anyone I did this, eh? And remember, this is POLITICO. The other email I posted was where Lynn de Forester Rothschild was referring to a problem at POLITICO. The problem was a "friendly" reporter, meaning a reporter parroting whatever narrative they wanted was leaving.

So just how close were the DNC to these reporters? In bed close? Podesta emails a POLITICO Chief Political Correspondent and this reporter says he's become a hack and sends what looks like part of a speech or article? I mean, WTH?

And Podesta didn't even question what he meant? Hell, what am I talking about! Why would he when Podesta obviously knew this guy had it! You wouldn't be fishing for this type of reply, you'd know who to ask. The real question is what else did this correspondent hack?

As for Sanders declaring his presidential candidacy this day, just another coincidence. If you look down the comments in the original tweet link, you'll see someone named Susan noticed, so I had nothing to do with it. But it's another thing that makes you shake you head and wonder why.

12 comments

DonKeyhote 2017-09-19T02:02:21

How could you not know what a "hack" is LMAO

link

DanaKeyhote 2017-09-20T15:41:55

So I hear your a Muslim. Should have known. That explains alot. Sick fuck

link

DeathTooMasons 2017-09-19T07:39:10

How could you not know what ethics are?

link

Haldelos 2017-09-19T01:23:56

MIssed it?? -everyone was talking about this email last October.

link

quantokitty 2017-09-19T03:07:09

I was talking about "missing" what it meant, not that people didn't read it.

In other words, why RT it now? Assange doesn't do things for no reason.

link

HugoWeaving 2017-09-19T00:08:50

The term "hack" in the original email appears to relate to his journalistic ethics -- as in, he has none. He's a hack, a loser, a wanna be reporter who is willing to send an investigative article before it's published for review by the source/subject himself. "Hack" does not refer to the verb -- hacking -- as in breaking into a secure network.

The tweet was first made public in October of 2016. Rather than question what was said, ask WHY this would be re-tweeted now?

link

Are_we__sure 2017-09-19T01:41:10

The term "hack" in the original email appears to relate to his journalistic ethics -- as in, he has none.

Yes, he referring to himself as a hack journalist. He's basically making a joke about himself. This email got some notice last October and his editor said he was being self deprecating. He also no longer works for Politico. He works for the NY Times.

By the way, this is the context of the email.

Can I send u a couple of grafs, OTR, to make sure I’m not fuckinganything up?

It's actually journalistic best practice to give the subject of an article the chance to comment on it, in order to ensure accuracy. This is especially true if you are criticizing or accusing them of something. In fact this is part of the jounalist code of ethics. https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp – Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.

So if this is just about ensuring accuracy, it's not controversial.

link

quantokitty 2017-09-19T00:48:01

It could refer to that. Very definitely. I didn't pay any attention to it the first time around, and I guess I didn't make my point which is the same as yours: