Government whore Matt Lee outed as non-reporter by Clinton campaign?

Matt Lee.

The AP reporter who prays his e-mails to Victoria Nuland are never leaked.

'Reporter' would be the wrong word to use for Matt then.

Considering how he would outline with Nuland ahead of time what to cover.

Until those e-mails are made public, Matt can enjoy being called a "friendly by the State Dept and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Remember that when you see his byline.

Remember how Matt has used his bully voice in press briefings to avoid Iraq but also to avoid Benghazi and scream down others.

AP's little pantsed boy pantsed in public revealed as a fake and fraud.

And while you consider that, ask yourself if the State Dept, under subpoena from Congress, should be communicating with Hillary Clinton about what e-mails they're handing over?

From WikiLeaks:

Re: Proposed response to upcoming State Dept disclosure on Sid emails

From:nmerrill@hillaryclinton.com 

To: bfallon@hillaryclinton.com  

Date: 2015-06-24 16:32 

Subject: Re: Proposed response to upcoming State Dept disclosure on Sid emails

Just spoke to State a little more about this. A few updates. 

 1. The plan at the moment is for them to do this tomorrow, first thing in the morning. 

 2. What that means specifically is that they are going to turn over all the Blumenthal emails to the Committee that they hav along with some other HRC emails that include a slightly broader set of search terms than the original batch. That of course includes the emails Sid turned over that HRC didn't, which will make clear to them that she didn't have them in the first place, deleted them, or didn't turn them over. It also includes emails that HRC had that Sid didn't, as Brian noted. 

 3. They do not plan to release anything publicly, so no posting online or anything public-facing, just to the committee. That said, they are considering placing a story with a friendly at the AP (Matt Lee or Bradley Klapper), that would lay this out before the majority on the committee has a chance to realize what they have and distort it.

 On that last piece, we think it would make sense to work with State and the AP to deploy the below. So assuming everyone is in agreement we'll proceed. It would be good to frame this a little, and frankly to have it break tomorrow when we'll likely be close to or in the midst of a SCOTUS decision taking over the news hyenas.

 Will keep everyone posted if anything changes, including the timing. Nick 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Brian Fallon wrote: 

> All - In preparation for the possibility that the State Department may 
> acknowledge as soon as today that there were 16 Sid emails missing from the 
> 55k pages of material produced by HRC, I wanted to circulate the below 
> draft plan for responding to the inquiries that Nick will get. Thanks.


> > > *Q: The State Department says that at least 16 of the emails 
> that Sid Blumenthal turned over to the Benghazi Select Committee were not 
> included in the 55,000 pages of materials produced by Hillary Clinton. 
> Doesn't this prove that Hillary Clinton deleted certain emails at some 
> point before producing them to the Department?* >



> *ON-THE-RECORD RESPONSE FROM SPOKESMAN NICK MERRILL:* > 
> "Hillary Clinton has turned over 55,000 pages of materials to the State > Department, including all emails in her possession from Mr. Blumenthal." >



> *ADDITIONAL POINTS ON BACKGROUND FROM CLINTON AIDE:* 
> 
> Not only did Clinton turn over all emails that she has from Blumenthal, > she actually turned over more than a dozen emails that were not included in 
> what Mr. Blumenthal handed over to the House committee. > 
> We do not have a record of other correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and > Mr. Blumenthal beyond that which was turned over to the State Department. 
> In terms of the documents provided by Mr. Blumenthal to the House 
> committee, we do not recognize many of those materials and cannot speak to 
> their origin. > 
> *OFF RECORD, if pressed on whether we are essentially admitting the 
> possibility that she deleted some emails:* 
>

> Look, we do not know what these materials are, or where they came from. > Just take a look at them: many of the documents are not even formatted as 
> emails. 
> 
> For all we know, it could be that, in the course of reproducing his emails 
> after his account was hacked, Sid misremembered which memos he actually 
> forwarded to her and which he did not. 
> 
> And hey, even if Sid is right and some of these documents were at some 
> point sent to Clinton, this is unremarkable anyway for two key reasons: >

> One, she would have been under no obligation to preserve them since 
> Blumenthal wasn't a government employee. 
> 
> Two, there is nothing in any of these emails that is remotely new or 
> interesting. Indeed, none of these 16 emails are qualtitatively different 
> than the dozens of others that Hillary already produced to the State 
> Department. So it is completely ridiculous to suggest that there might have 
> been any nefarious basis for her to want to delete any of Sid's > correspondence. 
>

wikileaks

Who was Hillary's CNN source?

Was it Donna Brazile?

She's already been outed for, while employed by CNN, passing information onto Hillary's campaign about debate questions.  It's a question this e-mail posted by WikiLeaks begs:


"This is just for you Nick but our favorite CNN source says that Brianna (who is filling in for Erin this week) and Dan have been speculating that HRC lined up an interview with Andrea Mitchell about emails. Now she obviously shouldn't be telling me this so please don't burn the source or Madre may pay the price."



The last e-mail in the chain below is the statement above.

So who was the CNN source spying on Brianna and Dan and reporting back to Hillary's campaign?

Re: Leaks

From:pir@hrcoffice.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com  Date: 2015-03-09 19:25 Subject: Re: Leaks

John, With all due respect, and reluctantly to do this in front of HRC except for wanting to defend myself against being labeled as a cancer - but the conclusion that it is ME that has to stop "this" is really unfair. ýThis has happened too much over the last six weeks to chalk it up to the press guessing correctly. They don't even get facts correctly. Cnn guessed Andrea Mitchell? Come on. That flies in the face of common sense. Not to mention I'm following up on a topic last night where you yourself felt it enough of a problem to have warned the Secretary her people yap. I didn't whip you up. You took that into consideration when discussing a 24 hour delay. That never should have been a factor. Lastly, if you think I'm the only one on this chain bothered by this - and not because I whipped them up - then I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you. When I had dinner with Jim Margolis weeks ago, he broached with me that he is shocked by what he's reading, is sure it's close, and fears HRC is looking at him and the rest of them funny. I think that's a problem when her team is looking funny at each other. And for anyone to be justifiably upset to not be read in earlier on our current challenge, and then wonder why it's difficult to speak freely about something so sensitive in large in expanded settings, is a lack of self-awareness. This topic's a unique doozy, but it's not the last delicate one. That someone yapped about the lamest 10%ý of our conversations is better than the most sensitive 10% is besides the point. But either way we're going to have to agree to disagree on whether 10% is just the price of doing business. Again, with all due respect, your reaction to me is unfair in that's it's stronger than any admonition anyone else has received who is actually doing something wrong. I agree though that being at each others' throats will get us nowhere, and if you want me to keep it to myself, ok, done. But it's the underlying problem that's going to be the problem, not me stating the obvious. With that, I'm going to sit queitly in the corner until Cheryl calls me to admonish me for sending this reply and digging myself into an even deeper hole with you than I already was. For those keeping score, that will be two more admonishment than the culprit(s) have received. Philippe


From: John Podesta 
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 4:51 PM 
To: Philippe Reines Cc: Cheryl Mills; H 
Subject: Re: Leaks Philippe, You got to stop this.
The press is trading in rumors that can easily originate in their own newsrooms. If someone wanted to leak juicy tidbits, they have a lot more to work with than our press planning. If we are going to be at each others throats before we start, we are going nowhere. John

 On Mar 9, 2015 1:13 PM, "Philippe Reines" > wrote: 

Ok, this has gone too far. The email below is from Craig to Nick to me where someone knows an interview with Andrea was on the table. Seperately, Andrea just sent Nick this: "we are hearing news conference tomorrow?" ýThe Andrea part especially should only have been known to 10-12 people, 3 of whom are John, Cheryl & me. 


Original Message From: Nick Merrill > 
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 4:04 PM 
To: Craig Minassian Cc: Matt Mckenna - gmail; Philippe Reines 
Subject: Re: CNN + PIR This is nuts. 
 On 3/9/15, 3:59 PM, "Craig Minassian" > wrote: >
This is just for you Nick but our favorite CNN source says that Brianna >(who is filling in for Erin this week) and Dan have been speculating that >HRC lined up an interview with Andrea Mitchell about emails. > >Now she obviously shouldn't be telling me this so please don't burn the >source or Madre may pay the price. > >Sent from my iPhone

xx

Hillary Clinton: Hostile to the Trans Community

October 29, 2013, speaking at the Goldman Sachs Builders and Innovators Summit at the Ritz-Carlton in Marana, Arizona, Hillary Clinton declared (WikiLeaks, Attachment, Document 3):




So on the WikiLeaks, there was the embarrassment factor, there were the potential vulnerability factors that individuals faced. The WikiLeaks issue was, you know, unfortunate. Private Manning should have never had access to a lot of what he did have access to. So, in effect, it was a problem. But it didn't expose the guts of how we collect and analyze data.

August 22, 2013, two months prior, Manning had announced she was Chelsea Manning to the world via her attorney.  Prior to that, the military was aware of her gender issues and this had been passed on to Hillary Clinton at the State Dept as early as 2010.

So despite knowing Chelsea was a trans woman for three years and despite her knowing Chelsea had publicly declared she was a trans woman two months prior, Hillary still insisted upon insisting Chelsea was a "he."

Some friend to the LGBTQ community Hillary is.


From the August 23, 2013 snapshot:


 Tuesday, July 30th, Bradley was declared guilty of all but two counts by Colonel Lind. Yesterday, Manning issued a statement through NBC's Today show thanking supporters and declaring, " I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition. I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility). I look forward to receiving letters from supporters and having the opportunity to write back."  These developments and more were addressed today in the first segment on KPFA's The Morning Mix which, Fridays from 8 to 9 in the morning, is Project Censored's radio program. (The program is briefly archived at KPFA but it is also archived permanently at this Project Censored radio page.)  







wikileaks