2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy Did NBC News Sit on Explosive Story About Clinton’s Alleged Hacked Email Server For Weeks?
"Now, this is where things get a little strange. As was noted earlier, NBC News says Lazar made these claims to McFadden during an interview in a Bucharest prison and we know Lazar was extradited to the United States on or about March 31, 2016. So, it stands to reason that McFadden conducted the interview before he was extradited to the U.S. which means NBC News was sitting on these explosive claims for more than one month. Which begs the question, why would a major news network sit on such an explosive allegation especially when the claim directly relates to a presidential candidate and the biggest story the 2016 presidential election cycle?
Understandably, production on a special might take longer than usual but given the story networks have turned interviews around in mere minutes.
The delay cost them what wouldve been a huge exclusive, or at least seemed to prompt them to hurry and put something out as Fox News went with its own story and interview with Lazar late Wednesday. Fox News clearly did their interview with the hacker after he arrived in the United States. As they mentioned, they visited him in a Virginia jail.
We reached out to NBC News for clarification and a spokesman declined to comment at this time"
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/why-did-nbc-sit-on-explosive-story-about-clintons-alleged-hacked-email-server-for-weeks/
I posted about this as soon as the story broke.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511901376
I'm not saying that this dude actually did hack into Clinton's server but his story was definitely news worthy and NBC sat on it until they found out that fox was gonna beat them to the punch.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Or I assume it was last night since it just came up on youtube today.
Tarc
(10,478 posts)The guy is nutso.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)TimPlo
(443 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)TimPlo
(443 posts)The Killian docs where only disproved because a bunch of RW bloggers falsely claimed they where fake because of super script number on 110st(I think that was number). But it turned out after the fact that they found other documents from same office that had same font. So using that to defend Clinton not a good idea.
Tarc
(10,478 posts)You may peruse the findings at your leisure; http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/appendix_4.pdf
but the gist is that the Dan Rather's documents were produced on a modern computer, not a typewriter of the 1970s. Once in a great while, liberals fuck up and right-wingers are correct. This was one of those times.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)you goofed up.
Tarc
(10,478 posts)Rather and Mapes thought they had a juicy story on their hands, but they fucked up and ran with bad docs before having them properly vetted.
You, I, and every other Dem/liberal with a clue knows that Bush used his family connections to get posted to the TxANG, far, far away form the front lines of Vietnam, and his superiors knew why this drunken rich bow was there. It would've been nice to prove that, but CBS botched the story.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)The information in them was correct but the documents themselves were not the ones she filled out.
Rather should've checked with that secretary first. Then he would have known he was set up.
It had nothing to do with the sort of typewriter those documents were written with.
Tarc
(10,478 posts)4 documents were shown on 60 Minutes. They were found to be forged, that's what killed the story. "Fake but Accurate" is how the rest of the media characterized CBS' attempt; we all know that Bush skated through his National Guard service, and CBS blew it by not authenticating the documents.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)documents LIKE those but which were slightly different.
Dan Rather screwed up and should have interviewed that secretary before he ran with the story. Not after.
He was set up with documents that told the truth but were not authentic.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)I don't think they were expecting what they got in that interview.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)A jailed hacker hoping to negotiate some sort of plea bargain makes claims without evidence is hardly explosive.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)If he can provide a single email, Hillary is finished.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)Maybe none, but we'll never actually know, will we?
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)of the Veterans Affairs Committee whilst the scandal unfolded had been widely publicized?
Or his vote to dump nuclear waste on a minority community in Texas
whilst his WIFE got a seat on the Texas board dumping that waste?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Corrupt corporations take care of their own.
oasis
(49,499 posts)They'll slide in a story of minimal interest every now and then during news droughts.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)Clinton was in a major losing streak in that period -- lost 8 out 9
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Anything that detracts from her campaign that puts her in a precarious light with the voters at this critical time can be saved for another news day, even if it is something of an important national security issue. IMHO
It is all about the money.
Sam
CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)If they wanted to do their job as journalists, they would look like an entirely different entity.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Yet another corporate "news" entity in the bag for Princess Weathervane.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)GreenPartyVoter
(72,388 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)That doesn't really apply here and they ran with the same story anyway.
Seems shady to me.
trudyco
(1,258 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I don't know that answer.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)This is a very informative read.