RUSH: We’re down to the nut-cracking time here, and nobody knows — nobody knows — what’s going to happen. The polls are starting to tighten (exactly as somebody said they would) and it’s exciting, and there is still potential out there.
I know. I’m surrounded by pessimists, just like you are. And they’re frustrating and irritating and at times I want to say, “Well, then why are you bothering to paying attention to any of this every day if that’s the attitude?” But I think there’s every reason in the world here to try and stay engaged, because nobody knows. And I’m telling you, like I said countless times before, when you watch the news today, folks…
Literally, when you read the news, when you watch the news, when you hear the news — except for here and a couple of other places — you are actually watching, reading, listening to the Hillary Clinton campaign. And you have to tell yourself that. Every time you watch the news, a story, particularly if it’s about Trump and it’s negative, you have to understand, you’re not watching the news, you’re not watching the media. You are watching the Clinton campaign. There is evidence.
As you know, ladies and gentlemen, I have often described the news every day as actually a scripted soap opera, the daily Washington soap opera, reality TV. It is scripted. There are narratives every day that are not based on the news. There are narratives based on advancing the agenda — the agenda of Obama, the agenda of the Democrats — in this case the election of Hillary Clinton. The WikiLeaks email hack is producing incredible evidence. There’s a website, TheFreeThoughtProject.com, but anybody could have had this stuff. I mean, it’s just people poring through the emails.
“Revelations from the WikiLeaks release of John Podesta’s emails yet again prove mainstream, corporate media serves as Hillary Clinton’s personal cheerleading squad — and is devoid of any iteration of journalistic integrity. hanks to WikiLeaks and the Intercept, in fact, we now have a list of no less than 65 mainstream [so-called] ‘reporters’ whose campaign coverage constitutes propaganda for the Clinton campaign — and no wonder, considering the obscenely lopsided drivel presented by their outlets.
“As (actual) journalists Glenn Greenwald and Lee Fang reported on October 9, the Intercept exclusively…” This is a left-wing outfit, by the way. Glenn Greenwald is the guy that was simpatico with Edward Snowden. Greenwald, I think he’s written for Salon or Slate, I forget which. He’s independent now. The point is a bunch of leftists, and even they are fit to be tied. See, they don’t think Hillary is left wing enough, is their grievance.
But they have uncovered documents from hackers that illustrate the “Clinton campaign tactics to court journalists portraying [Hillary] in a positive light.” There are dinner invitations to all of the named journalists, dinners at Podesta’s house and at other places throughout the campaign year. These are for coordination. You might say, “Well, Rush, that’s understandable. I mean, you worked for a sports team. Didn’t they court the media?” Yeah, but you didn’t host dinner at your house for ’em to come over!
You fed them before games and that kind of stuff ’cause everybody has to eat, but you don’t do what they did. This is actual collaboration. Sixty-five reporters. You know the names. You know the pictures if you would see them. Maggie Haberman, Politico, is one. She’s now at the New York Times. Stephanopoulos is another. In fact, “Specifically named as a suggested journalist plant is Maggie Haberman of Politico, whom they note will assist in doing ‘the most shaping’ of the narrative they have in mind.”
Here’s an internal memo within the Clinton campaign, and it’s called, “Placing a Story — As we discussed on our call, we are all in agreement that the time is right, place a story with a friendly journalist in the coming days that positions us a little more transparently while achieving the above goals.” They’re listed in a different section. “For something like this, especially in the absence of us teasing things out to others, we feel it’s important to go with what’s safe and what’s worked in the past, and to a publication that will reach industry people for recruitment purposes.”
So they admit here that they choose journalists who are read by other journalists, who will then spread narratives within journalism, and that’s how they get everybody on the same page, with the same phraseology and the same take on everything. “We have a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico over the last year. We’ve had here tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed. While we should have a larger conversation in the future about a broad strategy for reengaging the beat press that covers [Hillary], for this we think that we can achieve our objective and do the most shaping by going to Maggie.”
And she’s just one of 65.
Oh, and she should be totally embarrassed! She should be livid at these people. She should be angry as hell for her reputation and her integrity now being called into question. And there’s no anger. By the way, this dinner invitation and the 65 journalists? It was out two or three weeks ago. That’s how long it’s been out. It didn’t cause a volcano. The journalists are not ashamed. They’re proud! The journalists are honored to have been on the guest list. But you’re right: They should all be livid that this has been exposed, that they’re not journalists, that they’re hacks.
So it’s conclusive beyond any doubt, folks, that, when you watch the news, you are watching the Clinton campaign. Here’s a list of the “Progressive Helpers” and “Columnists/Pundits” that the Clinton campaign has that they are considered friendly and will place narratives for them in columns and news stories. You want to hear some of the names? This is in the Podesta email dump from WikiLeaks. And, again, these people come from internal memos the Hillary campaign. These are the people that are sympathetic.
They’ve had them to dinner. They’ve been invited to Podesta’s house. These are the people who, if we need to get a narrative established about Trump or about Hillary, these people will do it for us. “Dan Balz,” Washington Post. “Wolf Blitzer,” CNN. “Gloria Borger,” CNN. “Mika Brezinski [sic],” MSNBC. “David Brooks,” New York Times. The “conservative columnist” for the New York Times is considered a great resource for the Clinton campaign to place a narrative. “Gail Collins,” New York Times.
“John Dickerson”, CBS. “EJ Dionne,” junior, Washington Post. “Maureen Dowd,” New York Times. “Ronan Farrow,” at the time MSNBC. “Howard Fineman,” MSNBC. “Ron Fournier.” Now, he’s at National Journal and a number of other places, but Fournier has been all over Hillary in the early stages of this campaign telling everybody that she’s gonna go nowhere if she doesn’t stop lying.
So next to Fournier’s name in parentheses it says, “(not sure this is worth it),” because Fournier has not been a loyal, bend-over-grab-the-ankles, support-Hillary guy. He’s been calling her out. Not recently, but a year ago, nine months ago. “Mark Halperin,” Bloomberg. “Chris Hayes,” MSNBC. “John Heilmann [sic]” Bloomberg. “Jonathan Karl,” ABC. “John King,” CNN. “Mara Liasson,” Fox News and NPR. “Rachel Maddow,” MSNBC. “Ruth Marcus,” Washington Post.
“Chris Matthews,” MSNBC and the asylum. “Dana Milbank,” Washington Post. “Andrea Mitchell,” NBC News, Washington. “Norah O’Donnell,” CBS. “Eugene Robinson,” Washington Post, MSNBC. “Charlie Rose,” PBS, CBS. “April Ryan,” Radio One. “George Soros,” Clinton campaign, Clinton war room, ABC News. “Robin Sproul,” don’t know where, I think New York Times. “Karen Tumulty,” TIME magazine, Washington Post. “Zeff Zeleny,” CNN, formally New York Times.
“Progressive helpers,” people that will help us reach others, “David Brock, Mo Elleithee, Judd Legum.” Partial lists, “Alex Wagner,” MSNBC. “Beth Fouhy,” MSNBC. “Phil Griffin,” president, MSNBC. “Savannah Guthrie,” NBC. “Ryan Lizza,” New Yorker. “Jonathan Martin,” New York Times. “Maggie Haberman,” New York Times. “Sandra Westfall,” People magazine. “Glenn Thrush,” Politico. “Mike Allen,” Politico. “John Allen,” Vox.
I mean, they’ve got ’em covered, folks. These are people in these emails in the Drive-By Media, the Clinton campaign feels very confident they can call and place a narrative. You know what “place a narrative” means? It means create a story, tell the Clinton version of a story, get a story out there. Nothing to do with the news.
If the Clintons want a story that Trump’s a reprobate, call these people, give ’em the narrative. They write a column or do a news story, interview people, and they’re off and running. That’s why you can’t avoid watching this stuff if you watch the news. You just have to realize you’re watching the Clinton campaign.