WikiLeaks Takes Down NYT, Releases Undeniable Proof Paper Colluded With Hillary's State Dept.


If there was one topic that garnered a significant amount of liberal media attention throughout 2017, it was the still-unproven allegations of “collusion” between Russia and the campaign of candidate Donald Trump to “steal” the 2016 election.

Recall that it was as recently as December when CNN thought it had a “gotcha!” moment that proved such collusion when it ran with a story asserting WikiLeaks had tipped off Donald Trump, Jr. — and hence the Trump campaign — to an impending document drop, only to discover shortly thereafter it had the date wrong in what turned out to be a non-story.

However, The Daily Wire recently reported that WikiLeaks dropped a reminder via Twitter that it had coordinated with several media outlets regarding coverage of document dumps back in 2010, when the whistle-blowing site was publishing thousands of leaked State Department cables.

One of those outlets — The New York Times — shared its plans for publication of those stories with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department. In other words, they colluded with each other.

Check it out here:

Judge Rules Against Trump in Motion to Dismiss Charges but Hands Him a Nice Consolation Prize

The email shared by WikiLeaks was dated Nov. 28, 2010, and came during what was known as “Cablegate,” a dump of what eventually totalled more than 250,000 diplomatic cables and other documents over the course of a year that were believed to have been initially stolen and given to WikiLeaks by convicted and disgraced former Army soldier Bradley/Chelsea Manning.

The sender of the email was The Times’ national security reporter, Scott Shane, and it was received by Philip Crowley, then Clinton’s assistant secretary of state for public affairs.

That message essentially outlined for Clinton’s State Department the topics that would be covered by The Times over the upcoming week and the particular day on which each topic would be covered.

Such advance notice from The Times would allow time for Clinton’s State Department to either devise a spin to deal with certain problematic stories or engage in a diversion by releasing different and unrelated information to draw away the media and public’s attention.

Indeed, the WikiLeaks tweet noted that The Times gave Clinton’s State Department as much as nine days of advanced notice prior to a story’s public release — plenty of time for the State Department to prepare its response and alert others who may become exposed by the document dumps.

The Daily Wire noted that a USA Today article about the recently released cache of emails discovered on former Congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop from former Clinton aide Huma Abedin — several of which were classified — included at least one from during this particular period in question.

That email, which had been partially redacted due to “classified” and “confidential” information, detailed a planned phone call between Clinton and the Saudi Arabian foreign minister in November 2010 that would provide advanced warning about potentially sensitive information that would be released in an impending dump.

How is that not “collusion”?

Utterly Shameless: Biden Pushes Gun Control Mere Hours After Hunter Is Convicted on Firearms Charges

If what CNN had wrongly reported in December had actually been true — that WikiLeaks gave the Trump campaign 10 days notice and a sneak peek at what would later be released — how would that be any different than The New York Times granting a similar period of notice to Clinton’s State Department?

Can you imagine the outcry now from the liberal media if Fox News or some other right-leaning media outlet were to receive a tip from WikiLeaks prior to a document dump that was then shared with the Trump administration before being reported to the public? The double standard hypocrisy would be overwhelming.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter so everyone can see what evidence of actual “collusion” looks like.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, , , , , , ,
Ben Marquis is a writer who identifies as a constitutional conservative/libertarian. He has written about current events and politics for The Western Journal since 2014. His focus is on protecting the First and Second Amendments.
Ben Marquis has written on current events and politics for The Western Journal since 2014. He reads voraciously and writes about the news of the day from a conservative-libertarian perspective. He is an advocate for a more constitutional government and a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, which protects the rest of our natural rights. He lives in Little Rock, Arkansas, with the love of his life as well as four dogs and four cats.
The School of Life
Little Rock, Arkansas
Languages Spoken
Topics of Expertise