WikiLeaks Show Washington Post Writer Asked DNC For Anti-Trump Research

A columnist wanted negative research to zing Trump in a column she was writing. Do you think the DNC did the right thing and told them to pound sand and get the "columnist" fired? Nope, the DNC research team worked together to come up with a list of things. Milbank’s (the columnist in question) column was titled, “The Ten Plagues of Trump,”.

Well shy not, another in a long lines of a corrupt political system with a Rigged "Free" press and collusion between the Executive (maybe) brand and the Free press. Not ideal.

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank appears to have asked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to do the majority of the research for a negative column he wrote about Donald Trump in April 2016.

Milbank’s column was titled, “The Ten Plagues of Trump,” and featured a list of “outrageous things” said by Trump. One of the “plagues” listed by Milbank, for example, was “Blood” and centered around a quote from Trump about Megyn Kelly: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”

Internal DNC emails suggest Milbanks asked for — and then leaned heavily on — DNC opposition research on Trump for the article.

In the email — which was titled “research request: top 10 worst Trump quotes?” — Walker wrote, “Milbank doing a Passover-themed 10 plagues of Trump.”

The DNC research team worked together to come up with a list of things Milbank could use that was provided to Walker. (RELATED: Hill’s Shills: Leaks Have Exposed Journalists In Clinton’s Corner)

Read more: dailycaller.com...

Nothing unexpected here, and to be honest I think the GOP would've done the same if asked. What party doesn't like an article that badmouths the opposition?

So a news reporter wanted help writing a Trump slam article.. so they asked the deMs for things they have compiled?

I don't understand the conspiracy here...

When I look for anti Trump quotes and facts I go to demy pages and sites...

How is that any different?

a reply to: Lucidparadox

How about collusion?
They are working with the press to target the other party.

I see what you agree saying. But is one thing if the writer or reporter did their own research and presented it as such. But the the writer and dnc are working together.

The legitimacy and credibility should go into the toilet, and they should not be invited to press gatherings for the government furthermore period.

Doesn't matter which side they collude with. These actions only give credibility to trump in a rigged system.

BTW, mcmuffin for prez 2016

a reply to: Lucidparadox

So a news reporter wanted help writing a Trump slam article.. so they asked the deMs for things they have compiled?

I don't understand the conspiracy here...

When I look for anti Trump quotes and facts I go to demy pages and sites...

How is that any different?

Do you under stand what a free press means?

The press and the DNC in this case isn't supposed to have a warm and fuzzy relationship.

The line was crossed by the DNC (govt). Then CNN did the deed, they should be banned for 6 months from broadcasting the drivel they call news. This is interference and collusion.

originally posted by: BlueShaman
Nothing unexpected here, and to be honest I think the GOP would've done the same if asked. What party doesn't like an article that badmouths the opposition?

For sure.

Threads that try to promote their candidate as "higher on a pedestal" then the other - - - are laughable.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Lucidparadox

So a news reporter wanted help writing a Trump slam article.. so they asked the deMs for things they have compiled?

I don't understand the conspiracy here...

When I look for anti Trump quotes and facts I go to demy pages and sites...

How is that any different?

Do you under stand what a free press means?

The press and the DNC in this case isn't supposed to have a warm and fuzzy relationship.

The line was crossed by the DNC (govt). Then CNN did the deed, they should be banned for 6 months from broadcasting the drivel they call news. This is interference and collusion.

I guess what I dont understand is..

The reporter was already writing a Trump slam article... so.. why does it matter at that point? The article is already slanted.

a reply to: Lucidparadox

I guess what I dont understand is.. The reporter was already writing a Trump slam article... so.. why does it matter at that point? The article is already slanted.

Because when Hillary is elected she has a friend in CNN. And that friend will be used to shape the media image that Hillary's presidency emits.

Very dangerous, the news media is supposed to have a adversarial relationship with the pres/politicians. And the crap we see now, is a direct result of the cult of personality we see.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
So a news reporter wanted help writing a Trump slam article.. so they asked the deMs for things they have compiled?

I don't understand the conspiracy here...

When I look for anti Trump quotes and facts I go to demy pages and sites...

How is that any different?

The conspiracy is his feelings were hurt and he needs a blanket and safespace. The press shouldn't have frees speech, and the democrats shouldn't be hurting Trump's feelings. Also "President" should instead be "Supreme Leader", and we should jail more people that disagree with us.

a reply to: imjack

The conspiracy is his feelings were hurt and he needs a blanket and safespace. The press shouldn't have frees speech, and the democrats shouldn't be hurting Trump's feelings. Also "President" should instead be "Supreme Leader", and we should jail more people that disagree with us.

wow where did that come from?

originally posted by: seasonal

Do you under stand what a free press means?

Do you understand how a network works?

a reply to: imjack

Yes I understand, my point was the press is done, over. The internet is the only salvation. There is proof by the very fact we are communicating.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: imjack

The conspiracy is his feelings were hurt and he needs a blanket and safespace. The press shouldn't have frees speech, and the democrats shouldn't be hurting Trump's feelings. Also "President" should instead be "Supreme Leader", and we should jail more people that disagree with us.

wow where did that come from?

Trump supporter opinions, including your own.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: imjack

Yes I understand, my point was the press is done, over. The internet is the only salvation. There is proof by the very fact we are communicating.

It's never been cheaper to create a network. Why is it over?

How exactly does the MSM 'control' everything, or how are they even 'controlled'?

Do you even understand why CNN is on the air?

I've said this many times, if you don't like what you see make your own network. It's so easy it's a joke, and if you have any demographic at all you will make money in ad revenue. People that cry about CNN are some of the most uneducated people in the country. They think CNN is somehow special as a network to say what it wants, but ANY network can say what it wants, that's part of freedom of speech.

If you don't like it, then again the joke is on you, it's never been cheaper to own a network.

a reply to: imjack

Do you even understand why CNN is on the air?

I've said this many times, if you don't like what you see make your own network. It's so easy it's a joke, and if you have any demographic at all you will make money in ad revenue. People that cry about CNN are some of the most uneducated people in the country. They think CNN is somehow special as a network to say what it wants, but ANY network can say what it wants, that's part of freedom of speech.

If you don't like it, then again the joke is on you, it's never been cheaper to own a network.

I don't think it is CNN, it is all of them. They are owned by a very small group of corps./wealthy men. This is very dangerous. We see lots and lots of AP stories. We see lots and lots of wallstreet stories. They all play essentially the same record, and none will touch a story bigger than watergate? If you don't think something stinks, get your nose checked.

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
a reply to: Lucidparadox

How about collusion?
They are working with the press to target the other party.

I see what you agree saying. But is one thing if the writer or reporter did their own research and presented it as such. But the the writer and dnc are working together.

The problem is we don't have any RNC email dumps, so we cannot confirm whether similar requests happened with them.

It makes sense to me that if you wanted help digging up dirt on either party, you'd go to their opposition.

It would also be helpful to see what kind of investigation the journalist did after getting the dirt from the Dems. Did the journalist vet it? Run with it? After all, you can't just believe every bad thing the Dems say about the opposition, but it could be a great jumping off point for independent research.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: imjack

Yes I understand, my point was the press is done, over. The internet is the only salvation. There is proof by the very fact we are communicating.

Unfortunately, I see this a little differently.

If this election cycle has proven anything, it's that internet based media makes a huge chunk of their ad revenue by fabricating stories completely out of thin air.

Until they can impose some professional standards upon themselves, they are no threat to MSM -- or at least, they shouldn't be.

originally posted by: seasonal
I don't think it is CNN, it is all of them. They are owned by a very small group of corps./wealthy men.

They are not allowed to have freedom of speech because they are wealthy? Did you miss the part where I said you don't have to be wealthy to create one of these networks? The ads pay for the network. That is how television works.

Ads are so cheap these days, you could afford them as the manager of a Burger King. The fact is ad space is so cheap, it's surprising to me more individuals did not buy Trump campaign ads if they cared so much. I sell these television ads, some of them are as cheap as a DOLLAR to target and run.

I love how people praise Trump for paying his own way on his campaign. This choice of his has nothing to do with TV ad's flat-lining in price after targeting tech is developed. Had this been 12 years ago, you would have a point, because only rich people could afford to be on television, however these days that's not even close to the real situation.

a reply to: Greggers

There is no problem, only crying that there are no rnc emails... Go hack them and leak them. We have proof the dnc is colluding with the press and there needs to be repercussions. If the rnc does or did the same, it still applies.

It's funny that you are crying for this to be fair. Let me enlighten you add to what would happen if both had the same going on. Exactly what is happening now for the dnc, nothing, and the press and rnc people would be fired and charges would be sent whether justified or not.

In an extreme example of what you are asking for.....
Murder suspect A claims foul because there is all this evidence stacked against him by an anonymous tipster and murder suspect B has no evidence but we think he did it too. A and B walk Scott free in our current scenario.

...but it's not fair.

Pathetic

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
a reply to: Greggers

There is no problem, only crying that there are no rnc emails... Go hack them and leak them. We have proof the dnc is colluding with the press and there needs to be repercussions. If the rnc does or did the same, it still applies.

It's funny that you are crying for this to be fair. Let me enlighten you add to what would happen if both had the same going on. Exactly what is happening now for the dnc, nothing, and the press and rnc people would be fired and charges would be sent whether justified or not.

In an extreme example of what you are asking for.....
Murder suspect A claims foul because there is all this evidence stacked against him by an anonymous tipster and murder suspect B has no evidence but we think he did it too. A and B walk Scott free in our current scenario.

...but it's not fair.

Pathetic

I'm not crying for anything to be fair. I'm saying that you cannot accuse the media of being unbalanced unless you have enough data to evaluate how this works on both sides of the aisle.

Also, the example given above hasn't broken any laws. If you believe it has, please cite them.

You think I care if the Dems and the press get thrown under the bus? Here, I'll help you: No, I don't.

What I do care about is accuracy in our claims.