If the reporter, Mark Hosenball, was ‘reluctant’ to make copies of a sensitive Benghazi related document, due to its content, then why the fuck was he offering it to Podesta — considering that Hillary Clinton was being called to answer for her scandalous actions during the ordeal?
Hey @reuters thoughts on your “journalist” smuggling docs from an ongoing investigation to the party being investigated? #PodestaEmails16 pic.twitter.com/6QvKXb7CsG
— NC Everyday American (@CityOutlaw) October 23, 2016
What the fuck is wrong with these people? When they took the job to become a journalist, is this what they dreamed of doing? He’s nothing more than a spy for the Clinton’s posing as a Reuters reporter.
Shills.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
Exactly how yellow can “journalism” get? Pulitzer would like to know.
columbia journalism review was bought out by a hedgefund in 2006 via “endowment” ie itz all rigged!
Um… isn’t this how journalism gets done. He’s not offering, he’s soliciting comments. That’s how stories get created. When
“Hey, I got something but I can’t share it. Care to comment?”
Your highlighting is creative. What about the parts that “he’s reluctant to hand out copies” and that “it’s not about the actions of a former SecState”
So basically he’s saying “I want to write a story about the Benghazi committee being a sham, want to get involved?”
We all have opinions… but there’s nothing here.