New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman wrote about why she's taking a break from Twitter on Friday, including a laundry list of reasonable examples explaining why the app has become an. If that’s genuinely what you believe, and not something that might appeal to folks on Twitter, I am more than happy to continue offline where it’s a more productive discussion. You let me know. — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 7, 2019.
Texas Congressman Joaquin Castro tweeted a list of people in his district who donated the maximum allowable contribution to President Putinpoodle's 2020 campaign. This is information that is already public. Anyone with a Google machine or a library can get this information. Rep. Castro simply tweeted the information so that people would be able to have it. You know, just in case they wanted to use it in their money-spending decisions.
Constituent services taken to a whole new level, apparently => https://t.co/vGDGDl0l2i
— David M. Drucker (@DavidMDrucker) August 6, 2019
Cue the all-access Princess of the Fourth Estate, Maggie Haberman going weak at the knees, a tear-drop forming in the corner of her eye, her lip quivering in a determined and protective grimace, her tiny, delicate, smooth-skinned hand forming a fist at her curvaceous, yet fat-free hip... (Sorry. Channeling Maureen But-My-Dad-Was-A-Police-Officer Dowd for a sec.)
Don't want to RT this because I don't want to put these people's names in my feed but this is dangerous, by any campaign.
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 6, 2019
Okay, maybe my description of her is over the top. But maybe so is her calling this 'dangerous.' In fact, maybe she's even being a f*cking hypocrite.
Maybe? No, definitely. Here comes Joy Reid to set the record straight.
:strip_exif(true):strip_icc(true):no_upscale(true):quality(65)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gmg/7EAJ3SQGKNGDJBS5NTM5R3LNIU.jpg "Haberman")
What am I missing? This is public information via the FEC. Also, the NYT has done these stories disclosing donors to presidential candidates, like this one: https://t.co/bCbA3kfaCr
— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) August 7, 2019
Are Trump donors entitled to some special secrecy that Clinton donors are not?
— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) August 7, 2019
Nytimes Maggie Haberman
Oh, now, Maggie is being ATTACKED I TELL YOU and, she must put Joy IN HER PLACE!
Joy, do you honestly believe that’s what anyone here is saying? Truly asking.
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 7, 2019
If that’s genuinely what you believe, and not something that might appeal to folks on Twitter, I am more than happy to continue offline where it’s a more productive discussion. You let me know.
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 7, 2019
Joy stands her solid ground. Princess Maggathah feigns innocence and ignorance.
I’m trying to figure out why disclosing businesses / business owners who donated to Trump is any different from the Times uncovering who donated to the Clinton Foundation, when the implication of the latter was some sort of impropriety.
— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) August 7, 2019
I guess I missed where in the disclosure list in the NYT it had an aspect aimed at ostracizing? Where did it do that?
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) August 7, 2019
In rides Grant Stern on his horse, shoring up Joy's argument and ripping off Fair Maggathah's veil of righteousness:
Here's Exhibit A in the Times' ostracization campaign.
Mainstream credibility for a story aimed at demonizing the Clinton Foundation donors to a charity never accused of a single, credible allegation of wrongdoing.https://t.co/SoIkEiTMhv
— Grant Stern (@grantstern) August 7, 2019
Here's the ONLY actual linkage between Uranium One and either political campaign.
Trump's foreign policy advisor meets a member of Rosatom's board, who served during their American acquisition, but is not a high ranking Putin aide.https://t.co/YJUiJQwb3B
— Grant Stern (@grantstern) August 7, 2019
Here's the Times saying no clear link to Russia.
Excuse me, but I see a clear link and that meeting in Moscow was known info during the election (not his ties to Uranium One, that required JOURNALISM).https://t.co/mSnLhcTEW2
— Grant Stern (@grantstern) August 7, 2019
Ashley Haberman Twitter
And here's the @snopes of my story on November 1st, which they misrated as False during the election, unlike the Times' super misleading garbage that they call reporting.
It is now correctly rated True.https://t.co/sHcRbK5BTF
Maggie Haberman Twitter Scotus
— Grant Stern (@grantstern) August 7, 2019
Here's the Times' former public editor @LizSpayd responsibly doing her job and admitting that her employer is a dumpster fire and blew the most important story of the 2016 election.
(Which I promise you, my column did not.)https://t.co/XQieSM06r6
— Grant Stern (@grantstern) August 7, 2019
And this is how the Times ostracized Liz for doing her job the right way.
They treated her just like the editorial cartoon page that accidentally published an anti-semetic cartoon.
That's what the Times did for her publishing the truth, based on facts.https://t.co/UhIyIj3JEw
— Grant Stern (@grantstern) August 7, 2019
Maggie Haberman Twitter Account
And, here is a twitter user asking the question we all honestly don't really care to know the answer to:
Where did Maggie go?
— Patti B (@PattiDB) August 7, 2019
Comments are closed.