MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Did The Atlantic Prove WikiLeaks Considered Itself 'Pro-Trump, Pro-Russia'?

By selectively editing a quote, the magazine overstates its case.

Julia Ioffe of The Atlantic seems to have succeeded in convincing the world that WikiLeaks was, and admitted to being, "pro-Trump, pro-Russia."

: Antonio Marín Segovia via Foter.com / CC BY-NC-ND: Antonio Marín Segovia via Foter.com / CC BY-NC-ND

Her article is based on a series of Twitter direct messages between a WikiLeaks account and Donald Trump Jr., messages that had been leaked to Ioffe and also are in the hands of congressional investigators. They show the WikiLeaks folks both giving information to and requesting information from Trump Jr. (though both parties often ignore each other, and clearly give nothing beyond what would clearly benefit their own interests).

At one point, the WikiLeaks account asks Trump Jr. basically to leak them things that might harm Trump himself: some of his tax returns. Why would Jr. want to do that? WikiLeaks suggests: "That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won't be perceived as coming from a 'pro-Trump' 'pro-Russia' source."

Ioffe quotes it as above, with a period, as if that's the end of the sentence.

But after the article appeared, Trump Jr. released via Twitter what he claims is the full correspondence himself. Here's the full sentence:

That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won't be perceived as coming from a 'pro-Trump' 'pro-Russia' source, which the Clinton campaign is constantly slandering us with. [emphasis added by me]

The actual meaning and purpose of the exchanges with Donald Jr. remain at least somewhat open to interpretation. Ioffe and her supporters doubtless believe that the very existence of any of these exchanges is proof that that last clause is self-serving and untrue. But if you are not starting from Ioffe's presumptions, you could easily read what WikiLeaks is doing as a rather transparent attempt to trick someone they think is sort of dumb (Donald Trump Jr.) into leaking things to them.

I'm not saying that's the only reasonable interpretation. But Ioffe committed journalistic malpractice by not quoting the full sentence and thus ensuring her interpretation ruled in readers' minds.

Caitlin Johnstone, who in an article at Medium was the first person I saw pointing out what Ioffe did with that cut-off quote, nicely sums up both what Ioffe has succeeded in doing and a reasonable alternate explanation for WikiLeaks's behavior:

WikiLeaks comes off looking weird and sleazy in a way that will likely damage its reputation even further than the mainstream media campaign to smear the outlet already has. WikiLeaks is seen asking for favors Trump never fulfilled, making recommendations Trump Jr. didn't act upon, and asking for leaks Trump Jr. never gave them, which when you step back and think about it are actually fairly normal things for a leak outlet to do, all things considered.

Bonus link: Vox, a source decidedly not sympathetic to Julian Assange or WikiLeaks, explained before the election some of the obvious and non-sinister reasons why WikiLeaks would have a hard time with Hillary Clinton regardless of whether it's pro-Russia or pro-Trump.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • BYODB||


    Julia Ioffe of The Atlantic seems to have succeeded in convincing the world that WikiLeaks was, and admitted to being, "pro-Trump, pro-Russia."


    *clutches his pearls*


    Oh no!

  • BYODB||


    Caitlin Johnstone, who in an article at Medium...


    So did my cousin, who's like six years old. Not sure we should start calling things posted on Medium 'articles' quite yet.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Medium has been kicking the everloving shit out of the regular media on this front, all year long.

    I don't know much about the site, and I'm very cautious with who I put confidence in, but I do know that Caitlin Johnstone has been FAR AND AWAY the most accurate and insightful person writing about RussiaGate in the US.

    If you want to know what WashPo will begrudgingly admit before smearing as part of the VRWC 6 months from now, read Caitlin Johnstone today.

  • BYODB||

    You might as well cite LiveJournal if you're going to cite Medium, it has about the same level of credibility even if the individual writer might be someone worth reading.

  • Bra Ket||

    He gave the author credit for catching the misquote first and he personally verified she was right. I see no problem with this.

  • xobofawa||

    I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

    This is what I do... www.netcash10.com

  • GILMORE™||

    you're basically making a weak-appeal-to-authority claim.

    Medium, and other internet sources like it, are basically places anyone can go to self-publish. They're not a media-publication with an editor or any particular topical mandate: they neither inherently lacking or claiming any particular journalistic credibility. So the credibility issue is entirely dependent on WHO is doing the writing.

    the only difference between 'shit a credible person writes there' and 'shit a credible person writes for [insert edited magazine] is that you have some 3rd party taking additional responsibility.

    incidentally.... people here (idiots mostly) will sometimes claim that Reason is somehow not at all responsible for the content of its writers... that its not a stain on the credibility of the magazine to have someone like Shikha routinely slinging derp. Its odd how people sometimes attribute authority/credibility to someone simply because they're published in X magazine, yet when the situation is reverse, will deny it plays any role whatsoever.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It was fun watching Wikileaks go from Media darling to media pariah.

  • BYODB||

    Well, Julian is a *known rapist so it's only right that this argument automatically makes anything posted there factually incorrect.

    *this is not known.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It makes sense. If the facts end up being pro-Trump it is self-evident that the facts are wrong.

  • colorblindkid||

    If the Steele Dossier was funded by Hillary's campaign and relied on Russian sources for dirt on Trump, how is that not collusion as well? Serious question. Is it because the dossier is regarded to be true? Is that what determines whether or not it is collusion? Whether or not its true?

    This entire Russian investigation has turned into the Democrats' Benghazi

  • Tony||

    It was funded first by right-wing interests. And it's called opposition research. Foreign sources of dirt is not forbidden. It's actually a good thing to know if our future president might be caught in a web of blackmail and debt to foreign interests.

    Not that you care about that. He has an R after his name, so it's all good.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Aw Tony, look at you call foreign sources a good thing.

    Meanwhile Mueller is spending taxpayer money by the wagon load coming with zero about Trump.

  • Tony||

    I'm just really not in the mood for another round of "What about the Clintons!" today. Heard it enough coming from the Sessions hearing.

  • Fuck =><= sevo||

    "I'm just really not in the mood for another round of "What about the Clintons!" today."

    No one is really surprised you don't want your hypocrisy highlighted.

  • Tony||

    Keep trying to fuck that chicken. You're still defending a pedophile.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 3:04PM|#
    "Keep trying to fuck that chicken."

    Oh, oh! Look over there!
    Slimy piece of shit.

  • XM||

    Tony - "Roy Moore is a pedophile"

    Some right wing conspiracy nut job - "Obama was born in Kenya"

    On the same level.

  • Deven||

    Most people understand that as far as the dossier goes, DNC and Clinton didn't do anything really that unusual... until they gave it to the FBI in order to spy on Trump campaign. That is really the issue here, not opposition research.

    That said, no one in Trump's team has been shown to do anything nearly as bad or tied to Russians as the Dems did with the Trump dossier. That is why people cite it; to show the ridiculous hypocrisy of the left and the media.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 2:43PM|#
    "I'm just really not in the mood for another round of "What about the Clintons!" today. Heard it enough coming from the Sessions hearing."

    Yeah, scumbag, you never seem to be in a mood to be called on your bullshit. I wonder why.

  • colorblindkid||

    I know it was first funded by Republicans. But if foreign sources of dirt are not forbidden, what is so controversial about Junior's contacts with Wikileaks?

  • Tony||

    Assume Wikileaks wasn't interested in the outcome of the election (it was)--the reason it claims to want dirt on Trump is to make it look nonpartisan. Fine, whatever, they're assholes but they can do what they want.

    The reason they had dirt on Clinton but not Trump is because they got dirt on Clinton from Russian hackers. When the Russians start meddling in our presidential elections, that should concern everyone.

    But it doesn't as long as your team reaps the benefit. God forbid it make you question why you support that team.

  • BYODB||

    Of course, all of this ignores that there was dirt there to find. Curious, that.

    Still not sure why anyone should give fucks about factual information released about a candidate. I mean, we all knew that Hillary was allergic to FOIA to the point where she would actively break the law to avoid it but I fail to understand how it's a bad thing to know part of the why she's so allergic to FOIA law.

  • Tony||

    But there wasn't dirt. There was a risotto recipe. The emails were almost surprisingly boring. You were conned into getting upset over almost literally nothing.

  • BYODB||

    If there wasn't dirt, then why are you shitting your pants over Russian collusion again?

    Oh, right, because you were told to shit your pants.

    Remind me again, wasn't the hack responsible for us finding out that the DNC was colluding with Hillary Clinton to get rid of Bernie Sanders? Made even more interesting in that the DNC chair at the time then left the DNC to work directly for Hillary Clinton? Again?

    Nah, the whole Russia thing is a total nothingburger am I right?

    I'll give you this, you are consistently inconsistent.

  • Tony||

    The scandal was a nothingburger in reality. The fact that empty vessels like yourself let Russia pour the concept of scandal into your uncritical little brains is what became the problem. And here you are, repeating exaggerations probably verbatim from the Russians. Colluding with the DNC to get rid of Bernie. Yeah, because that happened.

    Fucking ratfuckers.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You are really obsessed with insults involving fucking. Why is that such a big deal for you?

  • damikesc||

    But there wasn't dirt. There was a risotto recipe.

    Funny, Comey originally worded the server as a violation of federal law. He, for reasons unknown, later changed that to just being incredibly careless.

    And I like that you act as if the EXISTENCE of the server was something Hillary confessed to willingly. She didn't. She was caught.

  • Tony||

    Bbbut her... her emails!

    Still? Really? We have an actual president now, and he's busy through corruption and incompetence completely undermining the United States.

    But yeah. Private server. She's the devil, because Sean Hannity or whoever the fuck told you that private servers were literally the worst evil ever in the world ever.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 3:48PM|#
    "Bbbut her... her emails!"
    How many times do you practice that to post it without laughing?

    "Still? Really? We have an actual president now, and he's busy through corruption and incompetence completely undermining the United States."
    Yawn. One more lefty whine absent any evidence whatsoever. Fuck off.

    "But yeah. Private server. She's the devil, because Sean Hannity or whoever the fuck told you that private servers were literally the worst evil ever in the world ever."
    The private server was specifically illegal, asshole.

  • Tony||

    So why didn't all the Republicans investigating her manage to find a crime to charge her with?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 3:54PM|#
    "So why didn't all the Republicans investigating her manage to find a crime to charge her with?"

    Are you that dumb, or hoping no one will notice the FBI did find a crime and chose not to prosecute?
    Are you stupid or being cute?

  • damikesc||

    Bbbut her... her emails!

    Sorry, son, history didn't begin on January 20. Her committing an egregious felony isn't excused because she happens to be a shitty and thoroughly corrupt candidate.

    We have an actual president now, and he's busy through corruption and incompetence completely undermining the United States.

    ...yet he's still better than Obama. Isn't that a hoot?

    She's the devil, because Sean Hannity or whoever the fuck told you that private servers were literally the worst evil ever in the world ever.

    Is life FUN being such a moron?

  • XM||

    You mean things like debate moderators leaking debate topics to the Clinton camp and Clintonistas discussing the possibility of making Bernie Sanders' religion wasn't dirt?

    The leaked emails also revealed a rather cozy relationship between DNC party leadership and major media personalities, which didn't shock us, because you know, we already knew about that.

    Tony also continues to ignore that even by Comey's admission, Russia's amateurish meddling attempt (including lame facebook ads) had virtually no impact on the voter's behavior.

  • Tony||

    If it had no impact then why are people still repeating nonsense trash about the election, Clinton, Bernie, etc. that we now know came straight from Moscow?

  • BYODB||


    If it had no impact then why are people still repeating nonsense trash about the election, Clinton, Bernie, etc. that we now know came straight from Moscow?


    Welp, that's peak derp for the day. I'm out.

  • damikesc||

    If by "Moscow", you mean "John Podesta's servers", sure.

    You're aware that literally nothing about Clinton and the DNC has been proven false, right? It's all been verified.

    ...anyway, I thought foreign sources of dirt weren't bad. Sure, a complete imbecile said that, but I bet you'd like that guy.

  • Bubba Jones||

    They obtained truthful information regarding the Clinton campaign because her team is incompetent with respect to electronic security.

    This seems like two reasons she should have lost.

  • Tony||

    John Podesta was bad at passwords, so let's elect the corrupt incompetent traitor instead.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You're not arguing to his point at all. At least do that.

  • Tony||

    There was only one other choice! And his flaws were someone worse, in my humble opinion, than Hillary Clinton's associate having bad password habits.

  • damikesc||

    There was only one other choice! And his flaws were someone worse, in my humble opinion, than Hillary Clinton's associate having bad password habits.

    But they were manifestly less "bad" than setting off a global refugee crisis and killing the cause of nuclear disarmament dead. And also less bad than taking millions in bribes from foreign countries to permit them to buy 1/5 of our uranium supply.

  • John||

    so let's elect the corrupt incompetent traitor instead.

    Hillary lost the election, Tony. It was in all of the papers.

  • Tony||

    But you don't watch FOX News.

  • John||

    I am pretty sure CNN had Hillary losing the election Tony.

  • Tony||

    I'm pretty sure that something has caused you to be so blindly, bitterly partisan that not only are you supporting the worse party for horrible reasons, you actually think child rape is not so bad, at least compared to [insert insane Clinton conspiracy theory]. I feel sad for you.

  • John||

    They always taught me giving classified information to the Russians was treason.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 3:00PM|#
    "John Podesta was bad at passwords, so let's elect the corrupt incompetent traitor instead."

    Hey, look! Lefty scumbag ignores point and hopes to misdirect all at one time!
    Lefty scumbag must be dumber than the average rock.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    75% of the emails leaked, including 9 of the top 10 most damaging as ranked by WashPo, were written AFTER the DNC knew they were breached.

    Podesta was a symptom, not the disease. The Democrats had their hands up their asses with regards to security, which is not all that surprising for lazy and incompetent idiots.

  • Tony||

    Probably. Doesn't make Trump presidential material.

  • damikesc||

    Trump isn't.

    Just the person he was running against was even LESS worthy of being President.

  • damikesc||

    The reason they had dirt on Clinton but not Trump is because they got dirt on Clinton from Russian hackers. When the Russians start meddling in our presidential elections, that should concern everyone.
    Foreign sources of dirt is not forbidden.

    Can you pick a fucking story and stick with it?

  • damikesc||

    It was funded first by right-wing interests.

    Given Steele wasn't involved at all when conservative groups were involved...nope.

    And it's called opposition research.

    That was used to justify wiretaps of the staff of a Presidential candidate and an independent counsel. All for a dossier that is loaded with shit and was largely a work of Russia in the first place.

    Foreign sources of dirt is not forbidden.

    Then why did YOU --- yes, Tony, you --- go so nuts about Trump Jr meeting with a Russian lawyer?

    It's actually a good thing to know if our future president might be caught in a web of blackmail and debt to foreign interests.

    ...which brings us to the Clinton bribes from Putin...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Foreign sources of dirt is not forbidden. It's actually a good thing to know if our future president might be caught in a web of blackmail and debt to foreign interests.

    A future president, caught in a web of blackmail and debt to foreign interests you say?

    Hmmm...

  • Tom Dial||

    The "Steele Dossier" was funded entirely by the DNC and Clinton campaign. Marc Elias, on their behalf, hired Fusion GPS after they had been dropped by the Cruz nomination campaign when Cruz dropped out. Fusion GPS then hired Christopher Steele to dig up dirt in Russia.

    The activity may have been legal opposition research, but despite Steele's MI6 experience, it is unlikely that he had the backing of a national intelligence service such as MI6 that could provide research and analysis based on independent collateral sources to either confirm or repudiate the feed he was getting from his Russian sources. Given the report that they spent around $10 million for it, the "dossier" seems to have been quite valueless to them except, since the election and Donald Trump's inauguration, as a vehicle to feed their anger at having blown the election campaign

    Now that Steele's report has been in the hands of proper intelligence services for a while, the analysis may have shown whether there is anything to it, but if so it has not (yet) been leaked despite the obvious commercial value such leaked information would have. Certainly it would far exceed the roughly relatively superficial set of twitter exchanges that Trump Jr., even by Ioffe's report, ignored after the first month and apparently delivered without objection to the legislative investigating committees.

  • ||

    Is it because the dossier is regarded to be true? Is that what determines whether or not it is collusion? Whether or not its true?

    Define collusion as a crime, in-and-of-itself, without rending the 1A. I dare you. Now explain how, as libertarians, we enforce it against all American citizens abroad.

    I don't disagree that Clinton is as guilty as Trump. I just think that, barring Russians directly changing tallies at voting centers and actual Americans complaining that they voted for their candidate in bad faith we don't even have enough to really charge an American citizen, let alone a politician or The President with fraud or slander.

  • John||

    Even if it was, what difference does it make? Nothing wikileaks released was faked. All it did was provide truthful information about Hillary and the Democrats. If Hillary was embarrassed by the DNC emails, too bad. Sometimes shit gets out that you don't want it to.

    This whole thing is so absurd. Suppose it came out tomorrow that it was a Russian operative who found the various Ray Moore accusors and turned the Post onto the story in an effort to cause chaos and get people to lose faith in the government. Would the assclowns at Atlantic who are claiming to be so upset about this decide that Moore should get a pass because the story was leaked to the media by Russian agents? Fat fucking chance.

  • colorblindkid||

    Especially considering how excited people are about the Steele Dossier, which is full of dirt on Trump from Russian sources...

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I could really care less about who Wikileaks "is for". Via Wikileaks, Snowden was able to release documents showing the Boosh and Obama administrations were actively and knowingly violating the Constitution and their oaths of office.

    If Americans had any real balls, we would have deposed our politicians and bureaucrats and started over from scratch based on the Constitution.

  • colorblindkid||

    We should have impeached Clinton, Bush, and Obama. We impeach far too few presidents. Trump is an incompetent asshole who says mean things and is incredibly reckless, but I think it's arguable that he actually has done few unconstitutional things than our previous three presidents.

  • Tom Dial||

    Edward Snowden gave up his stolen files to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, neither of whom is associated with Wikileaks.

    It may be a fine point, but facts often matter, and carelessness with them undermines whatever argument they are used to support, as seems to have been true in the case of Julia Ioffe's article and the selective quote Doherty cites. The change didn't make a huge change in meaning, but the omission made it look noticeably less benign than it probably was.

  • Tony||

    You really are going all in on Moore, huh?

    Who would have thought, the one time you don't regurgitate the Republican party talking points du jour, it's in defense of a pedophile.

  • John||

    If it came out that the Russians were behind it, you suddenly would think Russians interfering with elections was just fine

  • Tony||

    But I'd still think we shouldn't have pedophiles in Congress, unlike you.

  • John||

    Yes Tony, you would still be a complete moron who is incapable of reasoning beyond politics.

  • damikesc||

    Yes Tony, you would still be a complete moron who is incapable of reasoning beyond politics.

    John, that is patently unfair AND false.

    Tony cannot reason about politics either.

  • John||

    Fair enough.

  • BYODB||


    Who would have thought, the one time you don't regurgitate the Republican party talking points du jour, it's in defense of a pedophile.

    It's not like you have any room to criticize in that arena. You just honor a different set of rapists who's behavior you excuse in the name of some greater good.

  • Tony||

    The only politicians I'm known to have supported are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Whom did they rape and when?

  • BYODB||

    Do I really need to explain what Hillary Clinton has done in service of men accused of rape and who have been proven to have misused the power of their position to illicit sex from women half his age?

  • Rich||

    That's not rape-rape, though.

  • Tony||

    We don't do guilt by association here. I understand that fascism is the new black and that you might be confused about that.

  • BYODB||

    It's not guilt by association, she actively suppressed information and ridiculed women accusing her husband of sexual misconduct up to and including rape and she continues to do so to this day. She was forced to acknowledge the truth in the case of Monica because of forensic evidence, but the rest of the women (of course) we'll never know the truth.

    So best case scenario she knows her husband is a cheating scumbag that fucks his subordinates and stayed married to him for purely political purposes to further her career.

    Yeah, that's some best case scenario huh? What alternate reality version of those events do you believe, one might ask?

  • Tony||

    Of all of the sordid characters from that sad spectacle the Clintons had the most normal marriage. Almost all of the Republicans in Congress on the Clinton witch hunt beat were fucking mistresses, if not children.

    You don't care about the alleged victims of Bill Clinton. Not one little bit. Just like you don't care about Roy Moore's alleged victims. But as you suck the cock of the Republican party, maybe you ought to look up now and then and see what their line actually is. It's not defending the pedophile. Because even for them, that's a pretty easy one.

  • BYODB||


    Almost all of the Republicans in Congress on the Clinton witch hunt beat were fucking mistresses, if not children.

    Maybe, but there wasn't forensic evidence of that nor, to my knowledge, were there active investigations or even allegations into that at the time. Statistically, I'd admit it's probable but that isn't the point.

    Look, Tony, the point here is that you only care because Moore is a Republican. That's the takeaway message here. You've done more to prove that baseline assertion yourself than anyone else has with your attempts to pretend otherwise. It is truly a sad, sad thing.

    You don't care about the alleged victims of Bill Clinton.

    It isn't an allegation when there is forensic evidence, mate. At that point it becomes an actual fact that Billy Bob did fuck around with an intern, which is something you are avoiding precisely because it reveals you to be the hypocrite you are. You might as well own it, friend.

  • Tony||

    I don't think Bill getting a BJ from a consenting intern is as bad as Roy touching 14 year olds.

    Sorry. Tough call I know.

  • BYODB||

    Not a tough call, but only one of those allegations has been proven. So in your view, a non-supported crime is actually worse than a proven one.

    Good to know.

    And, even then, you miss the point.

    At this juncture, you are arguing that you are indeed so heavily biased that you will defend a sexual predator. You just pat yourself on the back that the predator you defend isn't as bad as some other imagined predator on the other side.

    Gosh, you are adorable sometimes Tony. It really is true that if you didn't have double standards, you would have none.

  • BYODB||

    Furthermore, you avoid the fact that in both Moore and Clinton's case the worst of the supposed crimes are both simply allegations which was the trick all along.

    Idiot.

  • Tony||

    How many times does it need to be said that Clinton is not the subject here? Your making him the subject is tantamount to your defending Roy Moore's child predation, something that is well beyond a mere unsupported accusation at this point. Why are you so interested in defending this kid raper? He's just one Republican. You can let him go. FOX News, you can let him go. Mitch did.

    For the record, you shameless ratfucker, I never supported Bill Clinton. I was in middle school and a Republican when he was in office.

  • BYODB||


    How many times does it need to be said that Clinton is not the subject here?

    You still don't understand a simple illustrative analogy, do you Tony? I've made my point explicit several times now. If you don't get it by now, it's simply because the plank in your own eye is too big to see past.

    Idiot. You prove the adage that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    How many times does it need to be said that Clinton is not the subject here?

    Actually, Clinton is much more the subject here than Roy Moore. In case you didn't pay attention to the article, it's about the revelations Wikilieaks made about the Clinton campaign.

  • damikesc||

    Of all of the sordid characters from that sad spectacle the Clintons had the most normal marriage. Almost all of the Republicans in Congress on the Clinton witch hunt beat were fucking mistresses, if not children.

    ITT, Tony claims Bill didn't dick around on Hillary.

    In spite of forensic evidence to the contrary.

  • Tony||

    Didn't say that.

    You people need medication for you Clinton obsession problem. Like seriously. It's fucking weird.

  • damikesc||

    You said his marriage was normal because his critics were all out fucking mistresses et al.

    Sorry if you're too stupid to realize when you're being an idiot.

  • BYODB||

    Tony is incapable of differentiating between women that said that Bill Clinton straight up raped them and women that said that Moore grabbed their tits as teens.

    Both are he-said / she-said situations, but only one is valid to Tony. It's simply a coincidence that he think's the allegations against the Republican are valid, whereas those against a Democrat are clearly manufactured reputation hit-jobs. This is despite the fact that there is more of an established pattern on the part of Clinton, with forensic evidence that not only did he ejaculate on an intern but he lied about it under oath.

    Honestly, Tony would be doing us a favor if we already weren't positive that he's a lying bastard without a shred of ethics.

  • Tony||

    I never once said the Clinton accusations weren't valid. I said they're irrelevant to a discussion of Roy Moore, and they exist in the conversation for the single reason that you, inexplicably, feel it necessary to defend the latter in his pedophilia scandal.

    As I said, I never supported Bill Clinton politically and haven't come to his defense here. I'm merely pointing out the lame whataboutism you are regurgitating from some bimbo on Fox and Friends.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I never once said the Clinton accusations weren't valid. I said they're irrelevant to a discussion of Roy Moore...

    And the only person here trying to make this a conversation about Roy Moore is you.

  • Tony||

    If these people didn't go so incredibly far out of their way to defend the child fucker, I wouldn't be forced to name and shame them every opportunity I get until the end of time. It takes a village to beat pedophilia and its enablers.

  • damikesc||

    If these people didn't go so incredibly far out of their way to defend the child fucker, I wouldn't be forced to name and shame them every opportunity I get until the end of time. It takes a village to beat pedophilia and its enablers.

    Nobody is defending Moore, in case you've missed it.

    Saying "Clinton is no better" is not a defense. There aren't many people sleazier than any Clinton.

  • Sevo||

    "And the only person here trying to make this a conversation about Roy Moore is you."

    And then the lefty asshole:
    "If these people didn't go so incredibly far out of their way to defend the child fucker, I wouldn't be forced to name and shame them every opportunity I get until the end of time. It takes a village to beat pedophilia and its enablers."

    So, stupid? Hoping no one will notice the misdirection?
    Tiresome at best.
    Fuck off, asshole.

  • BYODB||

    Tony:

    The only politicians I'm known to have supported are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Whom did they rape and when?

    Also Tony:

    I never once said the Clinton accusations weren't valid. I said they're irrelevant to a discussion of Roy Moore...

    In response to me:

    Both are he-said / she-said situations, but only one is valid to Tony. It's simply a coincidence that he think's the allegations against the Republican are valid, whereas those against a Democrat are clearly manufactured reputation hit-jobs.

    Are you just trying to score goals on your own team now, Tony, or are you even aware that you're doing this?

  • Mickey Rat||

    He was actively part of her campaign. She promised to put Bill in "charge of the economy" if elected. You cannot divorce Bill from Hillary politically, he is mot metely an aspect of her private life, unlike other politcian's spouses.

  • Tony||

    Well Bill Clinton is one of the world's great philanthropists and Roy Moore is a kid fucking theocrat.

  • damikesc||

    Well Bill Clinton is one of the world's great philanthropists

    Oh, is he?

    Haiti would disagree.

    His foundation STOLE money meant to help them rebuild.

  • damikesc||

    He was actively part of her campaign. She promised to put Bill in "charge of the economy" if elected. You cannot divorce Bill from Hillary politically, he is mot metely an aspect of her private life, unlike other politcian's spouses.

    Hell, he IS her political life. Without Bill, Hillary is just a homely, obnoxiously voiced nobody.

  • Rashid Abadi||

    You defended Bill Clinton earlier today when his sexual assaults were discussed.

  • Tony||

    Bill Clinton's sex life has been litigated more than any other human in the history of earth. And he's not running for anything. People are bringing him up because they are for some bizarre reason interested in distracting from--thus defending--Roy Moore's pedophilia. You, whoever you are, are welcome to die on that hill along with Sevo and John.

  • colorblindkid||

    Bill Clinton's "sex life" included rape and assault and abusing his position of power. Are we having a discussion about Bill Cosby's "sex life". Are the headlines "Roy Moore's Sex Life Raises Questions". No. Your choice of words still says everything.

  • Tony||

    Okay, let's revisit Bill Clinton's past in an effort to get the truth out. Fine. Knock yourself out.

    What the ACTUAL FUCK does Bill Clinton have to do with anything we're talking about, though?

    Do you know that whataboutism is an old Soviet propaganda tactic?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 3:08PM|#
    "Okay, let's revisit Bill Clinton's past in an effort to get the truth out. Fine. Knock yourself out.
    What the ACTUAL FUCK does Bill Clinton have to do with anything we're talking about, though?"
    If you knew what YOU were posting about, we'd all have an even better laugh.

    "Do you know that whataboutism is an old Soviet propaganda tactic?"
    Gee, I;ll bet you read that on Salon, right? All the lefty twits posting on the Chron are using the same talking point as if it somehow applied when Clinton is shown to be a hypocrite.
    Not you! Nope. You just toss it in at random, hoping someone might bed fooled into thinking you had a point.
    Did you pick up your techniques from trueman? You seem to be equally stupid and/or sophomoric.

  • BYODB||


    Did you pick up your techniques from trueman? You seem to be equally stupid and/or sophomoric.


    Hey now, mtrueman might be insane and incapable of doing basic research but at least he admits that 90% of his posts are just nonsense for nonsenses sake. That's a full order of magnitude more aware and honest than Tony is.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Do you know that whataboutism is an old Soviet propaganda tactic?

    Yes, actually I do.

    Do you know how it was used?

    When the Soviets accused the US of crimes it was committing, the US would point out that it was actually the Soviets who were committing those crimes--at which point the Soviets would point back to their false allegations and say, essentially, yeah, well what about this?

    It is a tactic one sees leftists of all stripes use endlessly.

    In the same way you, Tony, are using it.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 3:03PM|#
    "Bill Clinton's sex life has been litigated more than any other human in the history of earth."

    Bull
    .
    .
    .
    .
    shit.

  • damikesc||

    So, Tony admits that the concerns about women being scared or embarrassed to come forward because of attacks on their character are bullshit...

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    "Child molestation bad (for Republicans, anyway), child murder good (if it's poor and brown)." - Literally Tony

  • Rich||

    I'm not saying that's the only reasonable interpretation.

    Another, for instance, is "No one can deny the possibility that Ioffe ...."

  • NoVaNick||

    Man, it would have been much more fun if Hillary had won to watch her getting skewered and the dems being locked in the attic for the next 30 years or so. Expectations for Trump were so low to begin with, that this won't make much difference for him or his loyal supporters.

  • Rich||

    Meanwhile in Russia: Russian cryogenics firm wants to freeze people BEFORE they die so they can be stored in containers and one day brought back to life

    Currently, the firm charges $36,000 (£27,000) to freeze a body and $12,000 (£9,000) to freeze a head.

    A LIVING head?!

  • Rhywun||

    Pizza delivery for I-C-WIENER!

  • Mickey Rat||

    Time for MST3K.

  • Just Say'n||

    To recap the mainstream media's thinking:

    Manning: released information about troop formations (according to the government) that got people killed

    Judgement: Hero, because "he" is a "she" now. Even though she gave that information to Wikileaks which is literally worse than Putin now?

    Assange: released information about American spying on foreign allies

    Judgement: Hero, until he released information damaging to Clinton. Now he is literally worse than Putin and a puppet of Putin

    Snowden: released information about American spying on citizens

    Judgement: Hero, because he only damaging the Bush administration. Even though he lives in Russia, he's still totes cool. Unless he does something damaging to a Democrat.

    These people are beyond stupid

  • Tony||

    Which voices in your head are you referring to?

  • jcw||

    God I hate to think similarly with Tony, but your straw man arguments are thin, even compared to the usual standards of straw man arguments.

  • John||

    It is all true. When wikileaks was embarrassing Bush, the media loved them. When they started embarrassing Obama and later Hillary, they became evil tools of Russian influence.

  • Tony||

    Thoughtful people debated the issue of mass leaking of classified material. They considered these leaks with all their shades of gray.

    Not everyone is so blindly partisan that they'd, I dunno, just pulling this out of thin air, defend a pedophile because of the letter after his name.

  • John||

    Sure they did Tony. And you were not one of them.

    And nothing Wikileaks leaked about Hillary Clinton was classified. The DNC emails were not classified you fucking half wit. Jesus Christ Tony you are stupid. More than anything, you are just unbelievably stupid and ignorant.

  • Tony||

    At least I don't support touching little girls.

  • John||

    And the retard gives a completely nonsensical response.

  • Sevo||

    It's all he's got, John. He lost and he's still in denial hoping that someone, somewhere will find an unpaid Trump parking ticket and the hag will get corronated.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Tony, we get it. You're pissed off that Roy Moore was touching little girls and not touching you.

    Fine. Get over it. He's just not that into you.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 3:28PM|#
    "At least I don't support touching little girls."

    But the hag defending a rapist is just fine, right?

  • Tony||

    Yes you weird little pissant, that's what defense lawyers do.

  • damikesc||

    She was Bill's defense lawyer?

    Really?

    Intriguing.

    Bill did the world one positive thing: He made it impossible to make feminism seriously ever again.

  • BYODB||

    I generally agree except for the case of Snowden, who many Americans (and almost the entire government) believe is a traitor and should be killed. This is especially ironic to me considering that Snowden appears to be the best of the bunch who balanced national security concerns with actually telling people how our civil rights were being violated.

    Go figure.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    But Ioffe committed journalistic malpractice by not quoting the full sentence and thus ensuring her interpretation ruled in readers' minds.

    That's Journalism 101. You'd understand that if you went to The Columbia School of Journalism. /sarc

  • colorblindkid||

    This is why I really don't think Breitbart and the likes are really that much worse than mainstream outlets (Infowars is in a category of its own, though). This dishonest kind of shit happens all the time, in even the most "respected" outlets.

  • BYODB||

    Indeed it does.

    Recall the Zimmerman tapes, as just one example? Yeah, how did he lose that lawsuit again? Oh, right, if a network reports on you you're automatically a public person so the standards are higher for a lawsuit. In other words, no one could possibly sue a network for defamation with any standard that is lower than a public person by default, making the lower standards essentially non-existent.

    Cute.

  • Just Say'n||

    I don't know why you're ragging on Infowars. Who else is going to tell you about the nefarious cover-up about the government turning frogs gay?

  • BYODB||

    I thought InfoWars was a comedy website?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Not on purpose, I think.

  • John||

    When has Breitbart ever done anything to anyone as bad as what the major media did to Richard Jewel, Zimmerman, the Duke LAX team and the UVA Fraternity? How many libel and slander judgements has Breitbart ever had against it? How many times has Breitbart slandered someone who was totally unable to defend themselves like Zimmerman or Jewel and then tried to claim it was okay because that person was a "public figure" and thus the media had free reign to lie about them? Never mentioning that the only reason the person was a public figure was that the scumbag media made them that way.

    And did I miss the time when Britbart tried to pass off forged documents that purported to show that the President was a draft dodger? Or when Breitbart called the Tet offensive a defeat when it was, in fact, a decisive victory? Or when Britbart actively participated and encouraged the infamous "satanic child abuser" panic that resulted in God knows how many innocent people rotting in prison for years and sometimes decades?

    The major media are the worst scum on the face of the earth. Whatever you think of Breitbart, they are morally and intellectually superior in every possible way to the major media. And that is not an endorsement of Breitbart. it is just a truthful statement of just how depraved and disgusting the rest of the media actually is.

  • Tony||

    Wherein John confirms a bunch of shit everyone thought about him.

  • John||

    What did I say there that wasn't true Tony? Moreover, which part of "this is not an endorsement of Britbart" did you not understand?

    Do you not realize how stupid you sound on here? It is just mindboggling how someone as dumb as you are could have no idea that they are.

  • Tony||

    Yes it is. You read Breitbart, watch FOX News, and consume a bunch of other state propaganda from god knows what other dregs of the media, and yet you are too cowardly just to admit it. If you think they report the truth and CNN is all lies, why not proudly own it? Why are conservatives all such shameless dissemblers?

    Breitbart is a shitshow of fat Trump proportions. It is literally state propaganda. It does nothing but tell lies in the service of an agenda, and that agenda is racist and awful.

    Unlike you cretins I pay attention to what goes on in the media of the other side. So when you come here spewing their horseshit, you can't fool me. I know where you get it.

  • John||

    I don't read Breitbart. I don't care about Britbart. But, I am unaware of them ever slandering anyone. I also don't watch Fox News. You need to come up with new talking points.

    And all you are doing is ranting and making assertions that have nothing to do with the subject of the conversation. Show me where Britbart has ever harmed anyone the way the media harmed the people I list.

    Why don't you just own the fact that you hate anyone who doesn't hold your politics or is of an unapproved race or sex and that you are happy that the media slanders people as long as it furthers the cause?

    It is who you are. You need to at least be honest and own what a nasty, horrible bigoted, lying human being you are.

  • Tony||

    If you don't read Breitbart then how do you know what the fuck you're talking about?

    And it's not "the media" vs. Breitbart, much as the right-wing ratfucking sphere would have you believe it. The rightwingers are in charge. Breitbart, Drudge, FOX, that is state propaganda now. That is the media you need to worry about, if you are actually concerned about media power and not just your team winning.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 3:38PM|#"
    "If you don't read Breitbart then how do you know what the fuck you're talking about?"

    Oh, gee, look! Lefty asshole tries to make a funny!

  • damikesc||

    The rightwingers are in charge. Breitbart, Drudge, FOX, that is state propaganda now.

    ...so you admit the NYT, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, WaPo, etc were all state propaganda under Obama?

    And Hillary STILL lost?

    Good God do you fuckers nominate losers.

  • Tony||

    No, they weren't. The Democrats do not have a propaganda machine on the level of the Republicans. They just don't. Partly because they believe facts matter. It's their biggest political liability.

  • damikesc||

    No, they weren't.

    Why? CAUSE, THAT'S WHY!!!

    Sure, we have reporters conspiring to call people racist who disagreed with Obama. Nothing to see there. No sir.

    The Democrats do not have a propaganda machine on the level of the Republicans.

    Explains why demonstrably false lies like "Hands up, Don't shoot" got into pop culture. Because they don't do propaganda.

    Partly because they believe facts matter

    OK. Let's try this:

    What EXACTLY did Trump do wrong in regards to Russia? What did Russia do to "help" Trump?

    Facts matter, son.

  • Brian||

    That's somewhat rich coming from a walking, talking Salon article.

  • damikesc||

    If you don't read Breitbart then how do you know what the fuck you're talking about?

    Given how frequently you bring them up...how often are you there, Tony?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yes it is. You read Breitbart, watch FOX News, and consume a bunch of other state propaganda from god knows what other dregs of the media, and yet you are too cowardly just to admit it. If you think they report the truth and CNN is all lies, why not proudly own it? Why are conservatives all such shameless dissemblers?

    Reading people's minds and telling them what they do is John's thing Tony. You can't just use it against him.

  • Rhywun||

    These two should get their own channel on SiriusXM or something.

  • BYODB||

    Honestly I would pay money to watch that show. I suspect the first episode wouldn't make it to the end before John shot Tony though.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I've spent some time soul searching, and I think that the possible cost of John Shooting Tony is worth risking.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Would be way better than Hannity and Colmes, this is true.

  • Tony||

    John follows Trump's media diet to the letter then comes on here and lies about it. Why is he ashamed of admitting where he gets his opinions from? Why does no one ever admit to being a FOX News junkie? Can I be hopeful that deep down they know, and they know we know they know, that it's all bullshit?

  • John||

    yes Tony, I make points and point out facts that you don't like and can't answer. That is all you are saying here. How badly do you have to lose this argument before you go away?

  • John||

    No. Making people live by the logical consequences of their positions is what rational people do. Irrational people and people with poor reasoning skills find that dumfounding. I am constantly amazed at how people go through life taking positions on various subjects without ever once considering the rational implications of those positions on other subjects. Often it is the very people who claim to be all about principles who are most incapable or in many cases unwilling to own the principles and assumptions underlying their position.

    To call that "mind reading" is just conceding the argument at best or at worst admitting to really not understanding what you are saying. I will never tire of kicking people around who refuse to understand or live with their own positions.

  • Tony||

    Hey John, logician extraordinaire. Philosophical query:

    Which is a worse moral crime:

    a) Using a private email account for work
    b) Touching little girls' vaginas

  • John||

    Yes Tony selling out the country and allowing foreign powers to get information classified above top secret is an actual felony worthy of a very long prison sentence. Dating of age teenagers not so much. And who are you kidding? If Moore were gay and raping boys, you would be telling us about the wonders of pederasty right now.

  • Tony||

    You know I will admit I thought I was being a little harsh--in the interest of public safety--by calling you a defender of child rape. I don't think so anymore, since that's what you're doing.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.14.17 @ 3:50PM|#
    "Hey John, logician extraordinaire. Philosophical query:
    Which is a worse moral crime:
    a) Using a private email account for work
    b) Touching little girls' vaginas"

    Hey, liar extraordinaire!
    Do you think anyone here is fooled by your bullshit?

  • BYODB||

    Is anyone actually being accused of touching a little girls vagina? If so I haven't heard about it. Anywhere.

    And what if that little girl self identifies as an adult man? Does that make it ok?

  • damikesc||

    a) Using a private email account for work
    b) Touching little girls' vaginas

    Why is it OK for Hillary to pass around classified information but it is a sin for Wikileaks to pass around NON-classified information?

  • BYODB||


    How many times has Breitbart slandered someone who was totally unable to defend themselves like Zimmerman or Jewel and then tried to claim it was okay because that person was a "public figure" and thus the media had free reign to lie about them? Never mentioning that the only reason the person was a public figure was that the scumbag media made them that way.


    That case in particular honestly enrages me. It was a gross miscarriage of justice in my view and turns the whole idea of slander or defamation on it's head. Truly sickening.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Err... is that what Ioffe was trying to do with that quote? And is that how people are reading it? I get that including the "slandering" bit makes the Wikileaks writer's meaning clearer, but I understood the quotation the same without the last clause. I bet partisans on Twitter looking for an easy score read it the way you're suggesting, but then a bunch of them probably would whether or not the full quote was included.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The core thing I wonder is why it matters much either way? It's bothersome to me that the intentions of the person releasing the facts are more important that the facts themselves.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I was originally going to write, "Increasingly becoming that the intentions of the person..." but I sat and thought a moment and I'm not very certain this is a new phenomenon.

  • BYODB||

    Ad Hominem ain't just a river in...Egypt...hold on a minute, I had something for this...

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Ad Hominem isn't just the name of my favorite Gay Bar.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Pen and phone good.
    Pen and phone bad.
    Pen and phone good.
    Pen and phone bad.
    [...]

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    This story calls for more facial composites of Assange and Trump.

  • Brian||

    Light the Tony signal!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Seattle city council: #MeToo

    Seattle will begin taxing operators of short-term rentals, such as those listed on Airbnb, the City Council decided Monday.
  • damikesc||

    Welcome to the modern Democrat party.

  • damikesc||

    Tony, does it feel good to know that if Hillary won, we'd have known NOTHING about what Weinstein did.

    Or Takei molesting kids?

    Or Sheen molesting kids?

    Or Spacey molesting kids?

    If Hillary won, ALL of it would've been totally silent.

    How does that feel to know that?

  • BYODB||

    I just can't understand what the appeal is in children. I mean, what, are there not enough idiot twenty-something's without a clue to molest?

    I guess it's probably a power thing of some kind, but really it's beyond my ability to understand.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Probably there is power, but it probably also is a lot of simple attraction. Why is anyone attracted to anything? It truly is hard to say.

  • Tony||

    How do you figure?

    If Hillary had won maybe Trump would be on that list as he deserves to be. Although he might have been too minor a celebrity to make it on.

  • damikesc||

    How do you figure?

    The same reason a NYT columnist decides NOW that Juanita Broadrick was treated pretty shitty by the media and the Clintons.

    Because he is no longer useful since the Clintons are DOA.

    None of this becomes public if Hillary wins because Harvey is still "needed" and Progressives have nothing if not exceptionally flexible stances on everything.

    If Hillary had won maybe Trump would be on that list as he deserves to be

    One person in the election was credibly accused of raping somebody.

    It was the person who was the ONLY reason Hillary had a career.

    Without Bill, she was fired off the Watergate committee for being sleazy.

  • Tony||

    She was not fired from the Watergate committee. You need to check your facts better, because you get them from really crap sources.

    Trump's number is about to come up actually. As in people are saying "Why aren't we talking about all the accusations and admissions regarding Trump and sexual assault?"

    And you can't say a damn word considering the hysteria you bought into about Clinton's sexual improprieties. I don't think BIll Clinton ever trolled teen beauty pageants backstage in order to see teen girls naked.

  • damikesc||

    I don't think BIll Clinton ever trolled teen beauty pageants backstage in order to see teen girls naked.

    Probably not.

    He just raped women.

    I guess that's better for you.

    You're justifying a rapist. Good job. You're doing the Democrats --- who did the same thing --- proud.

  • Tony||

    So did Trump by your standards. Sorry, not by your standards--which are purely partisan--but by standards if you applied them nonhypocritically.

  • damikesc||

    One has had a consistent accusation that a powerful politician in Arkansas got stifled. The other has not. But, yeah, same thing.

  • Sevo||

    "Trump's number is about to come up actually. As in people are saying "Why aren't we talking about all the accusations and admissions regarding Trump and sexual assault?""

    Yes, you and two or three other losers are saying that.
    What happened to the Russkis, Tony? A year of investigation and you have a volunteer lying to a gov't agent and a guy who laundered Russian money before he worked for Trump. Oh, and some hilariously sad ads on face book; big whoop, Tony.
    What happened Tony? Did all of that simply amount to more lefty-loser fantasies?
    How many other straws are you going to grasp in the hopes that you really arn't that stupid, Tony?
    Pathetic.

  • Tony||

    The investigation isn't over you half-wit.

  • damikesc||

    In regards to Trump...yeah, it is.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Look as Julian squint. Must be pretty SHADY there.

  • John B. Egan||

    I used to really appreciate what Assange and Wikileaks was doing. However, once he feared that any other nation would wrap him up and hand him over to the US to prosecute, he became no different than any drug mule willing to sell out to escape punishment. It's been reported that not only the DNC, but the RNC and possibly Trump's unprotected and out of date Windows 2000 servers were hacked by Russians like Cozy Bear, and handed to Assange to release, which he did.

    So, why target Hillary with leaked emails and favor Trump by not releasing them? Definitely not because he knew either well.. Simply because Hillary was the Secretary of State when he fell afoul of US laws and they wanted to bring him back to the US for trial. He got that much right anyway!

    As a reward, he had hoped that the US under Trump would pardon him and release him from the bolthole in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London over the last many years.... In fact, he keeps floating the possibility of him becoming the Ambassador to Australia. as released in the Donald Jr emails yesterday (Help make Julian Assange Australia's US ambassador, WikiLeaks urged Donald Trump Jr.).

    Clearly, Assange is not bright enough to understand that Trump throws his people under the bus at the blink of an eye. He has no loyalty to others.

  • Tony||

    I can't wait for when one of the people he throws under the bus is a blood relative.

  • John B. Egan||

    Just caught this tidbit of news.. LOL! As Assange asks Trump's kid to be appointed the Ambassador to Australia...talk about misguided!.. This:

    Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Thursday suggested to reporters that the United States was preparing charges against Assange.

    "We've already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail," Sessions said, describing Assange as a "priority" for the U.S. "This is a matter that's gone beyond anything I'm aware of."

    Oh well! LOL!

  • MasterThief||

    Even with her shortened quote, putting quote marks around 'pro-Russia' and 'pro-Trump' make it clear that she's responding to accusations from Clinton and the media. It is interesting that they would reach out to Jr. directly for the tax information, but not surprising since wikileaks is all about releasing hidden information. It's also not an issue that they tried to appeal to his own self-interest in the attempt to access information.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online