Leading off a fawning panel discussion on Tuesday about Hillary Clinton’s new memoir rehashing the 2016 campaign, MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell promised viewers a “big scoop” as she promoted the failed Democratic nominee’s “latest admission to Susan Page of USA Today that she is convinced associates of Donald Trump’s campaign helped Russia meddle in the election.”
After touting how “I’ve never seen her less guarded,” Page lamented that Clinton seemed to be “kind of sad” and “still a bit crushed by the unexpected outcome of that election.” Referring to the Russia investigation, Mitchell proclaimed: “And the reporting is that she really does connect the dots in a way that obviously Robert Mueller has not. We haven’t seen evidence yet, but this is the suspicion.”
Page further touted Clinton’s baseless accusations: “She actually told me that she is more convinced since she had to finish the book that there was – not only that Russia tried to meddle in our election, I think we all agree on that, but that there was cooperation and coordination, some sort of understanding with Trump associates.” “And she says we’ll have to wait for all the evidence to come out for that to be perfectly clear to everybody else,” the reporter added.
Rather than challenge any of the conspiracy theories being spun by the bitter Democrat to explain away her election loss, Page actually promoted new ones: “Clinton said in the interview yesterday that she thinks that it is possible, although not yet known, that there was tampering with voter rolls, that there was tampering with voting returns. She thinks those are areas that we should still have investigation.”
The supposed “journalists” simply accepted Clinton’s wild assertions, despite there being zero evidence to back up such claims.
The Washington Post’s Anne Gearen chimed in:
Yes, and I’m struck by the portion of the Clinton book in which she talks about what she considers to be a missed opportunity during the election campaign and during the Obama administration, of course at the same time, when intelligence agencies brought their concerns to congressional leaders. And she specifically takes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to task personably by name, says she feels that he was essentially derelict in his duty not to treat this as a national security concern but instead to treat it as partisan politics. And we all know that really nothing happened directly as a result of that initial airing of concerns about Russian interference, as it was happening, months before the election.
In addition to the discussion about Russia, Amy Chozick of The New York Times hailed the book as “a feminist manifesto,” with Clinton “really sort of talking about gender and the role that it played in the election in ways that we haven’t seen her discuss it.”
The biased discussion was brought to viewers by E-Trade, Alka-Seltzer, and Infiniti.
Here are excerpts of the September 12 segment:
12:39 PM ET
ANDREA MITCHELL: And for Inside Scoop today, we’ve got a real scoop, a big scoop. Hillary Clinton’s campaign memoir about her stunning loss to Donald Trump already generating plenty of headlines. But now her latest admission to Susan Page of USA Today that she is convinced associates of Donald Trump’s campaign helped Russia meddle in the election.
So, our Inside Scoop is with, of course, Anne Gearen, Washington Post Diplomatic Correspondent, Susan Page, USA Today Washington Bureau Chief, who’s here and conducted that big interview with Hillary Clinton, and Amy Chozick, New York Times National Political Reporter, all of whom were with us on the campaign. We had – I don’t know what to call it – the two years we were on that campaign, from the listening tour in New Hampshire and Iowa on. Susan Page, but let’s talk first about your conversation in Chappaqua yesterday, I believe, with Hillary Clinton.
SUSAN PAGE [USA TODAY]: That’s right, we talked for almost an hour. You know, the first time I interviewed Hillary Clinton was 25 years ago during the 1992 New York primary when I was working for Newsday. I've interviewed her many times since. I’ve never seen her less guarded. I mean, she’s not looking to run for another campaign. And I also thought she was kind of sad. I think that she’s still a bit crushed by the unexpected outcome of that election.
MITCHELL: And the reporting is that she really does connect the dots in a way that obviously Robert Mueller has not. We haven’t seen evidence yet, but this is the suspicion. And is she pointing to anything in particular, the recent admission from Facebook, perhaps?
PAGE: She actually told me that she is more convinced since she had to finish the book that there was – not only that Russia tried to meddle in our election, I think we all agree on that, but that there was cooperation and coordination, some sort of understanding with Trump associates. And in that way – she wouldn’t repeat the word “collusion,” I used the word “collusion” in my question – but she said, “I’m convinced of that.” And she says we’ll have to wait for all the evidence to come out for that to be perfectly clear to everybody else.
MITCHELL: I was very struck when I interviewed Jeh Johnson yesterday and asked him about why they did not blow the whistle sooner, and there’s a lot of, you know, confusion and criticism about that, criticism in her book as well. And he said they did not see that piece of it. That he was focused, as a Homeland chief, on whether or not there was election machine meddling in particular precincts, but not the advertising buys. They were just not aware of it, he claims.
PAGE: Yeah, and actually, Hillary Clinton said in the interview yesterday that she thinks that it is possible, although not yet known, that there was tampering with voter rolls, that there was tampering with voting returns. She thinks those are areas that we should still have investigation. But of course we do know more now about meetings between Trump associates and Russians. We know more about the Facebook ad purchases. There are a lot of things that have come out just in recent weeks.
MITCHELL: Amy and Anne, I want to bring you both into it. Anne, first the whole subject of Russia. I was just talking to Leon Panetta about why, inexplicably, this president refuses to criticize Russia during the campaign – during, since, after – and now in connection it smuggling to North Korea, that is a big Washington Post story today as well.
ANNE GEARAN [WASHINGTON POST]: Yes, and I’m struck by the portion of the Clinton book in which she talks about what she considers to be a missed opportunity during the election campaign and during the Obama administration, of course at the same time, when intelligence agencies brought their concerns to congressional leaders. And she specifically takes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to task personably by name, says she feels that he was essentially derelict in his duty not to treat this as a national security concern but instead to treat it as partisan politics. And we all know that really nothing happened directly as a result of that initial airing of concerns about Russian interference, as it was happening, months before the election.
(...)
12:45 PM ET
MITCHELL: But this whole experience for those of us who covered the campaign, for American voters, is such a push-pull about the view of Hillary Clinton, all the mistakes, those she acknowledges, those that she doesn’t want to acknowledge. And also the mistakes that the White House made, as well as the intelligence community.
AMY CHOZICK [NEW YORK TIMES]: Right. And I would add the media to that, she gives us our fair share. But the Times review today said that partly it reads as a feminist manifesto. And I think you see the Refinery29 interview, I mean she’s really sort of talking about gender and the role that it played in the election in ways that we haven’t seen her discuss it. Of course in 2008 she almost never discussed it, she basically ran as a man. In 2016 she said she thought voters had come around more, but apparently now reflecting, she certainly doesn’t think that’s the case.
(...)
