What we've learned from WikiLeaks: Team Clinton treats reporters like butlers and maids

Aug. 25, 2016: Hillary Clinton speaks at Truckee Meadows Community College in Nevada. (Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistribu)

After binging for hundreds of minutes on the Donald Trump sex-talk tape, the liberal networks are now tiptoeing around the Wikileaks revelations, but spinning it as some kind of Russian conspiracy. CBS reporter Nancy Cordes said there were was “Enough to create a steady stream of embarrassment for the Clinton campaign, which aides argue is exactly what the Russians and Trump want.”

What they’re blatantly failing to cover is the growing list of reporters openly colluding with the Clinton campaign. Their professionalism is completely compromised. This is only a partial list:

– ABC’s George Stephanopoulos harshly interviewed author “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer on his Sunday show on April 26, 2015. In an e-mail, Clinton campaign staffer Jesse Ferguson boasted Stephanopoulos “refuted” Schweizer.  “Great work everyone. This interview is perfect. He lands nothing and everything is refuted (mostly based on our work).” Stephanopoulos doesn’t just donate to the Clinton Foundation. He donates at the office.

– Maggie Haberman of the New York Times was singled out as a pliant recycler of their narratives: “We have has [sic] a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico over the last year. We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed.”

– Mark Leibovich of the New York Times gave Hillary’s communications director Jen Palmieri “you could veto what you didn’t want” for quotes to be included in a Hillary profile in July. At the end of an email, Palmieri listed her vetoes, then shot back like a boss: “Let me know if that is not clear. Working from an iPhone on the plane so am not able to access the transcript to cut and paste.”

– CNBC’s John Harwood – who moderated the CNBC GOP debate/debacle – was telling Podesta how great Hillary looked: “She looked so much more comfortable talking to Andrea today than to Brianna a few weeks ago.” He sent the Clinton aide a tweet he posted defending Hillary’s ethics: “if there’s any specific/plausible suggestion of nefarious email @HillaryClinton was trying to hide, I haven’t heard it.”

– CNBC’s Becky Quick – who also moderated the CNBC GOP debate – promised John Podesta after Sylvia Mathews Burwell as nominated as HHS secretary: “I will make sure to defend her when things get further along in the nomination process.”

– Univision owner Haim Saban, a Clinton donor, is also advising on strategy. John Podesta emailed that “Haim thinks we are under reacting to Trump/Hispanics. Thinks we can get something by standing up for Latinos or attacking R's for not condemning....Haim is right - we should be jamming this all the time.” This, in addition, to his network’s blatant advertising for Obamacare signups.

It’s not just WikiLeaks that demonstrate the media’s Clinton colllusion. In February, Gawker.com acquired a set of emails to Hillary’s State Department PR aide Phillippe Reines. There were more revelations in those:

– Mike Allen at Politico offered Reines a cozy Politico chat with Chelsea Clinton: "No one besides me would ask her a question, and you and I would agree on them precisely in advance." When exposed, Allen spun the offer as "clumsy." A better word was “corrupt.”

– Ken Vogel at Politico sent a story on Clinton fundraising to DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach for a pre-publication review. Now, checking for confirmation of some numbers or confirming a quote — that's OK. But the entire story? That is journalistic malpractice. The Democrats have Politico on a leash.

– Juliet Eilperin, a White House correspondent for The Washington Post, emailed Paustenbach at the DNC to tout how biased she was. “Dear Mark, I think you all will be totally fine with it. Thanks again for all your help. Best, Juliet." So the DNC gives blessings now? The front-page story was headlined: "Obama, who once stood as party outsider, now works to strengthen Democrats." The story wasn't as bad as a 2014 front-page puff piece from Eilperin touting how the Obama White House has changed the junk-food culture: "Calorie counts and hummus with vegetables are in."

– Mark Ambinder at The Atlantic, a former political reporter/consultant for ABC and CBS, may been the most obedient to Reines. In July 2009, Hillary was delivering a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. Ambinder wanted an advance copy of the speech. Reines insisted on conditions. "You must describe her tone as 'muscular,' and you must note that her most prominent underlings at the State Department (George Mitchell, Richard Holbrooke) would be seated in front of her to convey her command of the staff."

“Got it,” Ambinder shot back. Later that day, he published a story doing Hillary’s bidding right at the top, touting a “muscular speech” Hillary would deliver that day in front of her rival “power centers” in the State Department.

These people are touted to the American people as “independent” journalists, or “objective” reporters. Just a few emails can reveal they act like Hillary’s media butlers and maids.