"Let me construct a sinister narrative I don't believe about an element of the Media. It was a huge and important story and Glenn [Greenwald] is rightly proud of his work. [Edward] Snowden ended up in Russia where he remains to this day.

"In this election there are serious allegations that Russia is actively supporting Donald Trump. Russia's confirmed protest at the UN on behalf of Trump, an unprecedented act, seems to confirm this. Glenn has been very defensive for Russia, labeling criticisms as redbaiting.

"Is Glenn acting this way because of Russia's support of Snowden instead of the merits of the story? That's what a person could say. I don't believe that for a second. It's true that I was once friends with Glenn and am not anymore but I believe in his personal integrity.

"But I also know Glenn lets his personal biases, not ideology, but biases, cloud his reporting. He hates Hillary Clinton. He'll deny it but he does. And that clouds his reporting on this election, any rational and fair person can see it.

"Here's my point - the exercise I did creating a narrative of bias for him on Russia is precisely what he and The Intercept do in every election story. Everything Clinton is nefarious. Everything about election coverage is anti-Trump.

"This is a disservice to him and his publication, when your credibility is shot then your important stories will be discounted. Glenn has important stories to report. But not about this election."

BTD is not the only one besides me and others here who has taken notice of The Intercept's biased anti-Clinton slant under Greenwald's direction during this election campaign. There's also Charles Pierce's observation from yesterday:

"If there is one thing I would like before this endless campaign grinds to its miserable - and now, apparently inevitable - end, it is to ask all of my colleagues in this business to stop pretending that they are shocked by politics and the sharp elbows and sharper practices involved therein. Mock horror is a calamitous pretense on which to base your coverage of anything, let alone a vital presidential election that has been dragged onto rancid ground because one of our two major political parties nominated a vulgar talking yam.

"Exhibit A: the latest scooplet from The Intercept, in which we discover that the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton literally wined and dined some influential political journalists-which, by the way, has been a practice of political campaigns ever since influential political journalists were setting type by hand and publishing their work by pasting it in the windows of their print shops."

[...]

"The source [which is Guccifer 2.0 - DfmHI] 'identifies himself' as someone whose previous hacks have had a tangible effect on the campaign. This, apparently, gives the revelation more credibility than the flat statement from the administration, although there's no more (or less) substance to the sourcing of the report than there is to the administration's response. The earth-shaking revelation, of course, is that the Clinton campaign is trying to buy favorable coverage by courting what it perceives to be the influential members of the elite political press. The implication, which is both foul and unproven, is that it worked.

"In other words, [Maggie Haberman of the New York Times] pretty much informed her readers accurately what was going on in the Clinton campaign, but that is given a sinister edge [by The Intercept] because of the way the information was obtained, and because it can be made to conform to a narrative of artificial mystery. This is some cheap work."

Wikileaks was revered for so long, as speaking truth to power.

Now, those now in power, Wikileaks has an agenda, cannot be trusted, and is a arm of the Russian government.

Actually, the motive is simple and has always been known.

Assange detests Madame Sec, and will try to strike her down, for obvious reasons.

Now Putin also detests Madame Sec, and will try to take her down, again for obvious reasons. Madame Sec , after a Russian election, claimed that the fix was in. Putin did not take kindly to that, and reciprocation had to be expected.

Assange and Putin have no love for The Donald, they most likely consider him a buffoon, no matter who was running against Madame Sec, these e mails would have been released.

Billy Bush WAS HIRED by NBC and went to the Rio Olympics for them.

While there , he told various NBC employees about the Donald Trump video with access Hollywood.

NBC always had the tape, and were playing politics, instead of acting like a news organization, but that has been expected from the media for years now.