Maggie Haberman of the New York Times became the object of scorn and anger after she pointed out a very simple fact borne out of a blockbuster report out of the Washington Post about Hillary Clinton.
What did she say?
Haberman simply pointed out that the Clinton camp had denied a report that was later confirmed about the Clinton camp providing the funding for the "Trump dossier."
Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year https://t.co/vXKRV1wRJc— Maggie Haberman (@Maggie Haberman)1508886473.0
The explosive report from the Washington Post claimed that a Clinton lawyer hired a political organization, Fusion GPS, that then hired a former British spy to compile the Trump dossier.
It was later used by U.S. intelligence agencies as they investigated claims of collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.
What was the reaction?
Clinton defenders were fiercely protective and assailed her for simply stating an obvious fact.
Does she just hate Hillary this much or does she have a special kind of deal with Trump to get access? It's so obvious it's sad.
— Michelle D. (@chelleinchicago) October 24, 2017
Like, seriously, Ms. Haberman, I am a big fan of your usually and often think you get piled on for no reason, but it IS jarring to hear you call this lawyer sanctimonious while Sanders is spewing sanctimonious lies daily to cover for the nude emperor.
— Sentient Mustache (@sntientmustache) October 24, 2017
Exactly what is corrupt about opposition research? The Republicans began the dossier/fusion GPS research by the way.
— Charlie Sweeney (@CharlieSweeney) October 24, 2017
Oh my god Maggie. Just stop.
— Joshuah Marshall (@JoshuahMarshall) October 24, 2017
Seriously, maggie posted 3x's guess she'll post over and over b/c she thinks it connects to Hillary. Shows her blatant bias! Bad Journalism!
— RoseFromPhila🍸👠🕶 (@RoseFromPhila) October 24, 2017
It’s not news and I have no idea what Maggie’s game is here. Apparently they’re trying to distract from the black hole forming over the WH!
— Meg Standridge (@megrmeister) October 25, 2017
Weird how Maggie thinks Kelly told an "untruth," but DNC "lied."
— Facts Do Matter (@WilDonnelly) October 25, 2017
Former Clinton spokesperson Brian Fallon tried to downplay the story.
Ok, people saying DNC/dossier news isn't a big deal: Why did Clinton lawyer Marc Elias and others deny it for months?— Josh Dawsey (@Josh Dawsey)1508893699.0
Dont know what Elias may have said but if he was coy, he was prob just being a good lawyer honoring confidentiality https://t.co/byV0gsQO81— Brian Fallon (@Brian Fallon)1508894074.0
Haberman didn't think his explanation was up to snuff:
“coy” is not responding at all. “Your sources are wrong” is a bit different https://t.co/XjmE4ohXle— Maggie Haberman (@Maggie Haberman)1508894284.0
She was referring to journalist Ken Vogel recalling Clinton lawyer Marc Elias denying the story:
When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying "You (or your… https://t.co/Q0vCQ0iXTN— Kenneth P. Vogel (@Kenneth P. Vogel)1508884692.0
Meanwhile on the right...
Many on the right (and others) sat back and pointed out the hypocrisy of the attacks on Haberman from those who decried the dishonesty out of the Trump administration.
Yes clearly @maggieNYT is now a Trump hack because a Clinton lawyer is honest or something— Ben Shapiro (@Ben Shapiro)1508899158.0
Amazing that after all this time, Dems still don't get it. Instead they'll attack @maggieNYT for calling out campaign operatives that lied— Comfortably Smug (@Comfortably Smug)1508897243.0
I'm glad to learn, reading responses to @maggieNYT 's tweets, that liberal Tweeters are as if not more insane than right-wing tweeters— John Podhoretz (@John Podhoretz)1508899776.0
The attacks on @maggieNYT are absolutely astonishing, except that everything is terrible so nothing is surprising.— Ben Shapiro (@Ben Shapiro)1508899737.0