BOMBSHELL: WikiLeaks Drops Damning Email Alleging Hillary Clinton Colluded With The New York Times

| DEC 31, 2017 | 7:27 PM

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Perhaps Hillary Clinton's biggest enemy during her presidential campaign, besides herself, was WikiLeaks as it published emails sent by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta. The emails strongly suggested that the primary election was rigged in favor of Clinton over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), among many other revelations.

But it looks like Clinton has left a paper trail behind that just keeps getting worse — and it's not going to go away just because the election is over. In what was likely a response to The New York Times piece headlined “Republican Attacks on Mueller and F.B.I. Open New Rift in G.O.P.,” WikiLeaks released an alleged email between a New York Times reporter and the U.S. Department of State, which was headed by Clinton at the time.

According to WikiLeaks, the email shows that the “New York Times handed over Cablegate's publication schedule to the US government (without telling @WikiLeaks) giving the State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton, up to 9 days in advance to spin the revelations or create diversions.”

The email was sent by Scott Shane, the national security reporter for The New York Times and received by Philip Crowley, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs at the time.

Clinton and the State Department were reportedly given a heads up days before damaging news would be published, so they would have had the opportunity to create diversions to lower the impact the stories would have, according to WikiLeaks, which has not yet provided any examples of such diversions.

If they do provide such evidence, it will not be good news for anyone involved.

Feminist Vegan Says Meat Is Bad — Then Jesse Watters Whips Out a Steak

Please note: This is a commentary piece. The views and opinions expressed within it are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of IJR.