This is incredible by any standard, whether that of a paid flack or of a human being without need of Thorozine.

Yesterday at the White House press briefing weasel-for-hire Josh Earnest went on a tear. Here I’m quoting from RT because it has the most extensive transcript.

The press secretary went on to agree with a Wednesday New York Times article which stated that “every major publication, including the Times, published multiple stories citing the DNC and Podesta emails posted by WikiLeaks, becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence.”

Continuing his response to Harris, Earnest said “…There’s no denying that those materials [emails] were stolen property… there was no denial on the part of the US government that somehow the DNC had not been hacked, so even as news organizations were reporting on this information, they were reporting on information that they knew had been stolen and leaked…”

“…Those are editorial decisions that are made by independent news organizations. But even the excellent report that was included in your newspaper today about this incident makes clear that news organizations in the united states essentially became the arms of Russian intelligence,” Earnest said.

This is bizarre. I mean like mental-health-alert bizarre. There were exactly and precisely two journalistic issues with any of the emails allegedly hacked by the Russians, or with any other purloined document: a) is it authentic and b) is it newsworthy. If the answer to both of those questions is “yes” then there is no moral, legal, or ethical dilemma surrounding publishing them. News organizations have never had an issue with publishing leaked documents, like, for instance, the Pentagon Papers, even when the leakers themselves had broken the law. This is a recognized principle and why many states have a media “shield” law. As my colleague Jay Caruso posted this morning on the soul (hahahaha, joke, people, its a joke) searching being done by the media

Their takeaway from 2016 is that they weren’t biased enough? The double standard is stunning. When Donald Trump’s tax return was leaked to the press at the end of September, did reporters ask themselves if they should be covering it? Was there any concern about the source of the tax return? Of course not. The mainstream media gleefully reported on the massive loss Trump incurred and struck up a debate over carry forward loss tax laws.

Journalists “raised concerns” with the Obama administration using The Espionage Act to prosecute dozens of people for leaking classified government information. The media sees them as “whistleblowers” while the Obama administration saw them as criminals. I don’t remember the press wondering aloud about their supposed responsibilities when coming into possession of information, obtained illegally.

Reporters are routinely the recipients of classified information, leaked grand jury information, confidential corporate information, trade secrets and more. Some of the biggest journalistic scoops over the last 50-60 years have come as the result of information that never should have seen the light of day, making it into the hands of a reporter.