Leaked Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton Read From A Script During MSNBC Interview

Newly leaked emails reveal that Hillary Clinton read from a script word-for-word during a phone interview with Chris Hayes on MSNBC.

Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responds to a question during the town hall debate at Washington University on October 9, 2016 in St Louis, Missouri
(Photo: Rick Wilking-Pool/Getty Images)

The emails, hacked from the campaign chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account and published by Wikileaks Wednesday, reveal an exchange between him and Dan Schwerin — her speechwriter — where they reviewed her scripted response to a question about tax hikes on “All In With Chris Hayes.”

Unsurprisingly, Hayes started the interview with a question about her tax proposal. (RELATED: Leaked Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton Hates The Phrase ‘Everyday Americans’)

“HRC is going to call into Chris Hayes’ show this afternoon to do her tax hit,” Schwerin writes in an email to Podesta, Jen Palmieri, Brian Fallon and several others in January 2016. “How does this look to you guys?”

“As you know Chris, right now, the super-wealthy and big corporations use every trick in the book to game the system and avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes,” the script — which Clinton said word for word during her interview — read. “It’s not right.”

“So today, I proposed adding a new ‘fair share surcharge’ on multi-millionaires and closing loopholes to make it harder to game the system. I’m also pushing for the Buffett Rule, which sets a minimum rate for those at the top, and other reforms like closing the carried interest loophole that allows some hedge fund managers to pay a lower rate than teachers or a nurses.”

“I’m proposing every idea I can to finally make those at the top actually pay their fair share.” (RELATED: Clinton Staffers Whine: ‘Chelsea Keeps Going To Daddy’)

“That’s going to be a big difference in this campaign. When you look at what the Republican candidates are proposing — it’s unbelievable. Trillions of dollars in new tax breaks to those at the top. Trickle down economics all over again.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/12/l...-script-during-msnbc-interview/#ixzz4MszKjhcs

This is so Clinton to fake interviews and the media complicity. Who is surprised by these lying fraudulent people?

 

And???? What makes you think this is unique or unusual?

 

Its called PREPARATION. Something apparently trump and the trumpettes don't believe in.

Having been in the PR and marketing biz for 30 years, its not only a standard practice, its a recommended practice.

 

It seems some on the right prefer the nazi rally style gatherings where idiot trump just says the first stupid thing that comes to his mind. Doesn't matter if any of it's true or not, he's speaking from the heart! Well, his brain for sure has nothing to do with the ignorance that comes out of his trap.

What this reveals is that Hillary ran a modern campaign, with strategies and organization. Doesn't every single political candidate try to put their best foot forward? The hypocrisy here is hilarious.

 

They had to have known the question was coming.

 

While I do not doubt that this is status-quo, "preparation" would suggest that she would be ready for any question the interviewer threw at her, and she did not know what it would be ahead of time. This is just kabuki theater; giving that IMPRESSION, but entirely scripted. No different than a 2-bit soap opera episode.

 

Sorry, but you simply have no idea how the "interview" process works. YES, interviews are in small part "theater" since the entire objective of an interview is to get specific messages across, so being prepared to articulate those messages is vital.

Are you aware of "talking points" and "pivoting"? Its EXACTLY the same thing.

 

Lessseeeeeeee. You go into an interview that was requested to discuss matter X and Y. so the subject matter is already determined so only an idiot wouldn't be able to discern the likely questions, and only an amateur would not have specific responses including power phrases, sound bites and perhaps even pivot points, going into it.

 

That's interesting. I was wondering how the talking points would actually support fake scripted interviews. Now I know.

 

. The purpose of the interviewer is to pose questions of interest on particular issues that are of interest to their specific audiences.
The purpose of the interviewee is to communicate their positions on those particular issues in the best possible fashion.

Now if you want to talk about "fake" interviews, that is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is most definitely a communication tactic that is SOMETIMES used, but it's generally done when the interviewer (and his employer) want to shape a particular message to their specific audiences and the interviewee ensures they get what they want (and vice versa). Like many interviews on such blatantly biased "media" sources as Alex Jones or to a lesser extent Brietbart.

I readily admit to utilizing both real interviews with prepared interviewees and fake interviews with "sympathetic" interviewers. But I sure as hell wouldn't characterize interviews with the mainstream media as fake nor have I ever participated in one. It does happen all the time with special interest media and I have participated in them.

That is the PR business. I could go on and on about using fake interviews as a tool of crisis management for instance, but that's another story.

 

There may be a role for fake interviews as a PR video for a corporation or something similar, but I don't think it's the same thing for an actual news organization to conduct fake, scripted interviews; that's just corrupt.

 

This is called propaganda but then it's no surprise given those involved

 

Just like a typical progressive, she can't think for herself and has to be shown or told what to say.

How does she not know her own views and ideas? Sounds more like the passing of Obamacare, they didn't know what the hell it was but they pushed it anyways.

 

Why would she need to 'script' her own plan? Doesn't she know what it is?

 

I guess you are not familiar with the need and usage of power words and phrases, framing a complex answer in a vocabulary that the audience can readily understand, contrasting your solution with others proposed, etc. etc. It is what professional communicators do, and every politician does it, unless you happen to be donald who is too undisciplined to utilize these tactics properly.

You should read the transcripts of his speeches, he is at times, completely incomprehensible. Believe me.

 

Oh I totally agree. My clients were corporate, and they do have a need for "fake interviews" as I described them. It most definitely is NOT done with real journalistic news organizations and they won't accept such, period. OTOH, n the digital age what constitutes a "real news organization" has become rather fuzzy. For instance do you think Alex Jones Infowars is a real news agency, because sure as hell they "script" a lot of their "interviews"?

There is another tactic that is used quite often in certain industries especially with the trade papers and industry analysts. My experience was mostly in the high tech industry and it was SOP to pay a industry analysis consulting organization to write nice things about a particular product (whether it was good or not). Or to commission a journalist to write a favorable story and then "place" it in a trade mag - often accompanying said placement with an ad or two.

I could go on with my professional observations opinions on the communications strategies of both parties in this campaign but that would take a book and much of it would be EXTREMELY critical of BOTH sides.

 

The vast majority of talking points are used in"real" interviews. this can clearly be seen in the current campaign with the plethora of talking head being interviewed by real journalistic media outlets. There is a reason why interviews with multiple "experts" of the same party all seem to magically use the same phrases and spin.

 

Its called a complicit media that gives the questions in advance so she can prepare.

 

You are correct. She deflected all the ammunition that was thrown at her including Bernie Sanders people. Depending on the audience she was speaking to, she promised anybody and everybody anything that would get her votes.
Is that dishonest? Yes. Is that what they wanted to hear? Yep! Will that get her elected? Possibly. In the long run will that help Joe Average? Hell no, and you know it.
Personally, I prefer some that tells me the truth and it sure ain't Hillary Clinton.

 

And so has any other presidential candidate! The radical right fails again.

 

No, its not, but feel free to believe such, because such a belief is grounded in lack of knowledge of standard processes for dealing with various kinds of media.

For instance, to "win" an interview in the competitive business of reporting, it is sometimes required to submit interview questions or at least the topics of inquiry to the interviewee. You seem to not appreciate that ALL news media (with the exception of government funded news media) are for profit businesses.

 

If she's asked a question she didn't rehearse she might have a seizure or something. Maybe that's why there was no exit/defense strategy in Benghazi after all the security incidents, every time she thought about it she'd lock up.

 

Well we're not talking about corporate clients or Infowars, we're talking about MSNBC. They at least purport to be a real news organization, and that's where the problem is.

 

Its not unique or unusual, that's the point. Lying, cheating, bribery, is standard for Hilary.

What is unique and unusual is that the evidence is now available to prove that Hilary is a liar, scam artist, the media are dishonest.

And it also proves that all the Hilary sycophants that claim she is wonderful and all the negative is just "right wing conspiracy" have also been wrong.

 

Yes, and when in competition for "interviews" commonly called "gets" in the vernacular, it is an accepted practice for the interviewer or his organization to sometimes, UPON request, provide either a list of topics to be discussed or in some cases the questions that will be asked.

And yes it is still real news, because in the real news environment, the people making that news are an important source of context, explanation, justification, etc. for the stories being reported.