New York Times's Maggie Haberman Has Chosen To Be A Dick Today

Maggie Haberman talking shit about Hillary, we guess.

Guys? It's time to shit on the New York Times again. It is our favorite! Last time, we gave Glenn Thrush the business for springing wood over Donald Trump going to visit hurricane-ravaged Texas, you know, like all presidents do. (He THANKED us for the beatdown.) Now it's Maggie Haberman's turn! Maybe she will also appreciate our constructive and loving criticism. (?)

Haberman shared a byline on a Times piece about Trump White House idiots using private emails like a common Jared Kushner, and it included this paragraph, which has recently been pronounced dead from lack of self-awareness:

That's very true! Donald Trump did "repeatedly harp" on Monster Villain Hillary, who directed the Benghazi attacks gleefully from behind her AOL account. But Trump wasn't the only one "harping," as we recall! Pollster person Nate Silver also recalls somebody else who harped on Hillary's emails ad nauseam , long after the issue was over, in a feeble, "both sides do it" attempt to cover the election "fairly," because they are "expert journalists" who went to "school" to get "good" at "journalism":

But who was it? Who in the Sam Hill is Nate Silver talking about? Let's embiggen the second picture he attached to his tweet:

OHHHHHHHHHH that's right. It was the New York Times , the place where Maggie Haberman goes every day with her lunchbox, to write about the news.

Now, to be clear, Haberman does some very good reporting on the Trump White House. So does Glenn Thrush. They are partners in crime, and are especially good at getting inside scoops on what the employees of this fuckshow administration are really thinking and doing. That doesn't mean they can't simultaneously suck at other parts of life, now does it? No it does not.

Nate Silver is correct as usual, King Friday, in charging that the New York Times had a prurient obsession with Hillary Clinton's emails that went far beyond anything that was necessary, journalism-wise. It was pathological . In July 2015, the paper published something that was little more than slash fiction, claiming that ZOMG!!!!!11!!! CRIMINAL HILLARY IS THE SUBJECT OF A CRIMINAL INQUIRY ABOUT HER EMAILS!!!!!!

Of course, it wasn't true. NONE OF IT. Not least, the part about how NYT said "criminal" when what it actually meant was "not at all criminal." The Justice Department was like "Um, yeah, that is some bullshit," so NYT started changing the headlines and all the details of the story until finally, it was like OOPSIE DOO, we guess we fucked up.

NYT finally sorta kinda "apologized" approximately a week later, after the damage was thoroughly done. (EXCUSE US, WONKETTE CORRECTION: We have just been notified by the historical record that when we said "apologized," we should have said "didn't remotely apologize.")

Haberman's paper was uniquely guilty in its obsession with BUT HER EMAILS!!!! from the very beginning, and it was harping on it   long after James Comey cleared Hillary Clinton of all charges of wrongdoing last summer. When Comey decided ELEVEN DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION to jam the email investigation back into the news ... well, you see the NYT front page Nate Silver tweeted above. Wanna see it again?

And it wasn't just about the fucking emails either. When there wasn't any Hillary email dirt to make up shit about, NYT was going hard on whether the Clinton Foundation was raping puppies or Hillary was getting lesbian ass on the side, or, literally, stories about Hillary Clinton's contractor not getting the permits for her kitchen reno, you know, just asking all the normal journalism questions you'd expect from the Grey Lady. Oh, and how can we forget, but the NYT payroll department was financing Maureen Dowd's pot brownie habit the ENTIRE TIME, so she could write her asshole columns about Hillary Clinton and her big dick.

Meanwhile, the Times , in the form of haggard loser "reporter" Eric Lichtblau, was maniacally jizzing itself to exonerate Donald Trump of all Russian crimes past, present and future. Heckuva job, you lazy cockbags.

Haberman, instead of saying, "Yeah we really did blow a goat on that one," went ad hominem at Nate Silver, because as we said in the headline, she has decided to be a dick today:

Oh go fuck yourself, Maggie Haberman.

Of course, Nate Silver doesn't need Wonkette to say that for him. He already said it:

Silver also noted that he and his colleagues are far from perfect, that they've acknowledged their fuck-ups, and suggests NYT do the same:

Well that's just far too reasonable, Nate Silver! Why should the New York Times , the finest news institution that ever did exist, have to do any self-examination? Shouldn't it just be allowed to keep fucking up and then halfway saying sorry days/weeks/months/years after the fact? Maggie Haberman will not let such injustice stand, so she decided to be a dick again:

Rude.

Haberman has insisted ( recently!) that the Hillary emails thing WAS TOO an important story, and she's right [ed note: nope]. But as Kevin Drum at Mother Jones   asked last month, was it  this important  ?

Jesus Christ.

As we said, Haberman and her colleagues have been doing some really decent reporting these days, and we appreciate it. But it's not the fucking worst thing in the world to ask, "How could we have done the 2016 election better?" Not for Hillary Clinton's sake, mind you -- that ship has sailed. But for America's sake! Because, in case anyone hasn't noticed, DONALD FUCKING TRUMP IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE NEW YORK TIMES HELPED.

We are just pointing that out, in case we haven't already pointed it out five million times.

The point is stop being a dick, Maggie Haberman, because you're better than this [nope -- ed]. 

Wonkette out.

 Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter RIGHT HERE.  

 Wonkette salaries, servers, and all of the things are fully funded by readers like you! If you love us, click here to fund us!