AM Joy panelists talked about the anger of NY Times reporter Maggie Haberman over attorney Mark Elias "lying" about the Fusion GPS dossier. (Just want to point out here that we don't know exactly how the reporter worded the question, but whatever.)

"There's all this anger. The mainstream media gets its feelings hurt that they weren't told the truth," Joan Walsh said.

"I think some people in the Clinton campaign legitimately did not know this was being funded or going on. It all depends on who you ask and talk to."

"Charlie Sykes, there was a point made obvious to anyone who worked in a campaign," Joy Reid said.

"Brian Fallon says I'm sorry, I didn't know about Christopher Steele's hiring pre-election, if I had, I would have went to Europe and tried to help him. If the Clinton campaign had known about it, they should have probably used it."

David Corn had some new information.

"A key point, a piece of new information here, is that Mark Elias held on to this information very tightly for a number of obvious reasons," he said.

"The information was not confirmed. He did not want the campaign to possess the memos out of fear the campaign people would send them out to reporters. We do know that Fusion and others did try to get reporters looking at these angles. I think what they wanted to do was to get other people reporting in the same type of subjects to get it out that way. So this was material that they could not use, that the campaign could not use.

"I'm not saying this is right, that Elias should not have told people in the Clinton campaign about this, this explains why he held tightly to this information and why I think it's kind of credible that some of the people in the campaign had no idea about the details of this."

Reid pointed out what was called the dossier was really a research document. Corn agreed.

"It's a series of memos like a reporter would send to an editor," he said. "I resisted the term dossier. I didn't call it that. It's a series of memos. I can see why Elias would not want it circulated," he said.

"It's notes. The research done by Christopher Steele and others," Reid said.

I just have to get this off my chest: The New York Times has been played by anonymous sources over and over, with nary a peep out of their reporters. And over some pretty consequential stuff, I might add. (Yellowcake, anyone?)

But any connection to the Clintons is enough for the Times to go into high dudgeon mode.