Hillary Clinton's former campaign aides and other liberals who still lamenting the results of the 2016 election fired back at the New York Times on Monday for how the paper covered Clinton last year.

Times reporter Glenn Thrush was bombarded by critics on Monday when he shared a news article on Twitter about the Secret Service running out of money to pay its staff due to President Trump and his family's frequent traveling.

"Trump's gilded lifestyle is bankrupting the Secret Service," Thrush tweeted.

One person sarcastically replied to Thrush's tweet, "But the emails," a reference to the wide and extensive media coverage of Clinton's private email server throughout the election.

Thrush replied by publishing a series of tweets mocking the critique and pointed out other elements of Clinton's campaign that many political observers have said cost her the election.

"But hour-long speeches that should have been 10 minutes, but complacency, but Bernie, but generational apathy, but silly war with the media," he said in one message. "But why-do-we-need-to-go-to-Wisconsin, but setting up an email server in Chappaqua when you know the right-wing-conspiracy is out to get you," he said in another.

That didn't sit well with Clinton's supporters, who relitigated the campaign as they replied to Thrush.

Democratic activist Peter Daou replied to Glenn Thrush's tweet by accusing him of using "every stale mainstream narrative about 2016."

Joan Walsh, the liberal writer for the Nation magazine, compared the Times election coverage to the way the media covered the lead up to the war in Iraq.

"Seriously, the Times needs to hire an outside investigator to look at the 2016 election the way it did the run-up to Iraq War," she said. "Or else its best reporters will lose credibility in Twitter beefs trying to 'balance Times bad email coverage with Clinton flaws."

But Thrush's colleague Maggie Haberman said if the Times erred in its coverage, it's in that it didn't report on the Clinton campaign's dysfunction.

"The mess that campaign was was extremely undercovered pre-election," Haberman wrote on Twitter.

@GlennThrush Do you guys ever think sometimes about the email coverage? Do you think, "Maybe we paid too much attention to them"? — Marcus S. (@nirvanafanclub) August 21, 2017

Clinton and her defenders have cited dozens of factors that they say tipped the election, including interference by Russia, lack of resources at the Democratic National Committee and sexism. Clinton has said she bears some responsibility for her loss but she more often blames outside forces.

"I was on the way to winning," she said in May, "until the combination of [then FBI Director] Jim Comey's letter on Oct. 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off — and the evidence for that intervening event is, I think, compelling [and] persuasive."

Seriously, the @nytimes needs to hire an outside investigator to look at the 2016 election the way it did the run-up to Iraq War. 1/2 — Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) August 21, 2017

Team Clinton has also said that the national media gave excessive attention to the federal investigation into her email server, something they say that news organizations have not accounted for.

However, there is evidence to suggest Clinton got more breaks from the media than Trump did. A study by the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center published in December said that 77 percent of coverage related to Trump was negative, and that 64 percent of Clinton's coverage was negative.