Months of embarrassing leaks released by WikiLeaks and other sources related to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic leadership have time and again proven to be true, while allegations of Russia being behind the effort have not been substantiated with any evidence. Still, that’s the talking point the campaign continues to go with.
And indeed Clinton aide Jennifer Palmieri today warned against believing any new things released by WikiLeaks that are embarrassing to the Clinton campaign, even though the other releases were spot on, insisting that anything else they release is “probably fake.”
This isn’t a brand new claim, either, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D – CA) making claims as far back as August that any future mass leaks would probably include “Russian lies” designed to embarrass Clinton and the Democrats.
These preemptive warnings appear to recognize the reality that more embarrassing information is likely to come out, and aiming to get out in front of the next batch by preemptively declaring them “probably” not true, whatever it turns out to be.
This “pre-emptive” denial is the smoking gun. It is clearly their attempt at damage control. I cannot wait to see what they are so terrified of. Assange said it would be bad enough to get her imprisoned.
It is logically impossible for the emails to be stolen and in the same instance faked.Fake documents originate with B and cannot be attributed to A. A, on the other hand, does not produce “fake” emails for internal communication that may be “stolen.”
I’m waiting for the purported video of Willie Jeff ‘in action’ with a 14 year-old on Jeff Epstein’s ‘paradise island’. Not that it won’t be fake or anything. The sex-pres was probably there on foundation business.
It is strange that WikiLeaks is targeting only the Democratic party and not the Republicans.
Which is indicative of them trying to interfere with our country’s election process and foreign influence in getting the lunatic loose canon Trump elected.
WikiLeaks may have started as a whistle-blower but now it is nothing but a Republican and Putin’s tool.
In order to release information, Wikileaks must first receive that information. Do you claim that Wikileaks has information on Trump and isn’t releasing that information?
Releasing true and accurate information isn’t “interfering” with the election, it’s informing the electorate.
Perhaps if the Democrats didn’t want Trump elected, they shouldn’t have nominated a pathological liar and career criminal. Pissing and moaning about how mean ol’ Wikileaks told people things Clinton and the DNC didn’t want them to know doesn’t really fly.
They are obviously targeting Clinton to sway the election towards Trump, the lunatic, racist, bigot and a loose canon.
Only if by “obviously” you mean “there’s no reason whatsoever to believe any such thing.”
My opinion is based on observation that WikiLeaks is targeting Hillary and not interested in GOP or Trump’s inside info.
You are basically buying into the infowars and Fox News negative perceptions/conspiracy theories of Hillary which have never proven to be true.
I don’t watch Fox and I hate Infowars/Alex Jones — the only public statement you’ll find me ever having made on the latter is that Jones is a lying sack of shit who should never be trusted on anything.
You aren’t “observing” that Wikileaks is targeting Clinton, you’re pretending that Wikileaks is targeting Clinton, apparently because you want, very very badly, for that to be the case.
Once again, Wikileaks leaks material that they have received. They can’t leak stuff pertaining to Trump unless they actually receive stuff pertaining to Trump.
One of the Guccifers did in fact leak material on Trump (the DNC’s oppo research file on him).
I wouldn’t piss on Trump or Clinton if I saw them both on fire, but these attempts to distract from the content of leaks that are damaging to Clinton are just stupid.
How convenient that they are receiving only Clinton or DNC stuff.
And nothing about Trump or RNC.
That is an observation and not pretending.
It’s reasonable to assume that Wikileaks is anti-Clinton. Unsurprising since she has quite clearly stated she’d have Assange murdered if she could, and at the very least put in prison for embarrassing her should that ever become possible.
On the other hand:
1. This whole “it’s !THEM RUSSIANS! Wikileaks and !THEM RUSSIANS! Pay no attention to the content, ignore the things that Clinton has done, just pretend that this is all about Wikileaks and !THEM RUSSIANS! trying to GET her!” line just doesn’t work very well. In fact, it doesn’t pass the laugh test.
2. Exposing Clinton is not the same thing as supporting Trump. Believe it or not there are a lot of people who don’t like either of them.
Why are leakers only leaking Democrat/Clinton stuff and not Republican/Trump stuff to Wikileaks? I can think of some reasons.
One is that nobody expected Trump to be the nominee until late in the game, so there’s been less time during which he and his organization would have been targets for hacks. Clinton and the DNC, on the other hand, have been major forces in politics since roughly the beginning of time and have always been targets.
Another reason might be some disparity in security practices between targets, or just good luck on the part of prospective hackers. The Podesta emails seem to have come from a phishing attack that any 5th grader would have recognized but that both Podesta nor the campaign’s IT people fell for.
The bottom line is that some of the emails can be and have been authenticated, so we can know to a reasonable degree of certainty that the archive is real and that this or that part of it has or has not been modified (not a single modified email has been publicly pointed out yet). At some point, Clinton’s defenders are going to have to address the CONTENT of the emails. Those defenders — including you — are just desperately spinning things to avoid doing so until after the votes are counted tonight.
My opinion from the start has been that we’re witnessing Ross Perot 2.0 performing without all the bugs and unwanted features of the original. This will result in Clinton 2.0 being installed once it has finished running.
Unless something goes haywire, the media will try and portray it as business as usual…roll over and hit snooze, go to work, pay the bills, rinse repeat.
I worry though, that not only will she continue the brinkmanship with Russia, but she’ll see places like Syria, Libya, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia (among many others) as broken toys. She might want to break something else to mark it as hers and seal an 8 year deal.
I hate americans. I honestly do.