Tuesday, August 02, 2016

On The Possibility Of The WikiLeaks Release Of DNC Hacked Material Throwing The Election To Donald Trump

Fighting corruption is not just good governance. It's self-defense ~ Joe Biden (dob 11/20/1942) 47th USA VP.

As you've probably heard, WikiLeaks released a bunch of DNC emails. The data was likely liberated from DNC servers by Cozy Bear & Fancy Bear, "hackers working for the Russian government" [1]. Out of the 20K emails, a few were found in which DNC staffers talked about possible strategies they could use to harm the Sanders campaign. Although they never followed through.

One staffer thought that branding Bernie an atheist would harm him among Christian voters. "My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist", he wrote. (For the record, B-S "declared he had very strong religious and spiritual feelings at a Democratic town hall" in Derry NH on 2/3/2016).

In addition, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz wrote (in one email) that Bernie Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver was a "damn liar" and "particularly scummy" in regards to what he said about what happened in Nevada.

Also, she didn't like it when B-S didn't drop out soon enough. In response to Weaver saying that Sanders would stay in the race and take the fight to the convention, DWS wrote "He is an ASS". All of which shows that there was a pro-Hillary bias at the DNC under DWS.

"We have published proof that the election campaign of Bernie Sanders was sabotaged in a corrupt manner by [former DNC Chair] Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others within the DNC" is how head WikiLeaker Julian Assange is characterizing the offending emails.

Now, I'm not sure that I quite agree with this statement, as the "sabotaging" was apparently mostly talk and no action. Aside from scheduling the few debates the HRC campaign agreed to on days the audience would be small. In an effort to protect HRC and minimize exposure for B-S (if more people heard what Sanders had to say, more people might decide to vote for him).

So... Bernie WAS corruptly sabotaged. Or, DWS didn't act with impartiality, that's for sure. But Assange is saying the DNC is/was corrupt and B-S was sabotaged. And I think that the Assange narrative is cause for concern. Or a reason to be interested. Despite one pro-HRC blogger (Flying Junior) telling me that "no thinking person" should be interested (in what's in the emails).

Because the WikiLeaks email dump will surely cost HRC votes. Among B-S supporters who are now convinced that the primaries were totally rigged. So, Sanders supporters who MIGHT have voted for HRC when it looked suspicious (that the DNC had its thumb on the scale)... now they may very well dig in their heels and say "no way". They absolutely will not vote for the side that cheated.

Not that there is any evidence that HRC and DWS were in league in regards to any of this cheating (or thumb pressing on the scale. Lightly or heavily). Except for grassroots Clinton field offices being co-located at DNC offices (as per the US Uncut article 5 Times Debbie Wasserman Schultz Violated DNC Rules and Stacked the Deck in Favor of Clinton). And perhaps other examples I'm overlooking.

But the leaking isn't over. Assange is now saying "we have more material related to the Hillary Clinton campaign". Material they haven't already released. Which, while I am a fan of transparency and (as such) approve of WikiLeak's efforts, causes me concern. Because I'm sure none of this info (which hasn't been released yet, but will be) has the possibility of HELPING the HRC campaign.

According to Assange, he "has no interest in tipping the US election in favor of any candidate, including Trump". OK. But certainly this 2nd WikiLeaks release could help Trump. Depending on how bad it is. And, believe me, I do NOT want it to be bad. Because, if it is, those who might still be on the fence, WILL buy the Assange narrative. Which is that the whole thing was rigged from the beginning by the corrupt DWS and HRC (who acted in concert to steal the nomination from B-S).

Although some think the dump does prove that HRC and DWS were co-cheaters. "The Democratic National Committee data breach appears to show the DNC coordinating with Hillary Clinton from the start of the presidential campaign", the NY Post asserts.

A document to the DNC dated May 26, 2015 - a month after Sanders kicked off his presidential bid - declared that "our goals & strategy" are to "provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC". (Leaked document shows the DNC wanted Clinton from start by Marisa Schultz. 6/16/2016 NYP).

And, the Conservative News site Horn News (quoting the NYP article) says "Busted! Document proves DNC, Clinton rigged election". So, whether or not there was a DWS and HRC conspiracy to "pave the way" for Clinton, that WILL be the narrative.

As for me, I'm wondering if these characterizations stretch the definition of "rigging". I'm more comfortable with saying that the DNC under DWS placed their thumbs on the scale. Certainly NOBODY (including ardent HRC supporters) can claim that DWS acted impartially.

Although they may not care. But, like I said, I think they should care. Because (if nothing else) this scandal will cost HRC votes. And possibly the election. Especially if the next dump is as bad as Assange says it's going to be.

In a recent interview with ITV, Assange said the whistleblowing website will soon be leaking documents that will provide "enough evidence" for the DOJ to indict the presumptive Democratic nominee. ... While Assange didn't specify what exactly was in the emails, he did tell ITV that WikiLeaks had "accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton, which could proceed to an indictment".

Assange hinted that the emails slated for publication contain additional information about the Clinton Foundation. He also reminded ITV's Robert Peston that previously released emails contained one damning piece of communication from Clinton, instructing a staffer to remove the classification settings from an official State Department communication and send it through a "nonsecure" channel. (BREAKING: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says his next leak will virtually guarantee an indictment of Hillary Clinton by Shockwave. 7/22/2016 Silence is Consent).

"Julian Assange was a hero to the left when he leaked information about US documents on the Iraq and Afghan conflicts. I guess not so much anymore, huh?" reads a comment attached to the Horn News article. To which I say "it depends". I'm not in agreement with his assessment of what's been released so far, and (as of today) my opinion regarding Clinton "corruption" is that it's bullshit. The Right has been after the Clintons for decades and the results of all their efforts have been bupkis (SWTD #313).

Despite wasting 80 million "investigating" WJC and 30 million "investigating" HRC.

Now, after the Iraq War documents leak revealed "compelling evidence of war crimes and a sectarian cleansing that led to the mass killing of civilians in Iraq" did ANYONE in the bush administration suffer any appropriate consequences? Consequences like war crimes charges and trials and convictions at the Hague? (Evidence of war crimes in Iraq: WikiLeaks).

As we all know, the answer to that question is NO. Yeah, so I thinking that WHATEVER is in the forthcoming WikiLeaks Clinton info release, HRC will not be indicted. But even if she is, that STILL doesn't mean I'd be open to a president Trump.

We'll just have to wait and see. Me, I'm thinking that - when what Assange is saying about the forthcoming WikiLeaks release turns out to be WAY overblown - my opinion of him will no longer be positive. Regardless, I'm sure there will be (at least some) additional fallout. In which case the consequence might be a squeaker in which HRC narrowly defeats DJT.

Point is, that, despite Assange's claims that he "has no interest in tipping the US election in favor of... Trump", that IS what he's doing. Tipping by how much remains to be seen. If only there was a similar Trump leak. One that showed that Trump won't be releasing his taxes because they show that "he is deeply involved in dealing with Russian oligarchs" (George Will raises possible Trump link to Russian oligarchs).

Or evidence that clearly points to a Trump conviction in regards to his "university" scam. But that's not likely. A similar Trump hack/WikikLeaks release, that is. There is a good chance of judgement against Trump for fraud in regards to his university scam, I think.

Similarly unlikely would be that (after a HRC & DJT WikiLeaks dump) Bernie Sanders joins Jill Stein as the Green Party President and Vice Presidential candidates (respectively). And (due to the GOP and Democratic candidates both having been shown to be corrupt) the Sanders/Stein ticket is elected (with B-S becomming the country's 1st 3rd party POTUS. Then, following the smashing success of the Sanders' agenda, Jill Stein is elected as the country's 2nd 3rd party POTUS in 2024. And 1st female executive).

[1] An earlier version of this commentary attributed the DNC hack to Guccifer, but the actual hacker was Guccifer 2.0. Or, he SAYS it was him. The first Guccifer, Marcel Lehel Lazar, was "arrested in Romania on hacking offences [and in] March 2016, he was extradited to the US to face trial on a variety of hacking and fraud charges". The identity of Guccifer 2.0 is currently unknown. His involvement in the DNC hack is doubted because "detailed analysis of the attack on the DNC by US security firm CrowdStrike suggests the organization was actually penetrated... by Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, 2 hacker groups "closely linked to the Russian Federation's intelligence services".

Video: Julian Assange claims the next leak will lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton. 7/27/2016 RT (2:53).

WTNPH: On Julian Assange's Claim that the Next Cadre of Wikileaks Releases Will Be Enough to Put Hillary Behind Bars (8/2/2016).

SWTD #342


  1. Trump
    Trump has been trying hard to chase away Republican support. He obviously doesn't like Republicans. Recently he has said he doesn't support Ryan, or McCain and is actively supporting other people for their seats in the upcoming election. McCain and Ryan have halfheartedly supported Trump simply because he is the Republican nominee, as have many other Republicans. They continue to come out and denounce his statements on various issues, including the latest dust up about Mr. and Mrs. Kahn, yet, continue to say he is the only choice to be the next president. Certainly it is a choice of two evils for Republicans, with Hillary being the most evil.
    It's the majority of the Republican voters who have put Trump in his position and Republican leadership in their uncomfortable position. Trump is an outsider as a Republican, as much as Sanders was an outsider in the Democratic party. The Republicans chose the outsider, the Democrats did not. That puts Trump at a disadvantage for Republican party unity and getting the most possible votes out of Republicans. Hillary won her party's nomination, but Sander supporters claim they won't vote for her and decades of negative Hillary feelings within the Democratic party towards Hillary means she won't get the most available democratic votes. That negativity towards Hillary from within the Democratic party is why she lost to Obama (an unknown) even though she was considered a shoe in to win the Democratic nomination in 2008.
    This will leave the undecided vote (at a high of 20%) to decide who the winner will be. That's one of the only normal facts about this election. The undecided voters often decide who will be president. I doubt a huge democratic voter turnout (which hasn't appeared during the primary's) can make up that 20% undecided vote. Those undecided voters seem to be in the same quandary, which candidate is less evil, which candidate do they dislike more.
    Democrats are hoping Trump's big mouth will get those undecided voters to go with Hillary, but there is no sign that is happening. The "Teflon Don" has yet to say something that has changed the mind of those undecided voters. The undecided percentage hasn't changed in months. Even the negative comments from Republican leaders about Trump hasn't had an effect on the undecided number. The traditional ideal of what a president should be characteristically doesn't seem to matter. As repulsive as Trump can be, that hasn't changed the undecided voters, yet. Similarly, all the negativity about Hillary hasn't changed that undecided number. These undecided voters will probably not vote, or make up their minds as they vote. Just make a pick, like pin the tail on the donkey. It's a crummy choice in their eyes.
    As for me; my State will go big for Hillary, so I probably won't vote. If I was in a State that was close, I would vote for Hillary based only on my repulsion for Trump. I am not a Hillary fan. Good luck with your choice, undecideds.

    1. "Cut and paste" Luke strikes again.

    2. I Googled the first line, but didn't find anything. You know who he's cutting and pasting from this time?

    3. That's because I write my own stuff asshole. And it must be good since you and your idiot minions keep stealing my words, yet, cry plagiarism. What a bunch of lying assholes.
      Hey Jerry, you haven't written a word for years. Go Fuck Yourself lying asshole. The only thing copy and paste, are your lies. Exactly the same as the lies from Dervish and the rest of the assholes.
      So keep searching idiot Dervish, you won't find anything, because I am original and you are just a lying asshole.

    4. That's because I write my own stuff asshole.

      Shaw Kenawe: For a troll who runs around the internet accusing people of plagiarizing his work, it is hilarious to read "Luke's" two comments which were taken word-for-word from Ralph Nader's site. (7/31/2016 comment from the "Rational Nation USA" blog).

      I followed Shaw's link and noted that what she says is absolutely true. What you posted to RN's blog is a cut and paste from Ralph Nader's site. Proof that Luke's steals the words of others. Where is your proof Luke? You got anything to back up your ludicrous claim that "you and your idiot minions keep stealing my words"? I predict you will come up with NOTHING. Like I told you previously, *I* write my own stuff. I am NOT interested in stealing from you (or stealing from Ralph Nader's site, or anyone else YOU steal from).

    5. You rely on the plagiarist Shaw, that's your mistake asshole. Check my original post on my blog where it came from lying asshole. How come you didn't check Shaw's blog for my posts? Just use your stupid first line method and you will find at least 3 posts on mine stolen by Shaw. Have a nice day fuck head. You can't even track anything correctly and you censor so who the fuck knows what you are talking about. As I said, you will get my new posts every time I post one, so you don't have to steal them fucke head liar. .

    6. Luke: As I said, you will get my new posts every time I post one...

      No, I won't. No further Luke comments that appear to be posts from his blog will be published. I'll assume that a comment is a post from Luke's blog by length. If it's too long I won't publish it (this applies only to Luke). I do NOT want material from Luke's blog published on my blog.

      BTW, I am familiar with Shaw and her blog and know she does not steal material. Also, I have no "first line method", I only said I checked the first line of your post last time. It isn't a "method".

      If you want to link to comments from Shaw's blog that support your case that Shaw steals your stuff - go ahead. But I suspect there is a reason you didn't already do that. I'm not going to put in time looking into your very likely bogus claims.

  2. Julian Assange isn't even an American. And he is a wanted criminal living in some embassy. Since the guy is obviously a whore hound, he probably did assault those two women, even if his supporters actually believe that he was set up.

    As far as Hillary vs. Trump. The choice is clear. You either lend a hand or get the fuck outta the way.

    1. That Assange isn't an American is irrelative. What is relative is what might be in the 2nd WikiLeaks date release. It might be enough to send HRC to prison as Assange claims, or it might not be. We don't know yet. I doubt it is. As for Assange being a "wanted criminal" the charges against him are (as far as I can tell) bullshit (How the Swedes Set Up Julian Assange). Assange is still living in the Ecuador embassy because he believes he will be extradited from Sweden to the US if he leaves, or that "he could he could be snatched by the CIA and spirited away to the US [where] he could be put on trial for espionage". IMO he has reason to be concerned.

      As for the choice being clear. That's true. For you (and me) the clear choice is HRC. For others the clear choice is DJT. And the DNC leak which led to the resignation of the DNC chair by the corrupt DWS (emails show she was using DNC to monitor her FL primary challenger, a violation of Federal election laws) has likely convinced on-the-fence B-S supporters not to vote for HRC.

      I predict the HRC critics will NOT "get the fuck outta the way". I think we will be hearing from them a LOT in the coming months. And that worries me.

    2. From Reddit's Politics forum, comment attached to the thread on "Election Justice USA finds that Bernie Sanders lost an estimated 184 delegates to Election Fraud".

      Terminal-Psychosis: I'm just gonna vote Bernie anyway, though the grapevine says many, many former Dems are going to the Green party.

      So much for people taking the clear choice. Or "getting the fuck outta the way". Some are going to Jill Stein. Others (the dumber ones) will vote for Trump or Gary Johnson.

  3. I'm glad you took my comment in the right spirit Derv.

    Peace be unto you.

  4. Given the fact that the next president might select up to 4 SCOTUS judges, I don't care WHAT is revealed in the next WikiLeaks release. Say they release a voicemail in which Hillary speaks about how she got away with murdering Vince Foster... I'd still vote for her. That's unlikely, though. Let's say there is a voice mail in which she discusses with Debbie Wasserman Schultz how they're going to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders. I'd still vote for her. I wouldn't like it, but Trump selecting SCOTUS judges? We'd be stuck with these people for decades. Even if Trump is a one term (or less) president.

  5. I don't see what the big deal is about a couple of emails with minor issues classified, or with the DNC favoring Clinton. Sanders is an Independent, although he did temporarily become a democrat so he could run as a democrat. It was purely a political move not a philosophical move.

    1. I'm shocked, Jerry. Debbie Wasserman Schultz thought cheating was OK too. Bernie Sanders obviously never had a chance. Sorry, but I gotta call BS on your "political not philosophical move". What he did WAS political (in a GOOD way), but he did NOT need to move philosophically to run as a Democrat because (1) Bernie Sanders has always caucused with the Democrats, and (2) he was one of the founders of the Progressive caucus, the largest Congressional caucus (proof that there are MANY Democrats philosophically aligned with Bernie). You think Progressive caucus members aren't real Democrats?

    2. OK, you have a point, BUT if what you say is true, then why has Sanders always been an independent?

      Certainly most of the Progressive caucus members are democrats. (I haven't checked to see if any members other than Sanders are independents.) I'm not questioning other Democrats who happen to be Progressives. I am one myself and was certainly more aligned with Sanders than Clinton. But that's not what I was talking about.

    3. Jerry, I'm not sure. But the fact is I really don't care. The DNC should have been thankful that he didn't pull a Ralph Nader. Instead DWS was resentful. And, when she was supposed to be neutral, rigged things for HRC. If she can be prosecuted, I hope she is.

      CBS News: Wasserman Schultz could face legal complaint related to email leak... Tim Canova, DWS's primary challenger for her Florida House seat, said... that he intends to launch a legal complaint over what he believes is evidence that the congresswoman misused DNC funds for her own re-election campaign.

      "The Wikileaks emails indicate that Debbie Wasserman Schultz used DNC resources to assist her reelection campaign in violation of federal law", Canova, a law professor, said in a statement. DNC officials, he added, used "party resources to monitor, respond to, and impede my campaign on numerous occasions".


Comment moderation is not currently in effect. Your comment will appear immediately. I do not, however, allow Anonymous comments. Anyone wishing to comment MUST have a Blogger account.