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).

Footnote
[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

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz Co-Sponsors Legislation To Protect Payday Loan Sharks

He lends at interest and takes a profit. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head ~ The Christian Bible, Ezekiel 18:13 (New International Version).

In another in a string of disappointing moves, Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and Rep for FL's 23rd district, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has gotten into bed with the payday lending industry with legislation that she is co-sponsoring (!).

Payday lenders fearing modest federal regulations will cut into their vast profit margins have a new, high-profile ally in Washington: ...Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) is co-sponsoring legislation to delay and permanently muffle pending Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rules to rein in small-dollar lenders that are currently able to levy triple-digit annual interest rates on the nation's poorest... The bill would force a 2-year delay of the CFPB's rules... the bill... would... permanently block [CFPB rules] in any state that enacts the sort of ineffectual, industry-crafted regulatory sham that FL adopted in 2001. That bill featured "compromise language heavily influenced by industry players", the FL Alliance for Consumer Protection notes. Rather than a model for robust oversight that still allows low-income people to access emergency credit when they need it, the group describes the FL approach as a series of "well-disguised loopholes" that preserve the industry's abusive patterns. (The Official Head Of The Democratic Party Joins GOP Effort To Protect Payday Lenders by Alan Pyke. ThinkProgress 3/1/2016).

I call payday lenders "loan sharks" due to the interest rates they charge. Rates that fit the definition of usury.

Usury is the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans that unfairly enrich the lender. ... A loan may be considered usurious because of excessive or abusive interest rates or other factors. ... Someone who practices usury can be called a usurer, but a more common term in contemporary English is loan shark. The term may be used in a moral sense - condemning taking advantage of others' misfortunes - or in a legal sense where interest rates may be regulated by law. Historically, some cultures (e.g., Christianity in much of Medieval Europe, and Islam in many parts of the world today) have regarded charging any interest for loans as sinful. (Wikipedia/Usury).

Yeah, I'd say it's sinful, in that it's morally reprehensible for "some of the worst predatory bastards in America" (according to Charlie Pierce), to be raking in so much profit via sky-high interest rates in regards to loans to those who can least afford this overcharging.

...22% of borrowers end up rolling their loan over seven or more times, loans in such misery cycles account for 62% of the industry's business. Trapping people in lengthy repay cycles is literally the primary source of industry income. About 76% of all FL payday borrowing is rollover loans within two weeks of a previous loan, and 85% of all loans are part of a reborrowing sequence of seven or more straight high-interest loans. The typical borrower there pays 300% annual interest. (excerpt from same ThinkProgress article quoted above).

Add to this the fact that DWS voted to fast track the TPP (The 28 Democrats Who Voted For Fast Track), vigorously opposed a 2014 medical marijuana amendment in FL", and has inappropriately used her position as the DNC chair to tip the scales in favor of Hillary.

...speaking of the debate, why did Wasserman Schultz schedule it for the Saturday night before Christmas, at one of the least-watched times on television, virtually guaranteeing low ratings? ...the DNC under Wasserman Schultz wants to guarantee that as few people as possible actually watch the Democrats' own debates! Hillary's campaign wanted as few debates as possible to prevent her lesser-known opponents from getting free television exposure. DNC limited debates to six, compared to 26 in the 2008 campaign... (Fire Debbie Wasserman Schultz by Miles Mogulescu. Huffpo 12/18/2015).

All proof that it's time for Debbie to go. The Progressive Left (the heart of the Democratic Party) should no longer tolerate an obvious corporate shill as DNC Chair. Heck, I'd say she needs to be primaried and booted out of the House as well. Which she is being, btw. Good luck to her challenger, Tim Canova (Meet Debbie Wasserman Schultz's First-Ever Primary Challenger: Tim Canova).

Image: HRC Campaign surrogate/shill Debbie Wasserman Schultz is inappropriately attempting to use her power as DNC Chair to anoint Hillary the Democratic nominee (5 Times Debbie Wasserman Schultz Violated DNC Rules and Stacked the Deck in Favor of Clinton).

RNUSA: Wasserman Schultz To Go? (12/20/2015).

SWTD #328

On Chris Matthews' Unending Efforts To Smear Bernie Sanders As A Soviet-Style Socialist

Chris Matthews is trying to say that Bernie Sanders doesn't believe in capitalism or the market, which is a complete lie. Either Chris Matthews is profoundly ignorant - which I don't believe for a second. I think he's one of the smartest guys out there. Or this is the leading edge of the establishment/insider spear thrown against the outsider Bernie Sanders ~ Thom Hartmann (Progressive talk radio host) on his eponymous program, 8/3/2015.

It's getting ridiculous. Yes, Matthews is clearly in the bag for Hillary Clinton, but his constant distorting of Bernie's politics is really pissing me off. Right now I'm watching the "pre-debate" (ahead of the 5th Democratic debate) and this a-hole breaks out the dictionary definition of "Socialism". Of course he definition-shopped and chose the one that says government owns the means of production.

And, even though Howard Dean is a Hillary Surrogate (as well as a sell out), he still had enough integrity to correct Matthews, saying NO, Berie isn't a (Soviet-style) Socialist, but a Social Democrat like in the UK.

This is one of the reasons I've largely given up on msnbc. Up until Bernie showed that he is a viable contender (with his virtual tie in Iowa and his likely upcoming win in New Hampshire) msnbc was all Trump all the time. Now I expect more of the Bernie bashing (although I'm sure they'll continue with the Trump coverage as well unless he implodes).

The voters are so hungry for the genuine populism of Bernie Sanders that he's pushed Hillary to the Left. But I'm wondering that if Hillary is elected... how long will her populist views last? Remember in 2008 Barack Obama said he'd renegotiate NAFTA? Now he's pushing the job-killing TPP. And Hillary, before being pushed to the Left by Sanders, said the TPP was the "gold standard" (Politifact says HRC is guilty of a "full flop").

Even Debbie Wasserman Schultz (for crying out loud!) said she thought either of the two could beat the Republican. This she said in spite of an incredulous Chris Matthews' disbelief at what he was hearing. I've been hearing that the Repubs will break out the Hammer & Sickle if Bernie is the nominee, but Chris is practically doing that already. Proof the Corporate Dems are afraid of Bernie's populism, I think.

2/11/2013 Update: Thom Hartmann, in a discussion with Chris Matthews on the 2/2/2016 airing of his eponymous program said "Bernie doesn't believe that government should be involved in the means of production and supply. He isn't a Marxist"... to which Matthews replied "Uhhh, it hasn't come up yet. I don't know him that well. I just know that everytime I hear him talking it's a government solution". So Matthews apparently genuinely believes that Bernie is a Soviet-style socialist?

This despite the fact that Bernie himself has said (in a speech on democratic socialism at Georgetown University on 11/19/2015) "I don't believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production". OK, so shouldn't Matthews, as a political commentator know this? Chris either has his head in the sand re "it hasn't come up yet", or he's lying.

SWTD #321

On Debbie Wasserman Schultz Not Knowing The Difference Between A Socialist & A Democrat

Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all ~ Adam Smith (6/16/1723 to 7/17/1790) a Scottish moral philosopher and pioneer of political economy who is best known for two classic works: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776).

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, appearing on MSNBC's Hardball on Thursday 7/30/2015, was asked by Chris Matthews what the difference is between a Democrat and a Socialist. Instead of answering the question Debbie dodged it and spoke about the difference between the Dems and the Repubs.

The reason she didn't answer is because the response would not look good for Democrats. Because, as Bernie Sanders himself explained, democratic socialists are for The People.

[If] one takes a hard look at countries around the world who have successful records in fighting and implementing programs for the middle class and working families... Finland, Norway, Sweden, and other countries that have had labor governments or social democratic governments... what you find is that... health care is a right of all people and their systems are far more cost-effective than ours, college education is virtually free in all of those countries, people retire with better benefits, wages that people receive are often higher, distribution of wealth and income is much fairer, their public education systems are generally stronger than ours. (No Really—What's the Difference Between a Democrat and a Socialist? by Arit John. Bloomberg Politics 7/31/2015).

Republicans are the corporate party that fights for the large corporations and the wealthy, and Democrats are the corporate party that tries to strike a balance between fighting for the large corporations/the wealthy and the "lower classes" (and small businesses). Although they do have an entire caucus (the Progressives, which is Congress's largest caucus) that fights for The People.

This "balance" was laid out officially by Bill Clinton, who called it the Third Way. The First Way being fighting exclusively for The People and doing what is best for The People in all cases. While recognizing that what is beneficial to The People will also benefit corporations and the wealthy. Because when The People are doing well the economy does well. And that is beneficial to everyone. This describes the Progressive caucus. And I'd be hard pressed to say what the differences between Progressives and democratic Socialists are.

The Second Way is to sell out totally to the wealthy and corporations and work hard to feed their greed. Even though the wealthy and corporations do well when The People are doing well, for many greedy rich a-holes doing well (and sharing the wealth) is not good enough. They want more, and they want it at the expense of The People. They want the economy run exclusively for their benefit... and screw the "lower classes". They will be harmed in order that the wealthy do FAR better than the rest of us. This is the Way the modern Republican Party has chosen.

The Third Way was a path taken by Bill Clinton and is still the strategy to win elections that the Democratic Party (by and large) follows today. This strategy panders to the corporations and wealthy in order to get cash to fund their elections, while doing less to help The People. Pandering to the wealthy and corporations comes first, while doing what is best for The People comes second. Bill Clinton determined that this Third Way was necessary in order to combat the Republican advantage (of donations from the corporations and the wealthy going mostly to them).

Libertarians, FYI, stand with the Republicans (and follow the 2nd Way). Although they do it with a slight twist, which is their jettisoning of the social conservatism that the Republicans use to trick "lower class" bigots into voting for them. Because the corporations and the wealthy don't care about social conservatism. It simply does not affect their bottom line. In fact, being bigoted might cost a business money (and they'll say NO to Social Conservatism for that reason).

But this explains why the Libertarians are a very minor party. The Republicans have their dupes in the bigots, the Democrats have their dupes, although many vote Democrat simply because there is no better option. Except for the Progressives. They're the better option, and people who aren't duped will vote for them when they can (if a Progressive is running).

Libertarians have their dupes, but they are significantly less of them. They don't have the bigots and they don't have the non-dupes who realize that Libertarians, Repubs and 3rd Way Dems are fighting for the wealthy. The voters who remain, the non-bigoted dupes who believe that fighting for the wealthy will benefit all, work out to be a very small group.

There is another twist in how the Libertarians wish to serve the wealthy that I didn't mention yet. This second twist is that they profess to want to get government out of the way by decreasing regulations significantly. And they also profess to oppose bailouts and crony capitalism. Because they hate government and believe that the wealthy should have all the power (which they do not wish to share with government).

Although (excepting the true believers) this is a somewhat lie. I say somewhat because this is their true desire, but they will not spurn government help so long as it is available. The Koch brothers being an example of plutocrats who say they are Libertarians but fight for handouts from government. (How Koch Industries Makes Billions By Demanding Bailouts And Taxpayer Subsidies 3/1/2011).

The Koch Brothers might prefer to get government out of the way, but so long as the system exists as it does (a system where bailouts and crony capitalism exist) they will get in line and shamelessly beg for these gifts paid for by taxpayers.

But back to Wasserman Schultz... she obviously could not lay out this distinction... because it would look bad for the 3rd Way Democratic Party. Which the Democratic Party is; in spite of the existence of the Progressive caucus. Most Progressives have to go along to get along. They TRY to serve The People primarily, but simply are not able to. Because the alliance between the corporate Republicans and the corporate Republicans prevent them from working for The People alone.

As for WHY Chris Matthews asked this question in the first place... he was acting as the "tip of the spear" in the 3rd Way Democrat plan to take down Bernie Sanders (for more on this see DSB #16).

Video: Matthews "Dumbfounds" DNC Chair: "Tell Me the Difference Between You and a Socialist". (1:24).

SWTD #301