For those claiming the Wikileaks dump is no big deal, this will change your mind

cnelsen

Gold Member
Oct 11, 2016
4,317
498
160
Washington, DC
This is almost painful to watch. Donna Brazile sliding into the pit of ignominy when confronted with evidence from Wikileaks and nothing--NOTHING--to grab onto. It's straight up damning.

Also, anyone who actually starts reading these emails will quickly know they are authentic. They don't need to be "verified".

Megyn Kelly Grills Donna Brazile About Allegedly Receiving Debate Question Early

As is so often the case, the Washington Post stands out for its especially contemptible reporting on this--essentially: the important thing to remember is that this is all Russia's fault, and everyone knows Russians are cheaters, so these emails should just be dismissed without a second glance. (CNN provided the helpful information to its viewers that it was, in fact, illegal to even read them unless you were a member of the media. "We'll tell you what they say", some reporter actually said.)

Well, the Washington Post did not tell us about the devastating exposure contained in the email that is the subject of the video above. But it did give us four(!) stories about how Ecuador, or... somebody... cut off Julian Assange's internet access, and another about how a Democrat doesn't think these email releases serve the public good.

Almost every Washington Post story on the WikiLeaks dump quickly pivots to how hateful Russians are, especially Putin, and how it is probably all Russia's fault Americans are learning so much about how our system really works: “By dribbling these out every day, WikiLeaks is proving they are nothing but a propaganda arm of the Kremlin with a political agenda doing Putin’s dirty work to help elect Donald Trump,” said Clinton spokesman Glen Caplin. Proving!

The US is actually rattling the saber against Russia over the sanctity of our democratic vote (it's different when we overtly interfere in the Ukraine's election, or, hell, just flat-out kill the leader of Iraq), foreign governments (except Israel and Mexico) (and dual citizens like George Soros and Haim Saban, both extensively part of the emails) (and foreign corporations via the US Chamber of Commerce) (and transnational ethnic-identity groups like La Raza) better not even try to influence our election by being suspected by many of having links to WikiLeaks which is letting Americans see just how corrupt their government and the media really are.
 
As an Independent voter, I frankly don't care what the DNC or RNC do or don't do with regard to how they manage their affairs. The fact of the matter is that each of them is a private organization, not a governmental organization. How they go about selecting whomever they nominate to the general election is their business.

While I can understand Sanders supporters being plucked over the revelation, assuming it's legit, truly, I'm not at all sure what it is Republicans find upsetting about it.
  • Are they ticked that Trump's opponent is Clinton rather than Sanders? If so, why? It's not as though Republicans had anything to do with whom the Democrats nominated.
  • Are Republicans wanting to vote for Sanders? If so, they still can, all they need do is write in his name on their ballots.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
As an Independent voter, I frankly don't care what the DNC or RNC do or don't do with regard to how they manage their affairs. The fact of the matter is that each of them is a private organization, not a governmental organization. How they go about selecting whomever they nominate to the general election is their business.

While I can understand Sanders supporters being plucked over the revelation, assuming it's legit, truly, I'm not at all sure what it is Republicans find upsetting about it.
  • Are they ticked that Trump's opponent is Clinton rather than Sanders? If so, why? It's not as though Republicans had anything to do with whom the Democrats nominated.
  • Are Republicans wanting to vote for Sanders? If so, they still can, all they need do is write in his name on their ballots.
I can't speak for anyone else, but what I find most appalling in the emails are 1) members of the media giving Clinton veto power over news articles, media organizations providing the Clinton campaign with the questions before debates and town hall meetings, etc., and 2) the willingness of the campaign to dance to Soros' tune in exchange for:
 
I can't speak for anyone else, but what I find most appalling in the emails are 1) members of the media giving Clinton veto power over news articles, media organizations providing the Clinton campaign with the questions before debates and town hall meetings, etc., and 2) the willingness of the campaign to dance to Soros' tune in exchange for:

Excuse me? Did I miss somethings in that article referenced in your OP?
  • I didn't see anything in the article indicating the Clinton campaign had "veto power over news articles."
  • I read your OP and the related news story to which you gave us a link. I didn't see anything indicating that CNN provided a question to the DNC or Clinton campaign. Obviously, the debate question, assuming it's authentically one CNN settled upon, had to have originated at CNN, but how it got from CNN to Ms. Brazile is indeterminate given the information you've shared.
  • I don't see George Soros' name even mentioned, so that anyone was "dancing to his tune" in exchange for anything is highly speculative.
The remarks above allude to the issue I have with a lot of stuff I read members posting on this website as well as with much that I hear in public political discourse. I am not given to speculative deriding of people based on what seems so, but absent careful scrutiny may not be so.

57aa963b-278a-4b9c-bd5a-da27af0cf3b4.jpg


Quite simply, perception is not necessarily reality, and as all things political involve people, we have a human duty to ignore our perception and chase down the true reality.
 

Forum List

Back
Top