Michael Stuart Kelly

WikiLeaks and other Whistleblowers - Clinton

Recommended Posts

The best site I have found so far that simplifies the WikiLeaks dumps for this election is:

Most Damaging WikiLeaks

It is constantly updated.

I've added it to the opening post.

You can skim it easily, too, if you don't have much time. The core ideas are stated simply in bold. Then the quotes and links are in a smaller font.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reddit is a place where a lot of the WikiLeaks dumps are teased out, the interesting, important and relevant information is highlighted, and it's all put into an easier form for spreading around. All this is done by users.

However, Hillary Clinton pays a bunch of trolls to try to muddy their efforts. Everybody knows that, but the Clinton trolls constantly deny it.

So it's nice to read an article like the following (from The Daily Caller).

Reddit Users Declare War On Hillary’s Paid Internet Trolls

:)

Michael

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite a leak, but a leak nonetheless: recorded Hillary Clinton speaking to a Jewish editorial board in 2006. I excerpt a fair bit of a very interesting article. It appeared in The Observer under the headline "2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election."

Quote

 

Unearthed tape: 'We should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win' [...]

Another part of the tape highlights something that was relatively uncontroversial at the time but has taken on new meaning in light of the current campaign—speaking to leaders with whom our country is not on the best terms. Clinton has presented a very tough front in discussing Russia, for example, accusing Trump of unseemly ardor for strongman Vladimir Putin and mocking his oft-stated prediction that as president he’d “get along” with Putin.

Chomsky is heard on the tape asking Clinton what now seems like a prescient question about Syria, given the disaster unfolding there and its looming threat to drag the U.S., Iran and Russia into confrontation.

“Do you think it’s worth talking to Syria—both from the U.S. point [of view] and Israel’s point [of view]?”

Clinton replied, “You know, I’m pretty much of the mind that I don’t see what it hurts to talk to people. As long as you’re not stupid and giving things away. I mean, we talked to the Soviet Union for 40 years. They invaded Hungary, they invaded Czechoslovakia, they persecuted the Jews, they invaded Afghanistan, they destabilized governments, they put missiles 90 miles from our shores, we never stopped talking to them,” an answer that reflects her mastery of the facts but also reflects a willingness to talk to Russia that sounds more like Trump 2016 than Clinton 2016.

Shortly after, she said, “But if you say, ‘they’re evil, we’re good, [and] we’re never dealing with them,’ I think you give up a lot of the tools that you need to have in order to defeat them…So I would like to talk to you [the enemy] because I want to know more about you. Because if I want to defeat you, I’ve got to know something more about you. I need different tools to use in my campaign against you. That’s my take on it.”

A final bit of interest to the current campaign involves an articulation of phrases that Trump has accused Clinton of being reluctant to use. Discussing the need for a response to terrorism, Clinton said, “I think you can make the case that whether you call it ‘Islamic terrorism’ or ‘Islamo-fascism,’ whatever the label is we’re going to give to this phenomenon, it’s a threat. It’s a global threat. To Europe, to Israel, to the United States…Therefore we need a global response. It’s a global threat and it needs a global response. That can be the, sort of, statement of principle…So I think sometimes having the global vision is a help as long as you realize that underneath that global vision there’s a lot of variety and differentiation that has to go on.”

It’s not clear what she means by a global vision with variety and differentiation, but what’s quite clear is that the then-senator, just five years after her state was the epicenter of the September 11 attacks, was comfortable deploying the phrase “Islamic terrorism” and the even more strident “Islamo-fascism,” at least when meeting with the editorial board of a Jewish newspaper.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Newsweek part of the Clinton octopus?  This story is an attempt to dig up shocking dirt on White House email on a party-owned server, and somehow tie it into the conduct of war and secrecy and the primacy of law. It is not from social media, and it may be fact-free. You decide:

Quote

For 18 months, Republican strategists, political pundits, reporters and Americans who follow them have been pursuing Hillary Clinton’s personal email habits, and no evidence of a crime has been found. But now they at least have the skills and interest to focus on a much larger and deeper email conspiracy, one involving war, lies, a private server run by the Republican Party and contempt of Congress citations—all of it still unsolved and unpunished.

 

lookasquirrel.jpg  

Clinton’s email habits look positively transparent when compared with the subpoena-dodging, email-hiding, private-server-using George W. Bush administration. Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails. This correspondence included millions of emails written during the darkest period in America’s recent history, when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons.

I don't expect this whistleblowing-on-behalf-of-Clinton-Inc to change any voting intentions at OL (at least among those who post. Gawd knows where the quieter members and the hundreds of daily guest visitors are on the spectrum). And anyway,  the last few vote-switchings were to Trump, not from Trump, except for one outlier (though of course the self-exiled Gentlemen of the Lake made no secret of their antipathy to a Trump White House).

Can one actually put partisanship aside in reading about these White House emails?  Can one assess it like a sandwich offering, and say there is no meat?  Which dumb question brought me back to the days when I had a head of hair.

tumblr_o36dz9AW1P1tkacluo1_540.jpg

I mean, I can't remember any of these details of White House hinky panking with official emails. I knew nothing about the RNC server. This changes my opinion of Mrs Clinton not one bit -- but I have to say I admire the teamwork that put the Newsweek story together.  Why isn't this TRENDING on Facebook and Kylie-Tyga world?  Why wasn't this featured on Drudge?

Edited by william.scherk
Fixed the auto-play [added thanks to Michael, the Video-Fu Master

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

No you didn't.

If you can't, let me know.

EDIT: I fixed it.

Michael

That was horrible. I hate any auto-play.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to put this in the top post yet because I want to see where it goes, but Steve Pieczenik claims the emails leaked to WikiLeaks came from a large group of disgusted people in the US intelligence community.

The video was posted yesterday and already has over 650 thousand views.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The results of the following will come after the election, but it looks like Google is going to have a massive class action lawsuit to contend with.

Maybe Google should stick to serving their users instead of selling them to Clinton and other cronies.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'm not going to put this in the top post yet because I want to see where it goes, but Steve Pieczenik claims the emails leaked to WikiLeaks came from a large group of disgusted people in the US intelligence community.

The video was posted yesterday and already has over 650 thousand views.

Steve Pieczenik further discusses what is going on with Alex Jones:

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2016 at 11:14 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The Vaskal blog filters the most revealing emails by fewer categories than the others. This has been retweeted by WikiLeaks.

The Most Revealing Emails from the #PodestaFiles, Separated By Category (Parts 1 - 28)

I just added that to the opening post.

The categories are:

Policy / Position
Foreign Affairs
Media Collusion
Campaign Strategy / Concerns
Bernie Sanders
Criminal Liability
Other

Enjoy.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the full interview.

In his analysis, Assange says the elites are not going to let Trump win--that every major institution (banks, arms manufacturers, media, political networks, etc.), with the exception of Evangelicals, are opposed to Trump and this is too massive for him to resist.

I don't buy it.

Notice that Assange said Trump supporters are "white trash." I'll give him a pass because of WikiLeaks, but he's got a snooty nose for sure. The only thing he understands about Americana is that these people like the truth and will act when presented with it. One day I hope he learns he is not inherently superior to other humans just because his awesome superior self graced the universe by magically springing into existence as a new species.

Trump will win (I think so) or he won't. But not because ruling class interests are too powerful to ever allow that to happen. In either case, the current ruling class will be dismantled. A new one will take its place (these people are like cockroaches), but the old one has had its cover blown.

Think of it. With the current momentum of the Trump movement, should Clinton win, does anyone think that movement will go away? And if they think Trump is harsh, what kind of candidate do they think will exist 4 years from now, especially after Clinton's impeachment? The popular expression is jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

When America was founded, there was the elite ruling class. Right before the Civil War, there was the elite ruling class. Through every major upheaval America has been through, there was a powerful elite ruling class, a vicious snooty one--and there were lots of people (sometimes intelligent people) who said good things couldn't be done for normal people.

But they were done.

America is an idea, not a ruling class.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikileaks staffer is clear about what "we" suspect, if not quite categorical about Qanon:

wikileaksQanonLARPtweet.png

-- link to Medium story, written by Caitlin Johnstone (yes, that Caitlin Johnstone, the Syria chemical weapons truther).

A fuller and more persuasive analysis is by Susie Dawson. I include the first in a tweet thread that builds a case that Qanon is a plant -- a character devised by some arm of the intelligence "community," emanating from the deep, wide, flat-bottomed State. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like it could be Fake News. What is the status of Britain's Sunday Times? Wholly and completely full of shit?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herr herr herr ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...