Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Obama – on wikileaks
- This topic has 30 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 19, 2017 at 6:32 am #63884wvParticipant
Obama Parting Shot Aims At Brennan, Clapper, Clinton: “The DNC Emails Were Leaked”
link:http://www.moonofalabama.org/Three U.S. Intelligence Agencies (CIA, NSA and FBI) claim that IT-Systems of the Democratic National Committee were “hacked” in an operation related to the Russian government. They assert that emails copied during the “hack” were transferred by Russian government related hackers to Wikileaks which then published them.
President Obama disagrees. He says those emails were “leaked”.
Wikileaks had insisted that the emails it published came from an insider source not from any government. The DNC emails proved that the supposedly neutral Democratic Party committee had manipulated the primary presidential elections in favor of the later candidate Hillary Clinton. This made it impossible for the alternative candidate Bernie Sanders to win the nomination. Hillory Clinton, who had extremely high unfavorable ratings, lost the final elections.
The President of the United States disagrees with those Intelligence Services. He says that the DNC emails were “leaked”, i.e. copied by an insider, and then transferred to Wikileaks. (At the time around the leaking the DNC IT-administrator Seth Rich was found murdered for no apparent reason in the streets of Washington DC. The murder case was never solved.)
Here is President Obama in his final press conference yesterday:
First of all, I haven’t commented on WikiLeaks, generally. The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether Wikileaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC emails that were leaked.
The DNC emails “that were leaked” – not “hacked” or “stolen” but “leaked”.
One wonders if this is a parting shot is primarily aimed at the involved Intelligence Agencies led by James Clapper and John Brennan. Or is dissing Hillary Clinton and her narrative the main purpose?
The presidential judgement could change the political pressure towards a new cold war with Russia if the mainstream media would pick it up and discuss it. But the media are widely invested in the “hacking” claims (and even create their own ones from hot air). They are also furthering the anti-Russian narrative. We therefore can not expect that they will report this presidential parting shot at all.
h/t – Shuaib M. Almosawa
January 19, 2017 at 1:19 pm #63899ZooeyModeratorYou know…things like this
(At the time around the leaking the DNC IT-administrator Seth Rich was found murdered for no apparent reason in the streets of Washington DC. The murder case was never solved.)
and the Phoenix Program, and Erik Prince, and Robert Mercer…just make you wonder how deep it all goes. There are quite definitely people in positions of high power who are gangsters.
Really, what’s to stop them? Why would they not? They aren’t going to restrain themselves, so what would stop them from doing everything possible to manipulate outcomes?
January 19, 2017 at 5:03 pm #63905Billy_TParticipantI think the blogger is projecting and jumping to confusions. Obama didn’t say what he thinks he said:
Here’s the full transcript of his press conference:
Obama’s Last News Conference: Full Transcript and Video JAN. 18, 2017
(From the NYT)
______
______And here’s the blogger’s main assertion:
Three U.S. Intelligence Agencies (CIA, NSA and FBI) claim that IT-Systems of the Democratic National Committee were “hacked” in an operation related to the Russian government. They assert that emails copied during the “hack” were transferred by Russian government related hackers to Wikileaks which then published them.
President Obama disagrees. He says those emails were “leaked”.
Wikileaks had insisted that the emails it published came from an insider source not from any government. The DNC emails proved that the supposedly neutral Democratic Party committee had manipulated the primary presidential elections in favor of the later candidate Hillary Clinton. This made it impossible for the alternative candidate Bernie Sanders to win the nomination. Hillory Clinton, who had extremely high unfavorable ratings, lost the final elections.
The President of the United States disagrees with those Intelligence Services. He says that the DNC emails were “leaked”, i.e. copied by an insider, and then transferred to Wikileaks. (At the time around the leaking the DNC IT-administrator Seth Rich was found murdered for no apparent reason in the streets of Washington DC. The murder case was never solved.)
Here is President Obama in his final press conference yesterday:
First of all, I haven’t commented on WikiLeaks, generally. The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether Wikileaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC emails that were leaked.
The DNC emails “that were leaked” – not “hacked” or “stolen” but “leaked”.
_____
Obama is talking about the leaks AFTER the hack. The disagreement here isn’t between those who believe it was leaked by the DNC, and those who believe it was hacked, then given to Wikileaks, who THEN leaked it. The latter is accepted by Obama and the intelligence community. They don’t question that this is what happened. Obama is just saying it’s not absolutely confirmed yet who did the hacking, or how the info got from the hackers to Wikileaks.
- This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.
January 19, 2017 at 5:13 pm #63907Billy_TParticipantIn short, the guy from moonofalabama.org isn’t using “leaks” in the same way Obama is.
Whether or not Obama and the various intelligence agencies are correct on their view of the sequence, they aren’t saying it was leaked by the DNC to Wikileaks. Obama isn’t. And the spooks aren’t. He’s just trying to be his usual “no drama” Obama by saying, Hey, let’s hold off on saying it’s absolutely certain Russia did this.
And my guess? Once he’s completely free and clear of the White House, and no longer has to tippy toe around saying things that might upset the “peaceful transfer of power,” he’s gonna just say Russia did it. And the evidence points to that being the case.
We did it to them. They did it to us. What’s so hard to accept about that?
January 20, 2017 at 1:58 pm #63952MackeyserModeratorIt’s shit like that that fuels the “Clintons are killers” narrative and honestly, there’s so much smoke that I dunno if we just haven’t found the fire or what.
I mean, the evidence says it was a leak from inside the DNC from disgruntled staff who specifically were upset with how the Clinton campaign disavowed democracy for the sake of hijacking elected office.
And yes, when a former British diplomat goes PUBLIC that he received the data and personally handed the information to the folks at Wikileaks… that’s the kind of proof one needs. Everything he said fits the facts perfectly.
So… it’s clear that either Seth Rich did it or had to be party to it due to the level of access required to access all of those emails… And not long after the emails come out?
He’s murdered.
Yeah… I’m on the “Clinton had him murdered” train.
That’s not a big leap.
I mean, we have evidence that both Russians and Chinese were monitoring the election and that the Russians preferred Trump, but it was Clinton who the emails proved used the US MSM to elevate Trump, not the Russians.
It was Clinton who disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of NY democratic voters in NY and millions of CA.
The cheating was so rampant that you had Democratic poll workers who were aghast and made videos and ran to the MSM only to find out that… NO ONE WAS INTERESTED. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
When Bernie was done… he kept fighting for his values and the American people. When Clinton’s cheating didn’t net her the office she felt entitled to? Yeah, she went into seclusion.
Apparently, she wasn’t fighting for the American people or even Democrats…just her own selfish ambition. I’ve had critics mention misogygny…which is funny because MY personal favorite alternate other than Bernie…maybe MORESO than Bernie is Tulsi Gabbard. No one really close, although I do also really like Nina Turner, state senator from Ohio. Point being that all my alternatives to Bernie are WOMEN..specifically smart, strong, powerful qualified women of color. Kamala Harris essentially is disqualified for not prosecuting OneWest Bank. Sorry…when you got over 1000 violations and you just drop the ball? Done. I’m done with you. Go be a corporate puppet like Corey Booker.
Anyway, as for the OP, yeah, they were leaked, not hacked. Been the story from day one by Wikileaks, verified by the person who handed the info over to Wikileaks AND the person inside likely responsible for the leak…is conveniently murdered days after the handoff so that Clinton and the corporate DNC can further this hacking narrative.
Leave it to corporate Dems even when presented with Donald Trump to find a way to not be able to be an opposition party, to find a way to dither away any advantage, to screw up any and everything.
Lewis Black is right… it’s no longer Rep and Dem or Conservative and Liberal…it’s Psychotic and Idiotic.
We need a third party. And Green isn’t it…
Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.
January 20, 2017 at 2:18 pm #63955Billy_TParticipantWell, Mac,
I’ve never seen any evidence to support the theory they were leaked by the DNC. All I’ve ever seen are the assertions that this happened.
And, seriously, claiming Clinton had Seth Rich killed? Believe what you want, but to me that strains all credulity to the nth degree.
It’s one thing to acknowledge that both parties have waged continuous warfare on the poor, bombed the innocent, overthrown democratically elected governments, funded fascists and other reactionary forces around the globe . . . and they should be held accountable for that. But to imagine they would risk exposure here, domestically, because someone may have leaked info about their campaign? Why would they do that, Mac?
It’s very similar to the 9/11 truther argument in this way: We have a very long history of our government doing horrible things, to millions of humans, and to the planet. But politicians and the people who pull their strings pretty much never shit where they work and eat. They’re just not going to risk their own freedom, blow up key Deep State power centers, when they could provoke wars by much, much safer means — if that was their intent.
They’d just cook up something in Iraq, in that case, so that there is no need to have a large, working conspiracy here at home, and no domestic power centers are attacked here.
It’s just not plausible, Mac. It’s far too much in the realm of a poorly constructed, B-level thriller.
January 20, 2017 at 2:22 pm #63956Billy_TParticipantAnd, Mac,
I say all the above as someone who voted for Stein, can’t stand the Clintons, or the Dems, or the GOP, wants the duopoly destroyed, and the capitalist system wiped out and replaced with a fully democratized alternative we all own directly, together, equally, cooperatively.
It’s no defense of Clinton to say that some accusations against her are fringe, absent one iota of proof, and these distract from the real things, the actually existing things the Clintons and the Dems have done which deserve our focus and our condemnation.
She and the DNC did screw Sanders, for instance. But it’s huge leap from that to say she had one of her campaign workers murdered.
Again, it’s shitting where you eat and work, and the powers that be tend to avoid that like the plague.
January 20, 2017 at 3:02 pm #63958znModeratorAnd yes, when a former British diplomat goes PUBLIC that he received the data and personally handed the information to the folks at Wikileaks… that’s the kind of proof one needs. Everything he said fits the facts perfectly.
So… it’s clear that either Seth Rich did it or had to be party to it due to the level of access required to access all of those emails… And not long after the emails come out?
I don;t buy this narrative. A brit diplomat says he received data from an american. And yet he does not himself say that the DNC guy who delivered this info to HIM (cause that’s what a staffer type would do, seek out a british diplomat, right?) was in fact murdered.
Meanwhile Trump himself says that the evidence indicates there was Russian involvement in the election. Including hacking. And if saying that’s a conspiracy then all 17 USA intel agencies are in on it…because? (?)
January 20, 2017 at 3:20 pm #63959MackeyserModeratorI just don’t believe in coincidence.
It’s more than likely that specifically he was the person responsible in part or en toto for the dissemination of the emails to Wikileaks.
The ONLY reason the “hacking” narrative can continue to live on is because he’s dead.
If he was alive, ONE interview…just ONE statement to ONE reporter would kill all of that dead, especially if he were to appear on camera. Further, it would only add to the indictment of the current DNC.
So, no, it’s not shitting where one eats. It’s more accurately called tying up loose ends.
Something the Clintons are extraordinarily adept at.
I mean, they ARE guilty of several things including Hillary with insider trading and both of them with the land deal. However, the one talent that they have that I honestly have never seen anyone else possess is having other people be willing to go to jail for them. If ANY of a number of people would have rolled on the Clintons in a number of situations…even one time… the Clintons, individually or jointly would have gone to jail.
But, they didn’t. Now, is it because their political opponents end up dead as so many in Arkansas allege and have alleged for decades? Is it because they are like Lannisters and always pay their debts? A combination of both?
I’m not exactly sure.
I AM sure that they are NOT innocent.
Clinton DID subvert democracy, DID use the MSM to elevate Donald Trump because she thought he’d be the easiest to beat (so, we can exchange “Thanks Obama to Thanks Hillary”) and so forth…
And the list of political…shall we say adversaries…of the Clintons who are dead is scary long. Worse, it involves plane crashes, etc.
Let’s not act like political assassinations ONLY happen in banana republics and in Putin’s Russia. That would be naive.
Occam’s razor. The ONLY thing that stood in the way of the complete dismantling of the DNC and the Clinton machine, that totally validated the emails AND would give voice and context to the malfeasance… ended up murdered prior to being able to talk with anyone…and to no one’s surprise, it’s an unsolved murder.
Shitting where you eat would be if they killed him in their home or were personally involved. I’m sure there was enough distance that Robert Ludlum would be impressed. Not the point.
The point is that the Clinton emails were leaked by Clinton personnel. And the likely leaker was murdered.
The ONLY people with motive…were Clinton personnel and high level DNC staff with a vested interest in keeping out the progressive wing and maintaining the corporate status quo. “Geld uber alles” (money above all) should be the DNC motto…
Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.
January 20, 2017 at 3:27 pm #63961Billy_TParticipantAnd yes, when a former British diplomat goes PUBLIC that he received the data and personally handed the information to the folks at Wikileaks… that’s the kind of proof one needs. Everything he said fits the facts perfectly.
So… it’s clear that either Seth Rich did it or had to be party to it due to the level of access required to access all of those emails… And not long after the emails come out?
I don;t buy this narrative. A brit diplomat says he received data from an american. And yet he does not himself say that the DNC guy who delivered this info to HIM (cause that’s what a staffer type would do, seek out a british diplomat, right?) was in fact murdered.
Meanwhile Trump himself says that the evidence indicates there was Russian involvement in the election. Including hacking. And if saying that’s a conspiracy then all 17 USA intel agencies are in on it…because? (?)
Yep.
The general agreement between those agencies is, to me, a big tell. Historically, they can’t stand each other. The infighting between the various agencies has been ongoing for decades, and it got worse after 9/11. In the rare times they come together for at least a rough consensus, I think it’s a pretty safe bet there’s fire behind the smoke. And that has nothing to do with an acceptance of their overall mission, or withholding condemnation for past wrongs, etc. etc. One can remain opposed to all of that and still see they can get data collection right.
I also don’t buy the narrative that they’re all in cahoots with the Clintons. The evidence just doesn’t support this. They’re not liked enough for that, except by their own team and supporters. In general, the military, police and intel communities have always viewed Dems with great suspicion, if not outright contempt . . . all too often seeing them as “far left” or “radical,” even though the reality is quite different. They don’t see them as we leftists do. They don’t see the Clintons, the Obamas, the Dems as centrists or center-right on most issues.
Beyond all of that, sometimes a soup can is just a soup can.
Andy Warhol’s Campbell Soup Cans. 1962. MOMA.January 20, 2017 at 3:43 pm #63962Billy_TParticipantLet’s not act like political assassinations ONLY happen in banana republics and in Putin’s Russia. That would be naive.
Occam’s razor. The ONLY thing that stood in the way of the complete dismantling of the DNC and the Clinton machine, that totally validated the emails AND would give voice and context to the malfeasance… ended up murdered prior to being able to talk with anyone…and to no one’s surprise, it’s an unsolved murder.
The point is that the Clinton emails were leaked by Clinton personnel. And the likely leaker was murdered.
The ONLY people with motive…were Clinton personnel and high level DNC staff with a vested interest in keeping out the progressive wing and maintaining the corporate status quo. “Geld uber alles” (money above all) should be the DNC motto…
Mac, that’s a lot to go through, so I’ll just focus on this part.
First off, no one’s saying political assassinations don’t happen here. But, as is the case when people argue 9/11 was an inside job, you have to look at risks and costs, and you have to look at how you can accomplish your goals without those risks and those costs. Clinton and the DNC had a ton of options well short of murder. That should go without saying.
Also, there is zero proof that the emails were leaked by DNC staff. If people are highly skeptical about Russia hacking, isn’t it logical to be highly skeptical of rumors spread by far-right, fringe media that says the Clintons are murderers?
As for motive. The motives for Russia/Putin trying to install Trump as president are legion, and the evidence he, several former and current campaign staff, plus cabinet nominees have long time connections there are as well. Trump has only made these connections loom larger since the election. Rex Tillerson, for example, the former CEO of Exxon, was given medals by Putin directly, and Exxon can’t drill on 63 million acres (it owns) there until we lift sanctions. Trump has promised he would.
January 20, 2017 at 3:55 pm #63963Billy_TParticipantAdd to all of that territorial disputes, and the outright Anschluss of Crimea. Putin had a huge motive to get Trump elected when it comes to those. Trump has given every indication that he doesn’t care about Russia attempts to expand its empire — and, yes, America has expanded its empire for two centuries. But two wrongs don’t make a right, etc. Trump also showed opposition to NATO during the campaign. It’s as if Putin were speaking through him at times.
From my perspective, the only way to get from A to B along the path you’ve chosen is to assume Clinton is Caligula, without one whit of intelligence or common sense. If people want to think of her as evil, that’s up them. But it stretches all the bounds of credulity to believe she would risk life in prison to do what you and others suggest, when there were so many much safer options.
- This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.
January 20, 2017 at 10:53 pm #63977MackeyserModeratorYes Putin had motives. Of course.
However, it would be naive to insist that Clinton did not.
Moreover, I find it curious that we acknowledge political assassinations in foreign countries by foreign governments AND we acknowledge that WE engage in political assassinations abroad via various direct and indirect means (drones, CIA and CIA contracted, etc)
What we can’t acknowledge is any domestic political assassination.
I mean which one can we acknowledge? Name one.
Point is that there is tremendous antipathy for people on every part of the political spectrum to allow for even the thought to pierce the critical thinking veil. However, simple deductive reasoning leads us to the logical and inevitable conclusion that it MUST be happening here.
And if so, then…when? Which murders are politically motivated? And why must every murder of anyone in government absolutely be NOT politically motivated no matter how many parties have motive, resources and opportunity?
Please understand. I’m NOT trying to say it’s NOT possible that Putin was responsible.
My best read is that the British diplomat wasn’t lying. That doesn’t fit.
Here’s where the Russian narrative falls apart.
WELL BEFORE the Russians supposedly got active, we know from the Wikileak’d emails that Clinton met with the MSM chiefs, top reporters and heads of networks to collude to elevate coverage of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in an effort to “pick her opponent”. They subsequently gave him more than $2B worth of free coverage.
Thus, the Russian narrative timeline doesn’t match. Well before any supposed Russian incursion, even before Clinton really was set up, they were trying to game this election and essentially fix it. That would be Clinton, the DNC and the MSM.
Now, is this a case of Murder on the Orient Express? Do we have multiple culprits? Maybe. Maybe even likely.
However, the Russians had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with elevating Trump, nothing whatsoever to do with saturating him over the airwaves for MONTHS, choking every other candidate of either party of any oxygen…
As for Clinton being Caligula, sorry, but that’s intellectually lazy. She’s on tape saying that she’s in favor of fixing elections, specifically I believe the 2006 Palestinian election. So much for “exporting Democracy”. So, I have ZERO faith in her have ANY integrity. The proof would continue to mount that she and her staff and the DNC sought to rig the primary process which DID risk violating Federal Election laws…except she knows that unless the MSM broadcasts it, no one seems to give a shit.
If it ain’t on TV, no one cares, apparently…
So, I dunno that she felt she was risking anything.
I think the truth very well may be a confluence of Clintonian corruption and Russian influence.
But when it comes to Trump, I’m always gonna put it on Clinton. I mean, the Russians couldn’t hack emails that show her and her staff trying to steal an election if they hadn’t tried to steal it… and even before the Russians got involved. SHE or one of her counselors decided that it was smart to elevate Trump cuz he was easy pickings.
Thanks Hillary. If she had just believed in democracy, not felt entitled and ran a straight campaign based on ideas…win, lose or draw…either she or Bernie would easily have won.
Then again, if the MSM had any integrity, they wouldn’t have allowed themselves to be coopted in the first place…so there’s that…
- This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Mackeyser.
Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.
January 20, 2017 at 11:23 pm #63979Billy_TParticipantMac,
Yes, Clinton had motives to win the election. It’s a huge stretch to then say she had a motive to kill a staff member. Again, that’s just a really bad, B-level thriller.
And you’ve made several statements about what we supposedly know. Actually, we don’t know the things you’ve asserted. The hacked emails didn’t show us this, for instance:
WELL BEFORE the Russians supposedly got active, we know from the Wikileak’d emails that Clinton met with the MSM chiefs, top reporters and heads of networks to collude to elevate coverage of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in an effort to “pick her opponent”. They subsequently gave him more than $2B worth of free coverage.
There is no evidence that any of the above happened. And if it had, why on earth did the MSM spend more time on the Clinton emails than any other subject? It was far and away their number one focus overall.
Beyond that, Mac, it appears you’re trying to argue that, unless we believe the Clintons killed several people in secret, we’re not capable of thinking critically or making logical deductions. On the contrary, what I’m reading is that you have already made up your mind about this, and you’ve back-filled from there. I don’t see the logical steps leading up to that conclusion, or the evidence to support those logical steps. I see you deciding before hand that they’re evil enough to do this, and you’ve worked backward from that premise.
Yes, American presidents and military leaders make decisions that end up killing hundreds, thousands, millions of innocents over time. Vietnam War: 3 million innocents; Korea: 2-4 million innocents; the wars in Iraq: from 500,000 to a million or more. And on and on. I think we’ve only fought in two wars we could justify: 1812 and WWII. And we committed war crimes in both.
But politicians with even an ounce of intelligence, and a spark of humanity, don’t kill their own staff, here in the States, where it’s easy to get caught, where a full-on conspiracy would have to be in place, and where they no longer have the distance needed to rationalize the whole thing. Bombing people in foreign lands provides that distance. And unless a person is an outright psychopath or sociopath, it goes against our nature to kill people we know in cold blood. It’s damn rare — even for the bastards in power.
Not buying it, Mac. Sorry.
January 20, 2017 at 11:35 pm #63980Billy_TParticipantAlso, I blame Clinton for Trump’s win too. But not for the reasons you give. Her window was closed. She wasn’t liked. She ran a terrible campaign. She looked very tired all too often. She made the deplorables comment. She didn’t campaign often enough or at all behind the fabled “blue wall.”
And the GOP had been making up shhht about her and Bill for 25 years, with endless hearings which STILL couldn’t find anything illegal. Think about it. The GOP had hearing after hearing, and they couldn’t nail her. Or Bill.
Another biggie: Bill Clinton’s past as an alleged sexual predator. That, IMO, was huge, because the Access Hollywood bombshell sinks Trump if he can’t turn that back on the Clintons. For enough voters, they could say, “Well, both sides do it,” and go on from there. That wouldn’t have been the case with Sanders or someone else, and the Dems were stupid to clear the field for Hillary and run her despite all of that baggage.
In short, Mac, they didn’t need any sinister, secret, evil shenanigans to sink her ship. She had so much baggage, real and invented by the GOP, it just wasn’t necessary. She was likely the ONLY candidate who could lose to Trump, and the Dems were crazy to push her . . . and she was selfish to insist on running after she’d already spent eight years in the White House and she knew she disliked.
January 20, 2017 at 11:46 pm #63983Billy_TParticipantAnd, there is this:
If Russia and/or Wikileaks weren’t trying to tilt the election for Clinton, why on earth did they ONLY leak info about the Dems? That alone is all the evidence we need. I did Internet tech support for 15 years, and know a little bit about security, and if they had wanted to get Republican emails, or Trump emails, they could have. And they likely did. But they chose NOT to release them and to only release the DNC’s.
That obviously helped create the perception among the electorate that only one of the two wings of the duopoly does stupid shit during a campaign.
And Assange lied when he said it wasn’t the Russians. How would he know? His own website makes it clear they can’t know the source because of the way they’ve set up the virtual dropbox, the way they encrypt the information and the way they store it. If he’s telling the truth about that, he’s lying about knowing who sent him the info. And if he’s lying about the anonymity of the process, then why would you trust him to tell the truth about the rest?
January 21, 2017 at 11:04 am #64000NewMexicoRamParticipantObama Parting Shot Aims At Brennan, Clapper, Clinton: “The DNC Emails Were Leaked”
link:http://www.moonofalabama.org/Three U.S. Intelligence Agencies (CIA, NSA and FBI) claim that IT-Systems of the Democratic National Committee were “hacked” in an operation related to the Russian government. They assert that emails copied during the “hack” were transferred by Russian government related hackers to Wikileaks which then published them.
President Obama disagrees. He says those emails were “leaked”.
Wikileaks had insisted that the emails it published came from an insider source not from any government. The DNC emails proved that the supposedly neutral Democratic Party committee had manipulated the primary presidential elections in favor of the later candidate Hillary Clinton. This made it impossible for the alternative candidate Bernie Sanders to win the nomination. Hillory Clinton, who had extremely high unfavorable ratings, lost the final elections.
The President of the United States disagrees with those Intelligence Services. He says that the DNC emails were “leaked”, i.e. copied by an insider, and then transferred to Wikileaks. (At the time around the leaking the DNC IT-administrator Seth Rich was found murdered for no apparent reason in the streets of Washington DC. The murder case was never solved.)
Here is President Obama in his final press conference yesterday:
First of all, I haven’t commented on WikiLeaks, generally. The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether Wikileaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC emails that were leaked.
The DNC emails “that were leaked” – not “hacked” or “stolen” but “leaked”.
One wonders if this is a parting shot is primarily aimed at the involved Intelligence Agencies led by James Clapper and John Brennan. Or is dissing Hillary Clinton and her narrative the main purpose?
The presidential judgement could change the political pressure towards a new cold war with Russia if the mainstream media would pick it up and discuss it. But the media are widely invested in the “hacking” claims (and even create their own ones from hot air). They are also furthering the anti-Russian narrative. We therefore can not expect that they will report this presidential parting shot at all.
h/t – Shuaib M. Almosawa
__________________________________________________
If they were “leaked”, then why did he try to “punish” the Russians, yet pardoned Manning?
Obama is more devious than ever.January 21, 2017 at 11:25 am #64006Billy_TParticipantObama Parting Shot Aims At Brennan, Clapper, Clinton: “The DNC Emails Were Leaked”
link:http://www.moonofalabama.org/Three U.S. Intelligence Agencies (CIA, NSA and FBI) claim that IT-Systems of the Democratic National Committee were “hacked” in an operation related to the Russian government. They assert that emails copied during the “hack” were transferred by Russian government related hackers to Wikileaks which then published them.
President Obama disagrees. He says those emails were “leaked”.
Wikileaks had insisted that the emails it published came from an insider source not from any government. The DNC emails proved that the supposedly neutral Democratic Party committee had manipulated the primary presidential elections in favor of the later candidate Hillary Clinton. This made it impossible for the alternative candidate Bernie Sanders to win the nomination. Hillory Clinton, who had extremely high unfavorable ratings, lost the final elections.
The President of the United States disagrees with those Intelligence Services. He says that the DNC emails were “leaked”, i.e. copied by an insider, and then transferred to Wikileaks. (At the time around the leaking the DNC IT-administrator Seth Rich was found murdered for no apparent reason in the streets of Washington DC. The murder case was never solved.)
Here is President Obama in his final press conference yesterday:
First of all, I haven’t commented on WikiLeaks, generally. The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether Wikileaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC emails that were leaked.
The DNC emails “that were leaked” – not “hacked” or “stolen” but “leaked”.
One wonders if this is a parting shot is primarily aimed at the involved Intelligence Agencies led by James Clapper and John Brennan. Or is dissing Hillary Clinton and her narrative the main purpose?
The presidential judgement could change the political pressure towards a new cold war with Russia if the mainstream media would pick it up and discuss it. But the media are widely invested in the “hacking” claims (and even create their own ones from hot air). They are also furthering the anti-Russian narrative. We therefore can not expect that they will report this presidential parting shot at all.
h/t – Shuaib M. Almosawa
__________________________________________________
If they were “leaked”, then why did he try to “punish” the Russians, yet pardoned Manning?
Obama is more devious than ever.NMR,
What’s “devious” about it?
The Russians hacked the election. They sent the info to Wikileaks. Wikileaks “leaked” the info (see name), which impacted the election in Trump’s favor.
As bad a candidate as Clinton was, and she was bad, I guarantee you this: No leaks of DNC emails, no Trump victory. Or, if both parties were exposed, instead of just the Dems, no Trump victory.
And the sanctions on Russia were primarily due to their cross-border aggression and takeover of Crimea, as well as their attempts in Ukraine. They were in place long before this election cycle. Plus, Obama actually did Trump a major favor by NOT making the Russian hacks a bigger issue before the election. He waited, instead, until after it was over, because he said he didn’t want to act in a partisan manner. I think that was a mistake. The serious nature of the attacks warranted full exposure so all Americans would know.
January 21, 2017 at 2:07 pm #64028MackeyserModeratorI think there is room for multiple bad actors.
When I heard the tape of Hillary laughing about how she dismantled a 12 year old rape victim while defending a rapist while a young lawyer… um… sorry. THAT wasn’t fucking lawyering. THAT was character on display. There are plenty of defense lawyers who defend rapists and even suppress their gag reflex and challenge rape victims…, but subsequently LAUGH about dismantling a 12 year old girl who’d been raped? What the actual fuck was that?
If that’s not psychosis, what is it?
If her on tape insisting that the only way she’d support an election in 2006 in Palestine is if it were fixed and if SHE could choose who would win.
If that’s not sociopathic, what is?
Do you not know her history?
When Bill was accused of VIOLENTLY raping Juanita Brodderick, SHE took lead in deposing her…. I have to hold my head to not get dizzy from all the shaking…
And all the Clinton apologists INSISTED that it was okay for Bill to wave his finger at the complaint MSM that all this was conspiratorial and “why would he risk getting impeached over a tryst?” Well…and THEN they found the semen…
It wasn’t conspiratorial. He DID have sex with…that woman…Ms. Lewinski. He did lie directly to people’s faces and risk getting impeached over a tryst.
Why, Billy, would you give them any benefit of the doubt? For ANYTHING???
She makes 1000% profit on an investment that forensic examiners have said is statistically impossible…and SHE doesn’t go to jail NOT because she’s not guilty, but because her broker refuses to testify against her. And that’s a running theme.
The only thing my mind is made up about is that I put NOTHING past the ambition of the Clintons, that includes murder.
Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile strike the day of hearings and had innocent people die just to mitigate some of his bad news. Do I think they’re past murdering ONE person? Are you kidding? Not remotely are they past it.
But again, I’ve retreated a bit and said that this very well have been a bit of Murder on the Orient Express where there are multiple culprits.
The Russians wouldn’t have had a puppet to play against Clinton if Clinton hadn’t elevated Trump in the first place. That’s fact.
And that meeting DID happen. I’m super busy today, but google it. If I have to, I’ll find it. I believe the meeting happened in February, but it may have been earlier.
I’m serious about this. We can’t just say that political assassination happen everywhere, but here.
And if they DO happen here, WHICH ONES are they? Cuz if you ask, every single death is denied as not possible, which by deductive reasoning and logic is impossible.
Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.
January 22, 2017 at 8:18 am #64066Billy_TParticipantMac, I really hate being the one to defend the Clintons. I don’t like them, and I don’t like their politics/policies. At all.
But fair is fair. You said:
When I heard the tape of Hillary laughing about how she dismantled a 12 year old rape victim while defending a rapist while a young lawyer… um… sorry. THAT wasn’t fucking lawyering. THAT was character on display. There are plenty of defense lawyers who defend rapists and even suppress their gag reflex and challenge rape victims…, but subsequently LAUGH about dismantling a 12 year old girl who’d been raped? What the actual fuck was that?
You should check out these articles and google the politifact site.
First of all, the audio tape is from an interview done some nine years later. The case was from 1975, which she was forced to take against her own wishes. The audio is from 1984. There is no indication that Clinton laughed about dismantling the 12-year-old. Not anywhere. It doesn’t exist on that tape. She laughed about the supposed validity of lie detector tests, and the Keystone-Cop-handling of physical evidence. Nowhere on that tape can you find her laughing about the rape, or the victim, or her own “victory.”
Also, no one is arguing about Clinton and Lewinski here. Not sure why you brought that up. They had consensual sex, but because of Clinton’s obvious position of power, one can question that and find it deeply problematic. I do. He cheated on his wife and took advantage of a young intern. But it wasn’t illegal, and it’s a not a sign of psychotic or sociopathic behavior.
And, finally, yes, the Wikileaks dump did show us that the DNC and Clinton wanted to face Trump in the general, and that they likely worked together to try to make that happen. But there is no evidence they colluded with the Media to elevate Trump, or that their “Pied Piper” strategy actually worked. To me, it’s far more likely Trump’s rise was based on him. On his uniquely disgusting personality and the general mood. I doubt the Dems made the difference in his rise that early in the primaries. Of course, the double-team against Sanders is a different story altogether. They should be deeply ashamed about that.
The Ben Norton Salon article is a good one, though I think he makes a leap after laying out Dem strategies too. He shows what they did, but his conclusion, IMO, assumes too much. It assumes “Pied Piper” actually worked. We don’t know that it did.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428
I think we, as leftists, need to be above the kind of no-context, baseless attacks the right engages in with so much frequency. We also need to make sure we corroborate information and dig deep enough to make sure it’s legit. The one about Clinton laughing, for example, is all too close to the right’s lie about her saying “What difference does it make!” supposedly in response to the loss of four lives in Benghazi. She was, in fact, talking about the idiocy of demanding we label the attack in accord with the right’s version of PC. “Terrorism,” “act of terror” and so on. Clinton had been grilled for hours and she had just had enough. I would have blasted them for mindless festishizing and grandstanding about terms the first minute.
Anyway, Mac, I’m done with this.
Hope all is well —
January 22, 2017 at 12:02 pm #64091ZooeyModeratorWhat we can’t acknowledge is any domestic political assassination.
I mean which one can we acknowledge? Name one.
Point is that there is tremendous antipathy for people on every part of the political spectrum to allow for even the thought to pierce the critical thinking veil. However, simple deductive reasoning leads us to the logical and inevitable conclusion that it MUST be happening here.
I am with Mackeyser on this. I think domestic assassination is one thing NOBODY wants to think about. But I don’t know why anyone would think these people have a single scruple. And I think that to take the position that they “wouldn’t risk it” is naive. The Clinton machine has connections (and not just the Clintons…the whole web of government and deep government). Get one of your people to place a call to somebody in law enforcement, or even national security, to take over a murder case…it would be easy. There are a lot of people in Washington DC who are trained to never ask questions from their superiors. Just do what you’re ordered to do. Clean up a crime scene, and dispose of it. End of story. I mean…you think Oliver North would have balked at a command to act outside the law? He testified before congress that he did, and that he was not only without remorse about it, he was proud of it.
Yes, these people would whack somebody in a heartbeat.
Where, exactly, they have done that, I have no evidence. But these are very bad people.
You think the Kochs, or Mercer, or Scaife, or any of these people would hesitate to rub somebody out? I don’t. I don’t think they would hesitate at all. They are quite happen to poison people, sell them life-threatening products, shaft them out of life savings without thinking twice. They are sociopathic. Total psychotic sociopaths.
January 22, 2017 at 12:12 pm #64094ZooeyModeratorIf they were “leaked”, then why did he try to “punish” the Russians, yet pardoned Manning?
Obama is more devious than ever.Interesting question.
January 22, 2017 at 12:20 pm #64095Billy_TParticipantZooey,
I feel like Al Pacino in Godfather III.
Anyway, I think you and Mac misread me. Big time. I haven’t said these things can’t happen here. I think they do. But I also think they happen when it actually helps the perps in some way, and when they see no other alternative to achieve their goals.
To me, it’s a leap beyond a leap to think Clinton and her cronies had to kill Seth Rich, and that it was the only way they could achieve their goals, or that it made even the slightest rational sense to target a low-level staffer whom no one has proven did the leaking in the first place.
It involves several major assumptions to get to the major reach before one makes the huge leap to “they murdered him.”
Aren’t there better things to focus on that this?
Boiled down, I think this is the basic logical fallacy in play:
1. We can’t stand Clinton
2. Murders happen in America
3. Therefore, Clinton murdered Seth Rich.It’s a matter of desperately wanting to believe they did this. And while the old cliche “anything is possible” is always hovering in the background, logic tells us that also means millions of people could have done this . . .
Why Clinton, in particular, if “anything is possible”? My take isn’t “naive.” My take is rational skepticism in the face of the hysterical.
January 22, 2017 at 12:22 pm #64097znModeratorBut I don’t know why anyone would think these people have a single scruple.
Zooey, this all smells of conspiracy theory at its worst.
I don’t think buying into right-wing anti-Clinton conspiracies gets anyone anywhere.
Clinton was an out-of-date neo-liberal dem party type, and while bad enough in its own right, it’s still light years better than Trump.
So I have had enough Clinton bashing for a while. It’s extravagant and beside the point.
Especially listening to should-know-better leftists echoing lunatic right-wingers.
It’s not my idea of progressive resistance.
January 22, 2017 at 12:27 pm #64098Billy_TParticipantIf they were “leaked”, then why did he try to “punish” the Russians, yet pardoned Manning?
Obama is more devious than ever.Interesting question.
I answered that. Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for its aggressive moves toward other nations. And, yeah, I know. We do the same and more of it. But that was the rationale for the sanctions. Crimea, Ukraine, etc.
Then, we learned Russia hacked our election, so further “punishment” was meted out.
I’m not seeing at all why commuting Manning’s sentence — she wasn’t “pardoned,” btw — is inconsistent with those sanctions on Russia. Manning was let go primarily because of her transition. I don’t think it would have happened if she hadn’t being going through that. It doesn’t take more than a few seconds of thought to recognize anyone in jail going through that process must be living in hell. Absolute hell, and under threat 24/7.
It’s got to be the definition of “cruel and unusual punishment.”
I find the question baffling, in fact.
January 22, 2017 at 12:38 pm #64105wvParticipantBut I don’t know why anyone would think these people have a single scruple.
Zooey, this all smells of conspiracy theory at its worst…
So I have had enough Clinton bashing for a while. It’s extravagant and beside the point.
Especially listening to should-know-better leftists echoing lunatic right-wingers.
It’s not my idea of progressive resistance.
==================
See, i think the problem is there hasnt been nearly ENOUGH Clinton-bashing, Obama-bashing, etc.
I could go on about this, but i know we can write each other’s posts on this stuff.
…and i dont think zooey or mack have bought into any rightwing-conspiracy stuff. I think they are just wondering-out-loud about reasonable-possibilities.
Nothing wrong with that.w
vJanuary 22, 2017 at 12:45 pm #64108ZooeyModeratorFirst of all, I didn’t say the Clintons DID murder Rich. I said quite clearly that I don’t know. Your syllogism doesn’t match anything I said.
And the rush to dismiss conspiracy theories to avoid appearing like a loony sharing a bed with unhinged right-wingers is a bad position.
There are conspiracies. These things DO happen. It is naive to dismiss them all out of hand. Sure, conspiracy theories are dangerous vortexes that people get sucked into, and often get addicted to, but responding to that by dismissing all of them is an erroneous position masquerading as common sense. Be skeptical, sure.
Did it happen in this case? Dunno. Neither do you. And “C’mon, man, they wouldn’t do THAT” isn’t a good argument. It’s an open question, though not one I’m going to waste much time worrying about since the answer to that doesn’t really change anything anyway. Murdering somebody in a political coverup is a drop in the Potomac compared to wiping out Libya and Syria and Iraq etc. It’s a drop in the ocean of corporate/government malfeasance. So I don’t really care. But I certainly do not put it past them. These are people who have made decisions that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people…in the millions, probably. And destroyed millions more. But you think they wouldn’t kill a single American in cold blood. Really?
January 22, 2017 at 12:54 pm #64110Billy_TParticipantBut I don’t know why anyone would think these people have a single scruple.
Zooey, this all smells of conspiracy theory at its worst…
So I have had enough Clinton bashing for a while. It’s extravagant and beside the point.
Especially listening to should-know-better leftists echoing lunatic right-wingers.
It’s not my idea of progressive resistance.
==================
See, i think the problem is there hasnt been nearly ENOUGH Clinton-bashing, Obama-bashing, etc.
I could go on about this, but i know we can write each other’s posts on this stuff.
…and i dont think zooey or mack have bought into any rightwing-conspiracy stuff. I think they are just wondering-out-loud about reasonable-possibilities.
Nothing wrong with that.w
vWV,
Unless I missed it, you never responded to the video I posted by Jeremy Scahill. I think it does what you’re saying should be done, and he avoids the trap of saying, in one form or another, “It’s crazy to criticize Trump in the face of all the horrible shit the Dems do.” He goes after all of them, guns ablazing.
January 22, 2017 at 1:08 pm #64112Billy_TParticipantFirst of all, I didn’t say the Clintons DID murder Rich. I said quite clearly that I don’t know. Your syllogism doesn’t match anything I said.
And the rush to dismiss conspiracy theories to avoid appearing like a loony sharing a bed with unhinged right-wingers is a bad position.
There are conspiracies. These things DO happen. It is naive to dismiss them all out of hand. Sure, conspiracy theories are dangerous vortexes that people get sucked into, and often get addicted to, but responding to that by dismissing all of them is an erroneous position masquerading as common sense. Be skeptical, sure.
Did it happen in this case? Dunno. Neither do you. And “C’mon, man, they wouldn’t do THAT” isn’t a good argument. It’s an open question, though not one I’m going to waste much time worrying about since the answer to that doesn’t really change anything anyway. Murdering somebody in a political coverup is a drop in the Potomac compared to wiping out Libya and Syria and Iraq etc. It’s a drop in the ocean of corporate/government malfeasance. So I don’t really care. But I certainly do not put it past them. These are people who have made decisions that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people…in the millions, probably. And destroyed millions more. But you think they wouldn’t kill a single American in cold blood. Really?
Zooey,
I think we’re talking past each other here. We’re kind of in that “I didn’t say that” mode. Both of us. Take the bolded areas, for instance. I’m not dismissing all conspiracy theories, much less “out of hand.” I’m just dealing with the one raised by Mac.
And it’s not a matter of saying they wouldn’t kill a single American in cold blood. It’s a matter of — to use Mob vernacular — “What’s my percentage?”
How on earth would the murder help the Clintons? How would they benefit from it? See, what Mac did was paint a hypothetical context, which no one has shown existed at all, from which to THEN derive the potential for murder. All of his hypotheticals would have to line up just right in order for it to make any sense at all to even begin to suspect the Clintons. And the biggest one of all? That Rich leaked the info to Wikileaks AND that he was the ONLY person who could bring down the Clinton machine. That defies belief. If there really were fire behind the smoke, a low-level staffer is the only person who can bring everything crashing down? Really? And, there is zero proof that Rich did leak the info.
It’s not a dismissal of all conspiracies. It’s that this particular one is the thinnest of the thin, and it really doesn’t sync up from the point of view of “What’s my percentage?” at all.
- This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.
January 22, 2017 at 1:37 pm #64115ZooeyModeratorWell, I am not well-informed on the Hacking vs. Leaking debate.
But, either way, it’s not hard to imagine that – given that Hillary and DNC emails were her central “problem” in the election – the IT guy might be able and willing to say things that would be harmful to Clinton’s aspirations.
Did you see how many millions of dollars dried up to the Clinton foundation after she lost?
- This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Zooey.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.