The media attempts to bury this leak by WikiLeaks are hilarious. As I suspected, the “red under your bed” defense is bordering on comic. Apparently those pesky Ruskis are at it again, which beautifully covers so many things — it means that Hillary can keep picking a fight with a nuclear power (God, please, someone stop her! Does that woman’s obsession with war know no bounds?). It means they can point the finger at Trump for setting the Russians on her who, bizarre but true, despite also being a hideous lowkey rapist monster, has a more sane approach to the Russians and Syria than Hillary and the current administration, so of course he must be a secret commie lefty (just how does that work exactly? How do you paint someone as far right, and far left, at the same time?).
And it means no one is going to be looking at the story she’s been telling behind closed doors.
Can I just say, while we’re on the brink of, you know, imminent nuclear war, that everything the media has been saying has been wrong. The U.S. is setting up Russia to fail with their no-fly zone. This is no attempt to save Syrian children. This is to give the administration a trigger for war. The rest of the world knows it, the American citizens need to be made aware as well.
The Russians themselves have been drilling their hapless citizens for nuclear attack. The Sun report there was a drill for 4o million of them, and they’ve been building bunkers. There is the keyword — “attack.” Because Hillary’s no-fly zone is going to be used as a trigger for America to attack. That’s how they’re setting it up to go down. Set up a no-fly zone, and wait. And then possibly just attack Russia on the pretense that they interceded because at this point in time that seems extremely plausible too. I’m not even sure they’d bother waiting for them to make a wrong move. Like this adviser to Assad said on U.K.’s Channel Four, it doesn’t matter what really happens, the media makes up what they like so the media’s story “is irrelevant to reality.” The global western media just makes up whatever suits the administration, and the administration has never ever ever lusted after a war like they do now.
They need the distraction of war to quash this uprising at home. The revolution is taking hold, and they need to act fast.
There’s also the “We don’t care” defense. I’ll get to that later.
There’s a lot to read, and you can be sure I’ll get to all of it, but for now, I’m going to give my take on one very interesting email that Buzzfeed also looked at, as it rounds up a lot of the gnarly bits for us. In this email, there has obviously been some previous discussion about the transcripts and what’s in them that might be problematic. The sender, Clinton Research Director Tony Carrk, was charged with going through them and compiling some of the most sensitive statements.
In effect, this email is great taster for the transcripts because they did the work for us. They showed us exactly what they know to be problematic for the campaign and where she’s been lying to us. It shows where she’s been telling us one thing and telling the establishment another.
It’s also great because it’s telling us exactly where they don’t want us to look. They are literally spelling out their worst nightmare headlines in the email with the quotes underneath. So, thanks Clinton insider, I’ll take those headlines and use them here.
And – it’s exactly what we feared. Dog whistles galore to the establishment, making sure they know that no matter what she says to us, she’s loyal to them.
1. Clinton says you need to have a private and public position on policy.
First off, the stand out line: “You need both a public and a private position.” She waffles on for a long-a** time basically making the case for telling a different story privately to donors to the one she tells us. It’s got references to Lincoln and everything. It’s a work of word-salad genius that amounts to a justification about why she lies to the public.
In it, she makes it very clear that she’s loyal to her private policy positions and not to her public policy positions.
2. Clinton touts her relationship to Wall Street as a Senator.
She states that she “represented and worked with” Wall Street in her time as Senator of New York. That’s not what she’s been telling us. She’s been telling us that she was their enemy. But in private, she really bigs herself up as a friend of Wall Street, what she’s done for them and what she hopes to do for them, and how her tough talk is only for political reasons.
Not surprising at all, but now we have the proof in black and white.
3. Clinton suggests that she is moderate.
She says that they need two parties, but one moderate platform. In a really odd exchange, she agrees with Ursula Burns of Xerox that they need two parties, two “sensible, moderate, pragmatic” parties, intimating that they need two parties that both can work with corporate America. No naughty parties that are against corporate America.
Well that’s nice. I’m glad they agree they need to at least keep up the pretense of choice.
4. Clinton talks about holding Wall Street accountable only for political reasons.
She says that they need to fix the perception that the game is rigged. And she tells Wall Street, in a huge wink-and-nudge, that Wall Street insiders are the best people to “fix” Wall Street. She’s telling them that there will be very little interference from her administration, which is not what she’s been telling us. As you know, her platform is to be “tough on Wall Street” and demand reform through regulation. Regulations come from government. But she’s telling them she’ll let them fix it.
That’s not what you told us, Hillary.
Again, there’s this private/public opinion divide, and she makes it very clear to them that her public position of holding Wall Street accountable is only for political reasons. It’s not her actual policy stance.
5. Clinton remarks are pro-Keystone and pro-trade.
She makes it very clear to them privately that she is pro-free trade, which is completely at odds with her public tough-talk on the TPP. She is not taking her anti-TPP, anti-TiSA talk to straight up to Wall Street like she said she would. That story is just for us. To them she states that she intends to resist protectionism. She wants open slather. And she wants both parties to agree to that.
She also stated support for the Keystone pipeline. The #NoDAPL people are going to find that interesting.
Is it any wonder that no one trusts her? She is literally saying one thing to us, and another to them, and then throwing a tantrum because no one believes she’ll stick to her progressive platform and so she’s not up 50 points on Trump.
It’s not our fault we don’t trust you Hillary. Stop lying to us. Maybe that will help.
6. Clinton is aware of security concerns around Blackberries.
She makes it very clear that she knows that her famous Blackberries can be compromised and is well aware of all the issues surrounding clearance and cyber-security issues. This was back in April, 2014. She also makes it clear in August of the same year that she knew mobile devices weren’t allowed when she started in the State Department. Her current affection for feigning ditzy, nana-like fuzziness about cyber security disappears as she competently outlines the many security issues faced by people in high levels of government, and bemoans how far the U.S. is behind in this regard. She clearly knows what she’s doing. This is not a woman who wipes 30,000 or more emails accidentally off her dinky home server because she didn’t have her glasses on. In fact, she sees herself as a leader in this regard. “We have to change, and I can’t expect people to change if I don’t try to model it and lead it.”
7. Clinton admits needing Wall Street funding.
In one really icky paragraph, she admits that Wall Street are the select few voters with actual clout in the election, and that their money is what wins elections. So she implores them to really take their decision seriously about who they are going to make President.
“Secondly, running for office in our country takes a lot of money, and candidates have to go out and raise it. New York is probably the leading site for contributions for fundraising for candidates on both sides of the aisle, and it’s also our economic center. And there are a lot of people here who should ask some tough questions before handing over campaign contributions to people who were really playing chicken with our whole economy.”
She knows who her real voters are and they ain’t us, they’re the people who pay for her to run. Made me kind of queasy. I guess I knew this already, but to see her on bended-knee like that, pleading to the richest of the rich to please let her be the anointed one was all kinds of yuck to read.
Then there is this telling sub-heading — “It would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge amount of money and without having other people supporting you because your opponent will have their supporters.”
Ugh. Check this out progressives. This is her talking about us. She admits that we spend a lot of our hard-earned, wage-slave cash on progressive candidates, and she pleads for a kind of clemency for having to appear to appeal to our base, while making sure her donors know none of our “crazy ideas” will ever happen on her watch.
“Even when I, you know, think they should not be elected president, I still think, well, you know, good for you I guess, you’re out there promoting democracy and those crazy ideas of yours.”
Promoting democracy. That’s what we’re good for.
To be clear, this was in 2014 before the Bern began, but her astute political senses were obviously picking up on Wall Street’s discontent about the Occupy movement and how that bright shining light on their nefarious practices was impacting their image, and she was doing some sweet-talking to get them to come along with her and don’t worry about those pesky progressives.
She was effectively saying I need your money and their votes, but I’m not one of them.
And that’s just one email. The next couple of days are going to be interesting as we pick these apart.
Seriously, we’ve got to get out of here. This is an abusive relationship, and we need to pluck up the courage to walk out the door.
It won’t matter to the Hillary people. This is where we’re going to cleave with them. Watch them carefully, they will tell you with their face-holes that they don’t care about her lying to us. That’s because they don’t. For once, they are being truthful. Nothing could come out that would sway them. They don’t have any morality. They’re as amoral as her.
If they tell you they don’t care, that’s because they’re not one of us. They may be awake to the machinations of the oligarchy, but as long as they’re comfortable, they don’t care. It doesn’t matter to them that 4o million ordinary Russians, regular dads and moms and kids, are going to sleep tonight terrified of imminent American nuclear bombs just because Hillary can’t cop to questions about her speeches, as long as it doesn’t impact their lifestyle. They’re not our people. We need to stop even talking to them, let alone trying to convince them of the evil going on before our very eyes. They see it; they just don’t care. Talking to them is a waste of time.
We need to collaborate with our people, and start moving as one in the direction we want to go — towards peace, true democracy, a green-based economy, and a society where we all look after each other. Arguing that pure evil is pure evil with people who see it but don’t care is a total waste of energy. If they start that leaned-back “You cray cray” act with you, then block and delete.
We’ve got a new world to create. We’ve got no time for draggers.
[Featured Image by Alex Wong/Getty Images]