Last week, WikiLeaks revealed that Donna Brazile had given Hillary Clinton questions prior to her debates with Bernie Sanders. Last year, Brazile was a CNN commentator and a Democratic elite who has long voiced support for the Democratic nominee.
When confronted with this, Brazile issued a statement in which she pointed an ineffectual finger at Russia, alleging cyber attacks. Such Pavlovian reactions only served to make critics roll their eyes and Clinton supporters even more fanatic about supporting warlike actions, such as no-fly zones over Syria.
The Democratic Party has switched from being a party of peace to a party of war, in a complete switch in what one can only describe as Bizarro World, where good is bad, bad is good. An Orwellian world seems to describe what is happening even better, especially when taken from a page of the book 1984.
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.”
Or this gem.
“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”
In my opinion, this quote describes Clinton’s campaign the best.
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
WikiLeaks itself has scolded the mainstream media’s depiction of the organization as a tool for Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
“Bad journalism: The use of ‘hacked emails’ is speculation. We have many sources and have not stated the methods we used to obtain each part.”
As I said before, if what WikiLeaks claims is true and some emails were not hacked, it could indicate a mole within Hillary’s campaign. Otherwise, it seems odd that only her campaign was targeted for cyber attacks and not Trump’s. It would be nothing short of poetic justice if the leaks did originate from the inside, especially after WikiLeaks revealed the possibility of Clinton moles infiltrating Bernie’s campaign.
Indeed, the finger-pointing at Russia is a mere deflection by Democrats to paint WikiLeaks as the bad guy, when it’s clearly Clinton herself (and her allies) who have stretched the limits of the law, if not broken it completely.
Late Sunday night, WikiLeaks itself sent a tweet reporting that Julian Assange’s internet access had been “intentionally severed” by a state party (a nation, state, or government) and the organization was operating on a contingency plan. Earlier in the day, WikiLeaks tweeted out a series of cryptic numbers that many believed were a dead-man’s switch, but were actually unique file identifiers. Gizmodo offers a detailed explanation on what the 64-character codes mean.
Months ago, I wrote that Hillary may have violated Federal Elections Commission rules by engaging in campaign activities while still giving paid speeches to big banks like Goldman Sachs. A series of WikiLeaks emails show that the Clinton camp had planned for such criticism before her presidential bid had even been announced.
On March 14, 2015, Clinton press secretary Nick Merrill allegedly addressed the growing concerns that Hillary was hiring campaign staff before she had announced.
“We’ve been very careful in how we [are] talking about ‘potential hires,’ but nonetheless I can see that narrative gathering some steam when the NYT places Robby Mook in the personal office on a regular basis in their story tomorrow. So this is purely precautionary, goal is to come up with some general language if we get asked.”
Tony Carrk later offered up the following potential explanation for the questionable campaign activities.
“I brought this up with Jen a couple of days ago but just to flag and have this on our radar. Any mention that she is using her personal money to pay for costs could lead some to use that as an opening to either a) dig deeper into the paid speeches; or b) demand her tax returns to know who is funding this campaign… I do remember in ’08 after it was announced she put $5 million into the campaign before Super Tuesday, the press wanted WJCa paid speeches and their tax returns. Our answer was she was using money from her $8 million advance on living history.”
I’m not sure how Democrats can blame Russia — and by extension WikiLeaks — for Clinton’s campaign discussing potential violations of FEC rules. Is his their version of “the Devil made me do it?” Hillary’s supporters on Twitter claim that WikiLeaks revealed private emails, but I argue that anyone running for president — and by extension their staff — is open to public scrutiny.
A 2015 Washington Post report tells the tale of a young Republican operative that was sentenced to two years in prison for illegally coordinating with a political campaign. Tyler Harber admitted he created a SuerPAC and used it to buy $325,000 worth of ads for congressional candidate Chris Perkins in Northern Virginia. Harber told the court that he knew it was wrong but that it was common practice, so he did it anyway.
Last November, Clinton’s deputy communications director, Christina Reynolds, sent out an agenda to top campaign officials, including John Podesta. The agenda included topics on which to hit Bernie Sanders and the Republican field. The email contains a bullet point that one might say proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the campaign coordinating attacks on opponents with the help of SuperPAC Correct the Record and the DNC.
Again, how is Russia, or even WikiLeaks, to blame for the Clinton campaign breaking the law?
Hint: They’re not.
[Featured image by Markus Schreiber/AP Images]