Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Sabrina Siddiqui — Clinton campaign dubs WikiLeaks 'Russian propaganda' after latest hack


Desperation sets in. "Putler did it."
Hillary Clinton’s campaign fired back on Tuesday as Wikileaks released a new tranche of hacked emails from the account of its chairman John Podesta, dubbing the website a “propaganda arm of the Russian government” seeking to help elect Republican nominee Donald Trump.…
Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Clinton’s campaign, fired off a tweet storm late Monday in which he assailed Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange, for working on behalf of the Russian government.
“You are no media organization,” Fallon tweeted at Wikileaks. “You are a propaganda arm of the Russian government, running interference for their pet candidate, Trump.…
In another tweet, Fallon acknowledged that reporters would be interested in their internal campaign operation but implored the media to scrutinize collusion between the hackers and Trump’s associates.
Putin, Assange and Trump are coordinating to derail Hillary's campaign, you see.

Expect a barrage of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) from the Clinton side and a barrage of truthiness from the Trump side.

The Guardian
Clinton campaign dubs WikiLeaks 'Russian propaganda' after latest hack
Sabrina Siddiqui

See also
Via One America
(Reuters) – The chairman of Democrat Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, John Podesta, said on Tuesday the FBI is investigating the hack of his emails as published on WikiLeaks.
Speaking to reporters aboard the campaign plane, Podesta said the FBI probe is part of a broader investigation into the hacking of Democratic computers. He said Russia is behind the hack and may be colluding with the campaign of Clinton’s opponent, Republican Donald Trump.

(Reporting by Jonathan Allen; Editing by Eric Walsh)

14 comments:

Random said...

I've heard "Both Trump and Assange are rapists." But seriously though are you sure you want President Trump? He is an utterly disgusting individual!

Tom Hickey said...

In my view, it's a matter of fitness and qualification.

By "qualified" I mean the length of the learning curve on taking office. HRC would be off and running on the first day with the full backing and support of the deep state, whereas Trump would not only be hampered by lack of experience but also meet strong resistance from the haute bureaucracy.

Fitness for office is a matter of character. Neither HRC or Trump have sufficient character for the office in my view.

So HRC is qualified but not fit for office, while Trump is neither qualified nor fit.

Ryan Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ryan Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ignacio said...

None of them are qualified, so I would pick the one which has less of a chance to start new conflicts (seems Trump).

jrbarch said...

Does it matter, which sock puppet is chosen? Does POTUS actually make any decisions that matter (that's not a rhetorical Q.)?

I thought George Bush was 'honest' in that he knew all he had to do was play golf.

Matt Franko said...

He only played 9 rounds in 8 years jr, Obama probably played 9 rounds last month...

Malmo's Ghost said...

Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt politician to get this far in a presidential election by a mile. There is no reasonable comparison in modern times on this side of the pond.

Trump, on the other hand, does lack experience, but unlike what Tom claims that isn't necessarily a negative. Lack of experience certainly doesn't make one unfit to be president given that every president lacks experience at the top by definition.

And Trump's so called character flaws in no way are comparable to Clinton's, unless she and her MSM minions have duped you into believing that silly half baked narrative.

Trump 2016

Bob said...

Officially it is the president that decides upon military action. In reality these plans are drawn up by the "deep state". The US electorate has no input in these machinations.

Hillary is in favor of checking the Russians in Syria. Trump is opposed to that action.

Vote against Hillary out of fear, or in favor of Trump out of hope.

I'd vote for Jill Stein. She has fewer character flaws and tries to keep the debate on issues of substance.

Malmo's Ghost said...

With Hillary there's a 99% chance she gets us into a major conflict, even WWIII. Trump MIGHT get us in a conflict (war) but I don't think so. His instincts are more or less isolationist. When he criticized McCain back in Aug 2015 he even stated he was no fan of the Vietnam war.

And contrary to MSM nonsense, he was not a Gulf War hawk either. And no matter who he signs on as a foreign policy advisor, you can bet the farm, even if it's populated with neocons, they'll only be there for window dressing-read: political expediency.

Alas, if it wasn't a binary election I'd vote 3rd party. Given we have only two meaningful choice, with one (Clinton) being the most repugnant in history on virtually all fronts, then it's an easy pick--Trump.

Malmo's Ghost said...

BTW, Putin/Trump has a nice ring to it...

Bob said...

Interesting perspective in this WSWS article:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/10/12/trum-o12.html

Trump’s strident attacks on his own party as well as the Democrats make clear that his perspective is no longer to win the presidential election on November 8. His orientation is rather toward the building of an extra-parliamentary far-right movement for the period of social and political upheaval that will follow the elections.

Maybe Trump will stick around after losing, should he lose. The sentiments that have fueled his rise aren't going away.

Tom Hickey said...

Lack of experience certainly doesn't make one unfit to be president given that every president lacks experience at the top by definition.

As I said, it's the learning curve. Clinton has been on the inside for years and knows how the game works. Trump has not. His learning curve as president will be extended for the further reason is that he will not only get little assistance from the deep state but opposition and sabotage. He won't be savvy enough with the ways of the palace court even to know it.

Trump expects to rely on "experts" that he can hire and fire as he did in his business. Government doesn't work quite like that.

Governments are big and unwieldy, with lots of moving parts, silos, preserves, etc., and the chief focus of the deep state is to maintain itself. The pay off for these people is the revolving door and they are committed to delivering where they know it will profit their own careers.

On the other hand, he could master it quickly and be the dominant alpha in a cage fight with other alphas. If he wins it would probably be a good idea for him to bring his own bodyguards along as his chief line of defense.

Tom Hickey said...

rump’s strident attacks on his own party as well as the Democrats make clear that his perspective is no longer to win the presidential election on November 8. His orientation is rather toward the building of an extra-parliamentary far-right movement for the period of social and political upheaval that will follow the elections.

As I have been saying, the populist revolt will come on strong in the 2020s. This is a transitional election. not a wave election.