Sunday, November 5, 2017

Hillary Clinton Just Told Five Blatant Lies About WikiLeaks


As part of her ongoing “Thank God You Didn’t Elect Me” tour, Hillary Clinton made her debut on Australian television last night in an interview with the ABC’s Sarah Ferguson. Though she didn’t repeat her infamous “17 intelligence agencies” lie, which she’d continued to regurgitate long after that claim had been conclusively debunked, there were still plenty of whoppers to be heard.

From her ridiculous claim that the aggressively protested DNC convention was “very positive” to her completely baseless assertion that Bernie Sanders “couldn’t explain his programs” during the primaries, Clinton did a fine job of reminding us all why the average American finds her about as trustworthy as a hungry crocodile. But while she has blamed her loss on James Comey and Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders and self-hating women and the media and uninformed voters and voter suppression and her campaign staff and the DNC and campaign finance laws and Jill Stein and the Electoral College and Anthony Weiner and sexism and Vladimir Putin, Hillary Clinton reserved the lion’s share of her deceit for the organization she hates most of all: WikiLeaks.

Here are five lies that Clinton told about the outlet during her ABC interview:

Hillary Clinton: The Interview

Lie 1: Claims WikiLeaks never publishes anything about Russia

WikiLeaks Spy Files Russia, Part 1 #SORM #FSB #SpyFilesRU

 — @wikileaks

THREAD: 2 yrs ago, I wrote an article highlighting the then 647,208 @wikileaks docs relating to Russia. #SpyFiles

 — @Suzi3D

“And if he’s such a, you know, martyr of free speech, why doesn’t WikiLeaks ever publish anything coming out of Russia?” Clinton asks of WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange, mere weeks after WikiLeaks published a massive leak drop on Russian domestic surveillance. Prior to that WikiLeaks had published hundreds of thousands of critical documents pertaining to Russia. She lied, and there’s no way she didn’t know she was lying.

Lie 2: Podesta leaks were timed to eclipse the Access Hollywood “grab them by the pussy” October surprise.

On Clinton's "timing" conspiracy theory. That we had a pending publication about to launch on the election was everywhere in the media for days. We were meant to launch that morning. It is the Trump tape that was moved forward from Monday to Friday.

 — @JulianAssange

Assange to release 'one million' documents before US election

“WikiLeaks, which in the world in which we find ourselves promised hidden information, promised some kind of secret that might be of influence, was a very clever, diabolical response to the Hollywood Access [sic] tape,” said Clinton in response to a question by Ferguson about the fact that WikiLeaks dropped the first Podesta emails shortly after the “grab them by the pussy” audio leak surfaced on October 7.

This is another blatant lie. Assange had been promoting an incoming leak drop for days prior to October 7, as evidenced in articles like this one by Reuters titled “WikiLeaks’ Assange signals release of documents before U.S. election”. Everyone knew the leaks were coming. According to NBC sources who spoke with TMZ, it was the release of the Access Hollywood tape that was moved forward to the 7th.

Lie 3: Implying that there was nothing incriminating in the Democratic party emails that WikiLeaks published.

RELEASE: 19,252 emails from the US Democratic National Committee #Hillary2016 #FeelTheBern

 — @wikileaks

RELEASE: the first 2050 of well over 50000 emails from Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta #Podesta #imWithHer

 — @wikileaks

Throughout the interview, Clinton babbled about the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, babbled about Russian propaganda, babbled about the content of the leaked emails being twisted into something false — babbled about everything except the undeniably incriminating things found in those documents. Whenever you get Clinton talking about WikiLeaks, she insists that the problem wasn’t the revelation of an appalling amount of corruption, but a Kremlin-backed propaganda campaign to make perfectly innocuous emails look bad.

This has been a longstanding tactic by the Democratic establishment in response to the embarrassing 2016 leak drops. The absurd narrative that the DNC and Podesta emails were squeaky clean and only painted to look incriminating by Russian propaganda is required in order for the Democrats to have their “WikiLeaks cost us the election” narrative while also keeping their “we did absolutely nothing wrong” narrative. It’s the only way they can have their cake and eat it too.

In reality, the conspiring and “us vs. them” language between DNC officials in their leaked emails unquestionably reveals a blatant violation of Article 5, Section 4 of the DNC Charter, which promises the American people that the DNC Chairperson (who was included in and participated in many of these emails) “shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.” This plainly did not happen, as a glance at some of the nastiest emails reveals. The DNC Charter was revised with this promise to prevent a DemExit after the 1968 fiasco in Chicago, and in 2016 they undeniably broke this promise.

And as bad as the DNC Leaks were, the later leak drops were far more incriminating. From Donna Brazile serving as a mole against the Sanders campaign and passing multiple debate questions in advance to Hillary Clinton, to an email from a CitiGroup executive instructing Obama what cabinet picks (who would then go on the shape policy for dealing with Wall Street crooks after they caused the 2008 global financial crisis) he was permitted to choose from prior to his election in 2008, to the Clintons taking bribes from Qatar and Morocco and knowingly accepting funds from political bodies that arm ISIS, to evidence that the DNC was stacking the deck for Clinton as early as 2014, to a suggestion that the Clinton campaign had some sort of “leverage” over Bernie Sanders, to Clinton promising a group of Goldman Sachs executives that she would lie to the American people for their benefit by assuring them that she understood the importance of having both a “public position and a private position” when it comes to economic matters, there was more than enough shocking data there to rightly hurt Clinton’s approval rating.

So this notion that fake news and Russian propaganda were needed in order for the WikiLeaks releases to hurt the Clinton campaign are blatantly deceitful. Clinton wasn’t hurt by fake news and Russian propaganda, Clinton was hurt by the truth.

Lie 4: Julian Assange is “a tool of Russian intelligence” who “does the bidding of a dictator.”

Hillary Clinton has a friend in her war against WikiLeaks perfect authentication record. Vladimir Putin.

 — @JulianAssange

Russia 'mafia state' - Wikileaks

Intelligence officials for the Obama administration, including Obama himself, have been clear that there is no clear tie between WikiLeaks and Russian intelligence. In reality, WikiLeaks has been publishing dirt on Russia for many years, has stood in solidarity with dissident Russian activists, and is not doing the bidding of Kremlin intelligence anywhere outside the psychotic delusions of Clintonists whose cognitive comfort depends on seeing Darth Putin lurking in every shadow.

The Only People Who Still Believe In Russiagate Are Those Who Desperately Need To

Lie 5: Claiming WikiLeaks helped spread lies and is therefore not protected by the First Amendment.

SARAH FERGUSON: Isn’t he just doing what journalists do, which is publish information when they get it?
HILLARY CLINTON: I don’t think so.
I think for number one, it’s one stolen information, ah and number two, if all you did was publish it, that would be one thing.
But there was a concerted operation ah between ah WikiLeaks and Russia and most likely people in the United States to, as I say, weaponise that information, to make up stories, outlandish, often terrible stories that had no basis in fact, no basis even in the emails themselves, but which were used to ah denigrate me, my campaign, ah people who supported me, and to help Trump.

A total outright lie! So, I think that, you know, I have no objection to accurate information being ah published; I mean that’s what a First Amendment, that’s what freedom of information is.

Contrary to lies circulated by establishment propagandists like Malcolm Nance, WikiLeaks has a pristine record for publishing authentic documents and has never had to retract any of its material due to inauthenticity. If Clinton’s claim that WikiLeaks influenced “the perceptions and views of millions of voters” is true, then those perceptions and views were influenced by truth.

CIA Director Pompeo Doesn't Understand the First Amendment

WikiLeaks, like the New York Times or the Washington Post or any other outlet which publishes leaked documents, is indeed protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution. This extends to international outlets because the Constitution does not bestow rights upon US citizens but actually forbids the US government from restricting any press. Contrary to what CIA scumbucket Mike Pompeo has suggested, free speech is an inalienable human right that every human being is naturally entitled to, not something the government magnanimously grants some people but not others.

As we’ve discussed previously, Hillary Clinton needs to keep coming back in and lying her ass off because her campaign promised the end of the world if she lost. Since they can’t just admit that Trump is actually just a garden variety Republican hack like any Bush or Reagan, and that they lied about the entire thing to scare everyone into supporting her, she needs to keep lying to everyone so they don’t blame her for helping to elect a walking armageddon. People are scared, and Clinton is legacy-minded, so she needs to keep lying to stave off the embarrassment of being blamed for losing to Trump.

That’s all this is. That’s all this has ever been.

— — —

I’m a 100 percent reader-funded journalist so if you enjoyed this, please consider helping me out by sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following me on Twitter, or throwing some money into my hat on Patreon.