Who Cares If Russia Leaks Clinton’s Emails? 5 DNC Officials Resigned For Cheating Bernie Sanders

Voters should focus upon the corruption exposed by these leaks, not the country or people suspected of uncovering such data.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.
Jim Watson, Associated Press

Let’s assume for a moment that nobody within the Clinton campaign or DNC sent WikiLeaks thousands of emails, or enabled hackers to infiltrate networks associated with Hillary Clinton. Assuming Russia is trying to influence our elections, and Putin actually favors Trump over Clinton, why would this dynamic exist? Would the neoconservatives openly backing Clinton have gone to war to prevent Russia from invading Georgia and Ukraine?

While establishment Democrats blame Russia, there’s no talk about why Clinton would be better than Trump against Putin. There’s certainly no talk about the FBI’s assessment Hillary Clinton was “extremely careless” and “negligent” with the handling of classified intelligence. Most alarming to people who’ve devoted their heart and soul towards electing Bernie Sanders, progressive media seems just fine with ignoring the DNC’s bias against Vermont’s Senator. I explain in this YouTube segment why Democrats have ignored Bernie Sanders being cheated during the Democratic Primary.

Nobody wants Russia to hack American networks or influence our elections. However, voters should focus upon the corruption exposed by these leaks, not the country or people suspected of uncovering such data. Bernie Sanders competed against an opponent who benefited from the DNC contacting Chuck Todd to ensure favorable media coverage (“Chuck, this must stop”), as well as conduct joint fundraisers and even devise anti-Bernie narratives. The Democratic Primary was run by people who were never impartial, although Debbie Wasserman Schultz assured voters the DNC would remain neutral.

The most damaging WikiLeaks emails can be found here, but most publications care more about possible Russian hackers than a DNC beholden to Clinton. I explain in this YouTube segment how The New York Times morphed into a Clinton public relations firm; ignoring the content of WikiLeaks emails and focusing solely on Julian Assange’s motives. As for an October surprise, I highlight in this segment why an upcoming WikiLeaks release might be enough for Trump to take the White House.

Could the next WikiLeaks revelation pertain to three FBI field offices requesting an investigation of the Clinton Foundation?

Ultimately, even if Russia is to blame for these leaks, Democrats seem eager to ignore the biggest issues. It’s questions pertaining to foreign donors and preferential treatment (in addition to the inner workings of Democratic politics) being exposed to the American public and it’s this corruption that adversaries can use to their advantage. If Clinton was an honest politician, or the DNC didn’t undermine Bernie Sanders, there’d be nothing for Putin (assuming Clinton’s propaganda is correct) to use against Democrats.

There’s an Orwellian blame game being used by Clinton’s campaign to overshadow the consequences of a rigged primary. In addition to Debbie Wasserman Shultz and three other DNC officials forced to resign in early August, the DNC’s top fundraiser just recently left because of WikiLeaks. Instead of asking why these DNC officials resigned, media seems focused solely on why Assange would disclose their emails.

As for Russia’s influence in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton is a walking cybersecurity risk. Russian hackers have apparently infiltrated the DNC, Clinton’s campaign, the Clinton Foundation, and most likely Hillary Clinton’s convenient private server. Thus, not only did cheating Bernie Sanders come with consequences for Debbie Wasserman Shultz and others, but America might elect a person targeted by global hackers.

In addition, Democratic “Red scare” tactics also ignore recent history. George Bush did nothing to stop the invasion of Georgia. President Obama did nothing to prevent the invasion of Crimea. If you’re worried about Trump using nuclear weapons, be just as concerned about Hillary threating to stop Russia from invading another country on its border.

Aside from the fact a future Clinton White House would never confront Putin militarily (if he decided to invade another country that borders Russia) there’s a dangerous element to Clinton’s present-day McCarthyism. First, we’re to assume that Vladimir Putin is so frightened of Hillary, that’s he’d rather have his friend Donald Trump. Stretch this logic a bit further and we see a country with 7,300 nuclear warheads apparently trying to influence the U.S. elections, because it truly dislikes Hillary Clinton. If you didn’t want to start a new Cold War with a country that has the potential to destroy America, President Trump might sound more palatable than Clinton.

Furthermore, the notion that Hillary would be tougher on Putin than Trump ignores the ramification of such foreign policy. These consequences are examined in a New York Times piece by University of Chicago professor John J. Mearsheimer:

Unsurprisingly, a growing chorus of voices in the United States is calling for arming Ukraine…

They are wrong. Going down that road would be a huge mistake for the United States, NATO and Ukraine itself. Sending weapons to Ukraine will not rescue its army and will instead lead to an escalation in the fighting. Such a step is especially dangerous because Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and is seeking to defend a vital strategic interest…

But the conflict will not end there. Russia would counter-escalate, taking away any temporary benefit Kiev might get from American arms. The authors of the think tank study concede this, noting that “even with enormous support from the West, the Ukrainian Army will not be able to defeat a determined attack by the Russian military.” In short, the United States cannot win an arms race with Russia over Ukraine and thereby ensure Russia’s defeat on the battlefield.

Do you think Robby Mook would dare explain the ramifications or arming Ukraine, or even Clinton’s no-fly zone in Syria?

Also, President Obama and Putin are working alongside one another in Syria, within a dangerous framework of competing interests and bombing raids. Although Russia wants Assad to remain in Syria, and the U.S. has the opposite foreign policy objective, NPR states U.S., Russia Working On A Plan To Coordinate Bombing In Syria:

The U.S. and Russia are working on a controversial plan for greater military cooperation in Syria, where both powers are bombing the Islamic State but have starkly different views of the country’s future.

The Washington Post on Thursday published what it said was a copy of the eight-page document. The Americans and the Russians would set up a joint headquarters, possibly in Amman, Jordan, and share intelligence and targeting information for airstrikes against ISIS and other Islamist extremists, according to the document in the newspaper…

The Russian and American militaries have established communications channels to reach each other in emergencies and also notify each other of their whereabouts on the ground…

The counterargument is that the U.S. has no good options in Syria, and cooperating with Russia to pound ISIS is the most practical way to work toward ending the war.

Would President Hillary Clinton enforce her no-fly zone against Russian jets? Also, what’s Hillary’s post-Assad plan, if the neoconservatives get their way and she engages in yet another attempt at regime change?

Finally, blaming Russia not only ignores DNC corruption against Bernie Sanders, and Clinton’s flawed Russian policy, but it circumvents the findings of James Comey’s FBI investigation. Below is a CNN breakdown of Comey’s various statements to Congress:

“Extremely careless”

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

“Should have known”

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

“Sophisticated adversaries”

“She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

Yes, “hostile actors” likely gained access to Clinton’s 22 Top Secret emails, especially since her server was unencrypted for three months.

With all the focus on Russian hackers, observers ignore the uranium deal I’ve addressed in a recent YouTube segment, which gave Putin 20% of America’s uranium. During my upcoming Reddit AMA this Wednesday, I plan on addressing more aspects of Clinton’s strategy of blaming Russia, in addition to how this propaganda hurts voters. Sadly, we’ve entered an era of American politics where outside actors simply need to expose widespread corruption within the Democratic Party to influence U.S. elections.

Popular in the Community


What's Hot