CNN has doubled down on trying to divert the attention of its viewers to Russia after it was made public that CNN allegedly leaked question(s) for the Presidential Debate to the Democratic National Committee in advance.
CNN, a large contributor to the Hillary campaign, denies the allegations. Instead, CNN believes that Roland Martin of TV One was responsible for the leak.
The question(s) were leaked to Interim chair of the DNC, Donna Brazile. She in turn gave the question(s) to Hillary Clinton.
WikiLeaks is responsible for making the e-mail public.
On October 12, Brazile tweeted, “@rolandsmartin is a solid professional, good, tough no nonsense journalist. I’m sorry that he’s being accused of such non sense. Apologies.”
Brazile was quick to blame the Russians. Brazile told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly that she does not believe WikiLeaks. At the end of the interview, seconds before Brazile’s mic was cut off, she told Kelly to “go to Russia.”
U.S. intelligence officials publicly accused Russia of “feeding” information to WikiLeaks. The Obama administration even hinted at retaliating against Russia with its own cyber attack.
Intelligence agencies have not offered up any solid proof to back up their accusations that Russia was responsible for the DNC hack.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has heavily criticized the U.S for the allegations.
While speaking during a recorded business forum, Putin said, “All participants in this process are abusing anti-Russian rhetoric and spoiling our interstate relations. And this is bad both for our countries and for the entire international community.” He went on to say, “At the same time, you know, as a rule, we try not to talk about this, but they always whisper this to us in the course of every election campaign…this is happening not only now, but was also the case in the previous election campaign.”
[The U.S] keeps whispering into our left ear and then into our right ear: “Pay no attention to this, all of this will pass and we will be friends again. This is wrong, it is wrong to use Russia as a bargaining chip in internal political struggles and damage interstate relations.
Further into the speech, Putin said, “They are always eavesdropping and tapping their allies and using this information.”
In response to the hacker attacks, Putin said, “What we are observing is certain hackers have released certain information about the seemingly conduct of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign headquarters — supporting one candidate for the party nomination at the expense of the other. And then the hysteria started, saying that this ‘hacking’ was done in the interests of Russia. But there is nothing there that is in Russia’s interests.”
Later he said, “The hysteria is evoked only to divert attention of the American public from the nature of the information that the hackers posted. And the nature of it — the manipulation of public opinion.”
In a different interview, Putin said, “Everyone always asks; who did it?” He added, “Everyone is talking about who did it, but is it so important who did it? What is important is the content of this information that was given to the public. There should be a discussion about this and there is no need to distract the public from the essence of the problem.
He said the Americans should be less worried about who did it, and more concerned about the information that has been released.
He referred to the situation as a U.S problem and not a Russia problem.
Putin said he heavily blames American media.
Russians say that Hillary has shown great hypocrisy by accusing Russia of interfering with the U.S election.
Russians accusations were reiterated when Hillary lied during the final Presidential Debate.
During the debate, Hillary told the public that she had never seen anything like this, as far as Russia interfering with an election. However, she has seen something similar before.
In 2011, during a televised press conference, Putin said, “U.S Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encouraged Kremlin opponents by criticizing the vote.”
Putin was referring to the Russian election and allegations that the election was “rigged” to favor ruling the United Russia party.
Following the vote, massive “protests” erupted.
During a recorded interview with The Telegraph, Putin said, “I looked at the first reaction of our American partners. The first thing that the Secretary of State did was give her opinion about elections, she said they were unfair and unjust, even before she heard what the international observers had to say.”
The international observers were there to monitor the election.
“She set the tone for some of the activists inside our country, gave them a signal, they heard this signal and started active work with support from U.S. State Department,” Said Putin.
While CNN and other mainstream establishments flood the airwaves with Russian “hacking” rhetoric, everyone’s attention is being diverted from hundreds of other WikiLeaks e-mails released in the last 72 hours. Some have said the e-mails are “absurdly disturbing.”
In one e-mail, it shows that Hillary solicited a $12 million donation from King Mohammed VI of Morocco.
The money was to be funneled through the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary’s own state department has long preached that the Moroccan government was corrupt.
The e-mail was written by top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and addressed to campaign managers Robby Mook and John Podesta.
“Just to give you some context, the condition upon which the Moroccans agreed to host the meeting was her participation. If hrc [sic] was not part if [sic]it, meeting was a non-starter. CGI also wasn’t pushing for a meeting in Morocco and it wasn’t their first choice. This was HRC’s idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request. The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment (meaning the foundation)and to support the meeting. It will break a lot of china to back out now when we had so many opportunities to do it in the past few months. She created this mess and she knows it. She created this mess and she knows it.”
It has come to the point where Americans realize that the mainstream media, specifically CNN, who has publicly announced they are giving Hillary a free ride for her campaign, is biased. CNN even went as far as to tell viewers that reading the Wikileaks e-mails would be illegal, which is a false statement.
CNN is owned by Turner Broadcasting System, which is a division of Time Warner. Companies like this are publicly traded. And while they are supposed to remain impartial on any given subject, mainstream media seemingly avoids certain topics, especially involving Hillary, at the risk of offending their investors.
The fact is, Americans are not the only people who are fed up, or that have turned to social media and demanded a boycott of CNN.
The Germans, like Russia, also believe that the American mainstream media manipulates the point of view of their viewers.
On October 20, the anti-immigrant party Alternative for Germany leader, Frauke Petry, told Reuters in an interview that she believes Trump offers change in the relationship between the U.S. and Russian relations, which would reduce conflict in the Ukraine, to Berlin’s advantage.
“One sees that Trump may offer possible alternatives,” Petry told Reuters in an on camera interview. “Whether he can actually deliver that we do not know. But if Mrs Clinton continues the path of Obama, then we may have an expanded war in Ukraine and that cannot be in German interests.”
Both Russian and German politicians have stated that Americans should not believe the lies and rhetoric coming from the media or Hillary when it comes to portraying Trump as a president who would start a war.
Russian politician Vladimir Volfovich Zhirinovsky said Hillary ‘craves power.’
He said he believes that if Hillary were to win the presidency, the interstate relationship between Russia and the U.S. would get worse.
“If [Americans] vote for Hillary, it’s war,” Zhirinovsky said during an interview with Reuters.
New e-mails leaked by WikiLeaks show that Hillary intentionally tried to publicly link Trump with Putin in order to discredit Trump’s character.
“That’s good, sooner it’s clarified the better, and the stronger the better. Re the Trump ISIS video, if we don’t have the proof campaign should assign 100 people to look for it ASAP, there is probably something on tape somewhere.”
“Walk back and escape from her statement that ‘finally we are where we need to be’ against ISIS. We are not where we need to be, we are far from it, most voters do not believe it, and when the next terror attack comes in America – which it certainly will – she will be branded in hot iron with that statement.”
“That’s good, sooner it’s clarified the better, and the stronger the better,” Budowski replied, “Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria.”
Hillary’s staff also admitted that [she] has created the reasons she is not longer trusted by the public.
“I suspect her negative trust ratings are locked in through election day. If there is a Trump ISIS video the campaign release it. If not, her untrustworthy numbers will remain further locked at high levels. These trust problems are self-induced and keep occurring.”
The e-mail is very telling and has been included in its entirety.
Re: HRC, Obama and ISIS
From:email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: 2015-12-21 12:09 Subject: Re: HRC, Obama and ISIS
That’s good, sooner it’s clarified the better, and the stronger the better. Re the Trump ISIS video, if we don’t have the proof campaign should assign 100 people to look for it ASAP, there is probably something on tape somewhere.
p.s. On the UN last week, support it yes, but be careful. I love Kerry like a bro’ and support him always as HRC should and does. But be careful about the U.N., support but don’t go too far. Putin did not agree to anything about removing Assad and continues to bomb the people we support. We pushed the same position in 2012 (Geneva 1, which HRC knows all about) and Geneva 2 in 2014. Odds that Putin agrees to remove Assad are only slightly better than the odds the College of Cardinals chooses me to someday succeed Pope Francis.
Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria.
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 21, 2015, at 9:00 AM, John Podesta <email@example.com> wrote:
Her reference was not to ISIS but to going after Assad diplomatically because of UNSC resolution passed Friday. We will make that clear. She has given two major speeches about how we are NOT where we need to be on ISIS.
On Monday, December 21, 2015, Brent Budowsky <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Walk back and escape from her statement that “finally we are where we need to be” against ISIS. We are not where we need to be, we are far from it, most voters do not believe it, and when the next terror attack comes in America— which it certainly will—-she will be branded in hot iron with that statement.
Does she really want to co-own the Obama-Clinton ISIS strategy?
She will never state what I believe we need to do—at least 20,000 ground troops with 3,000 American and at least 10,000 from Sunni Muslim nations—
because she is consumed with keeping Obama’s goodwill and afraid of liberal backlash.
But at the least she should not be branding and infecting herself with Obama’s policy towards Syria and ISIS by offering such high and direct praise for it. If she believes there will not be any more terror attacks between now and November 2016 it is the right strategy. If I am right, and there will be more terror attacks in America before the election, this strategy could be a death ray to her candidacy in a general election.
She can praise Obama without such extravagant overstatement and such direct endorsement of his policy by falsely stating we are where we need to be. She can praise him but every time she does she should immediately follow it with positive reminders of the success of the Bill Clinton presidency. Every time she mentions Obama positively, follow it by mentioning Bill Clinton a bit more positively. And when possible mention JFK as well. She does NOT want to run for Obama’s third term on ISIS and Syria to continue the Obama-Clinton policy against ISIS.
She appears locked into a tactical approach which is a Democratic version of the Richard Nixon strategy in the 1960’s and 1970’s—-move left before the primaries before the nomination and then move right before the general election after the nomination. This approach no longer works in the current media and political era where brands, images and perceptions become locked in forever much earlier in the process than the old era where news moved slow and three television networks were the source of 90% of the news.
I suspect her negative trust ratings are locked in through election day. If there is a Trump ISIS video the campaign release it. If not, her untrustworthy numbers will remain further locked at high levels. These trust problems are self-induced and keep occurring.
The best single move to elect her would be a massive voter registration and organization drive. Expand the electorate so more voters will vote so her low trust ratings generally will have less pro rated impact, and the number of higher trust voters will be newly registered. Most of the consultants will oppose this because they do not get paid for registering voters to elect candidates, they get paid for other things such as television ads whether those ads are effective or not.
It is no coincidence that this year Trump runs no ads, while Jeb and Hillary run the most ads with little effect. Voter registration by contrast creates real voters and changes—and improves—the playing field itself. There is no ad on earth that will increase her trust ratings or the enthusiasm of her voters the way a mega-registration project will increase her support on election day.
As for ISIS, the mathematically worst place for her to be is co-owner of the Obama-Clinton policy. Obama could destroy her candidacy the same way Democrats lost control of the House, the Senate, governorships and state legislatures during her presidency.
Things happen for a reason, and either change the reason or we will end up with the same outcome.