The media continues to push the unfounded narrative that Trump and his team colluded with Russia, yet have failed to adequately address the issues that plagued Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Trump may have (following Comey’s testimony, very unlikely) colluded with Russians to win the US election, but is it not the content of the e-mails themselves that deserve scrutinizing? Certainly, if the leaks were not so damning wouldn’t Clinton have won the presidency regardless?
What was revealed in the content of these e-mails was extremely damning, as it revealed her contempt for the law; her diversion of Clinton Foundation funds for her own personal use; collusion with the media; her speeches to big banks and many other questionable, nefarious activities which emanated the stench of corruption.
Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law Professor and Democratic-supporter, flatly stated on Fox News that any coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign regarding the leaks, although perhaps unethical, is not illegal and there is indeed, no federal statute which says so.
So why is the media continuing its speculation on Russia – which is at this point bordering on hysteria?
Indeed, the emasculated media seems dead set on finding any illegal collusion that propelled Trump into presidency. What is perplexing about this however, is the fact that many elements within the US itself, unethically, and some even illegally, desperately worked to propel Clinton into presidency. Yet no criticism – not even a fraction’s worth of what Trump is receiving regarding Russia – has been sent their way.
Perhaps a big reason why this is, is because of the collusion between the Clinton campaign and many members of the media, some of whom attended an ‘off the record’ meeting not with the purpose of obtaining more information, but with the stated goal of “framing the HRC message and framing the race” – or ostensibly, in other words, crafting a narrative to help Clinton win the presidency (proof of another OTR meeting with other journalists in May can be found here). Another reason why this story might be receiving so little coverage might have to do with the fact that many ‘journalists’ in the MSM surreptitiously worked with the Clinton campaign, where some journalists were found to have sent in stories for prior review of publication, and where others were given guidance on what to write about.
Here is a full list of the extensive collusion between the media and the Clinton campaign.
Furthermore, we know CNN, a subsidiary of Time Warner (who also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton’s campaign), not only colluded in an off the record meeting with her campaign, but also had staff member, Donna Brazile, send Hillary Clinton debate questions prior to the CNN debate; and we also know that the DNC crafted questions for Wolf Blitzer during his interview with Trump.
We know Katie Couric, the global news anchor for Yahoo, explicitly exposes herself in this leaked e-mail, as she uses her prominent position as a journalist to essentially serve as an operative for the Clinton campaign.
We also know John Harwood, chief political correspondent for MSNBC, essentially served as a plant for John Podesta and the Clinton campaign, as he openly warned them about Ben Carson, and served as essentially, a cheerleader for Hillary Clinton.
And furthermore, we know that Maggie Haberman, a journalist for the NYT, through leaked documents, has been described as having a ‘very good relationship’ with the Clinton campaign, as she has ‘teed up‘ stories for them before and has ‘never disappointed’ them.
So there is evidence of clear collusion – which might be one reason why the mainstream media is so hush hush about Hillary Clinton’s Wikileaks scandal. The very people who have the role of informing the public for any political wrongdoing; are on the very same team known to commit serious political wrongdoing. This is a scandal in itself; yet it seems nothing has been done; and no one has even been fired for this collusion.
What other nefarious elements tried to subvert the democratic election process to propel Hillary Clinton into presidency?
During and after Clinton’s stint as Secretary of State, Hillary solicited millions of dollars in funds for the Clinton Foundation from human-rights violators like Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Qatar, UAE and more.
Although there is no clear evidence of quid pro quo, Glenn Greenwald cogently talks about in this article here, why even the staunchest defenders of Clinton should be raising eyebrows as to why these donations were made. Indeed, these donations were made at very propitious times, when Clinton was Secretary of State, and when she was gearing to run for presidency. We should also note that these countries in Qatar and Saudi Arabia are the biggest human rights violators; are the worst countries when it comes dealing with LGBTQ issues; are the most misogynistic countries; have horrible wealth disparity issues, and so on and so forth. It raises skepticism to why these Arab counties then, would raise money for these specific issues. Indeed, the Foundation is large in dealing with LGBT issues, women equality, and income disparity etc., so, given the fact that these regimes “have donated vastly more money to the Clinton Foundation than they have to most other large private charities involved in the kinds of global work championed by the Clinton family”, demonstrates that any rational person can surmise the fact that these donations were quid pro quo, yet barely any scrutiny/investigative reporting was shown towards her by the media.
Further leaks reveal a clear diversion of Clinton Foundation funds to Hillary for her own personal use – one example being that Clinton Foundation funds were used to pay for Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.
Many other massive corporations also donated to Clinton, after she resigned as Secretary of State, where, in total, she racked up around $22 million in speaking fees, within a span of 2 years. It seems reasonable to assert then, that these ‘donations’ were not made strictly because of her renowned eloquence and elocution, but rather, for her special privileges she would grant these companies following her (failed) vault into presidency.
Indeed, leaked transcripts of some of these speeches reveal Clinton saying that bankers and financiers should be the ones making the regulations, and that you need to have a public; along with a ‘private position’ when running for president.
Furthermore, the Democratic National Committee, who is required, by law, to be impartial during the primary voting process, was exposed through Wikileaks, to have elevated her through the primaries, all the while scheming to sabotage Bernie Sanders’ campaign.
Indeed, a lawsuit has been filed against the DNC, arguing that they dishonestly took money from people who donated on behalf of Bernie Sanders, while falsely posing as a neutral party throughout the process.
Article V Section Four of the DNC Charter states that the DNC is required to be neutral when it comes to their candidates – especially considering the fact that people donate their hard-earned money to candidates, based on the assumed belief of impartiality.
Leaked emails show how the DNC wanted the debates set up in a manner most beneficial to Hillary Clinton.
Further e-mails leaked by Guccifer 2.0 reveal how the DNC had a strategy for elevating Clinton to the primaries. Leaked documents show how they crafted a list of criticisms and potential responses to any criticisms she might receive from the media, a month prior to Clinton announcing her running. The DNC had not crafted a list of criticisms and rebukes for other candidates; showing obvious favouritism on their part.
There are also emails revealing strategies to undermine Sanders, how the DNC changed donor policies to favour Clinton along with many others, all this showing clear favouritism towards Clinton.
DNC head Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and three other top officials were forced to resign amidst this controversy. There has been overall, very little coverage about this clear collusion between the DNC and Clinton in the media.
Undercover investigations conducted by journalist James O’Keefe of Project Veritas also expose unethical and illegal collusion between Hillary Clinton and the Super PAC Americans United For Change.
Federal election laws disallow any form of discourse between presidential campaigns and the Super PAC’s that support them – due to the fact that they can receive unlimited amounts of money from donors. The investigations revealed however, that Robert Creamer, an advisor for Clinton and the Democratic Party, asked Scott Foval, National Field Director for the Super PAC Americans United For Change, to directly incite violence at Trump rallies – where Foval ended up hiring mentally ill and deranged people to do so.
Creamer states in the video that Hillary Clinton told him directly (Creamer) that she wanted ‘ducks on the ground’, essentially meaning that, Clinton wanted people in Donald Duck costumes to go to Trump rallies to hold up signs saying ‘Donald Ducks releasing his tax returns’, in attempts to generate media coverage and stir up civil unrest. Following the release of these videos, both Creamer and Foval stepped down from their positions; and Foval even stated, in a series of Tweets, that he was (illegally) paid by Clinton to incite violence at rallies.
Indeed, Clinton tried to smear Trump’s campaign through illegal means; and there is hard evidence of this happening, however very little coverage was given by media outlets, many of them even tried diverting attention from the videos onto O’Keefe himself, by hurling allegations that he is known to ‘doctor’ film – whereas, none of that doctoring was proven in these videos.
There is even more evidence of direct coordination between Super PAC’s like Correct The Record; who were in direct coordination with the Clinton campaign, tasked with the job of tirelessly defending Clinton and spreading inauthentic and doctored viewpoints on the internet and mainstream media in order to sway people to vote for Clinton. This is again, against federal law and clearly unethical.
Were Clinton elected president, would she receive the same animosity from the press for all these illegal activities, that are equal if not greater in controversy then the ‘possible’ Russian collusion?
We also know the intelligence community, spied, listened and unmasked Trump associates in attempts to sabotage him and his presidency.
Here is a video of Evelyn Farkas, the Defense Department’s top Russia expert under President Obama, brazenly admitting how the intelligence community openly spied on Trump and Trump associates; where she even admitted leaking the information to the media.
Reports from CNN also confirm that British and other European intelligence agencies intercepted and collected communications of Trump associates. They passed on these communications to the NSA, after the GCHQ, combatively denied that any wiretapping took place.
Indeed, unelected bureaucrats, tried to sabotage the democratic process of the presidency by using their spying capabilities for their own gain, in attempts to undermine the Trump presidency and elect their favoured candidate in Hillary Clinton.
Further allegations suggest Susan Rice, Obama’s former National Security Advisor, requested the NSA provide her with ‘detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates’ – in what were perfectly legal conversations.
Essentially, the US intelligence community openly spied on Trump; and did so, under no apparent legal pretext. This is against federal law and is an indictable offence of up to 10 years. Certainly, we can see the effects the intelligence community has already had on the Trump administration, as classified communications were leaked to the media in regards to Trump’s former National Security Advisor in Michael Flynn.
Yet, with all these apparently newsworthy and uncovered scandals listed in the article, the media rattles on about Trump’s unfounded collusion with Russia.
It is now unlikely that Trump colluded with Russia to leak the emails. What is still ironic however, is the fact that this unfounded allegation is more important than what is in the e-mails themselves. This includes, but is not limited to: high-level government corruption, subversiveness in the case of the DNC; media complacency and collusion; donations from giant corporations and foreign influences; Super PAC collusion and now, evidence of Obama’s administration (in the case of the intelligence community) colluding with the Clinton administration in (vain) attempts to get them elected.
Trump deserves scrutiny. He needs to be held accountable so that he upholds his promises to his voters and the American people. However, the Russian-scandal should be put to rest until legitimate proof is found, and considering the amount of dirt uncovered on Clinton throughout the election, there should be plenty of news to go around then. However, given the bias that was uncovered in the media by Wikileaks – that seems very unlikely to happen.