|
“The DNC Emails Were Leaked” Obama Takes Parting Shot At Brennan, Clapper, Clinton
Three U.S. Intelligence Agencies (CIA, NSA and FBI) claim that IT-Systems of the Democratic National Committee were "hacked" in an operation related to the Russian government. They assert that emails copied during the "hack" were transferred by Russian government related hackers to Wikileaks which then published them.
President Obama disagrees. He says those emails were "leaked".
Wikileaks had insisted that the emails it published came from an insider source not from any government. The DNC emails proved that the supposedly neutral Democratic Party committee had manipulated the primary presidential elections in favor of the later candidate Hillary Clinton. This made it impossible for the alternative candidate Bernie Sanders to win the nomination. Hillory Clinton, who had extremely high unfavorable ratings, lost the final elections.
The President of the United States disagrees with those Intelligence Services. He says that the DNC emails were "leaked", i.e. copied by an insider, and then transferred to Wikileaks. (At the time around the leaking the DNC IT-administrator Seth Rich was found murdered for no apparent reason in the streets of Washington DC. The murder case was never solved.)
Here is President Obama in his final press conference yesterday (vid @8:31):
First of all, I haven't commented on WikiLeaks, generally. The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether Wikileaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC emails that were leaked.
The DNC emails "that were leaked" – not "hacked" or "stolen" but "leaked".
One wonders if this is a parting shot is primarily aimed at the involved Intelligence Agencies led by James Clapper and John Brennan. Or is dissing Hillary Clinton and her narrative the main purpose?
The presidential judgement could change the political pressure towards a new cold war with Russia if the mainstream media would pick it up and discuss it. But the media are widely invested in the "hacking" claims (and even create their own ones from hot air). They are also furthering the anti-Russian narrative. We therefore can not expect that they will report this presidential parting shot at all.
h/t – Shuaib M. Almosawa
@ Posted by: Tom Murphy | Jan 20, 2017 3:36:35 AM | 87
Thank you 🙂
Yet another very well researched, clear, concise & succint (5Min02Sec) presentation on:
Hacking the WHAT? See How the Media Pushes Propaganda on Us, from Representative News.
See how dishonest and manipulative the media’s use of the phrase “hacking the election” is. AND hear details about who was the most manipulative of the American public during the campaigns (during BOTH the primaries and the general election!)
A main point of this video is to expose the mass media’s manipulative terms “election hack” and “hacking the election.” For example Trump didn’t use the term “Election Hacks.” There’s more
to say about this propaganda campaign, and I’ll talk more about it in part II.
…
The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia,”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque. …
Also covers the relevance of the Clinton/DNC/Podesta server/emails, in context. Contains detailed additional, expanded text, numerous supporting links and references.
@ Posted by: From The Hague
b is promoting the words of a lazy, lying hypocrite. @ 48
b: “We therefore can not expect that they will report this
presidential parting shot at all.” …
“this presidential parting shot“: not a fact at all, … @73
I will repeat it for you. Try to read it and try to understand it: @95
tee-rump, zionists @ 77
– yet skip over 6 instances of ‘zionists’ & ‘zionism’, @ 82 ?
In ones twilight years, one does unfortunately sometimes get so very, very, confused, assume there may be others who may be in the same situation also. Perhaps you could expand upon the above, extremely, ‘brief‘, comments(?) & terse qoutes, to remove such confusion and assist barflies at, b’s Bar, MOA, understand/comprehend what you may in fact be trying to say ?
Discussion & honest, civil, factual debate, is the very life blood of the Bar, is it not ? 😉 Would be most welcome & appreciated. 😉
Perhaps you may proffer it has something to do with Solzhenitsyn … & that his writings, somehow, holds the key ? A fascinating topic, no ? Interested in discussing his body of works in the Open Thread ?
@ Propeace
By chance, did you perhaps, take a few moments, to review b’s explicit update, inclusive of explicit ‘previous‘ *** META ***, and the subsequent following Barflies discussions/posts re same ?
In effect, to paraphrase as politely as possible, excluding certain ‘words/phrases‘ from the ‘previous‘ meta : ‘‘ON-TOPIC’, well thought out, written post contents, ‘Relevant’ to published Thread Lead Article/Header, and only where the links support the posts written contents’.
Fortunately for us all, our generous host & patron, b, specifically provides rolling ‘Open Threads‘ for ‘Off Topic (OT)‘ posts and discussion … 🙂
Peace
Posted by: Outraged | Jan 20 2017 14:35 utc | 88
|