The Hillary Clinton campaign has repeatedly tried to dodge questions about the damning contents of campaign emails released by WikiLeaks earlier this year by claiming Russian operatives leaked the communications to sway the U.S. election. But former high ranking diplomats from the U.S. and U.K. say Clinton’s claims are totally false.
First, there’s former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, who has for months said that Clinton would be Russian President Vladimir Putin’s first choice for president if he were in the business of rigging U.S. elections.
He believes that’s so because Clinton’s State Department record provides ample evidence that the former top diplomat is “weak and indecisive” on matters of foreign policy and would largely mirror the Obama administration in how she’d deal with Russia as president.
“If you asked the question of Vladimir Putin, ‘who would you rather see president of the United States?’ the answer would be Hillary Clinton,” Bolton said during a recent interview on Fox.
“He’s watched her for four years as secretary of state. Watched her preside over disastrous policy initiatives,” he added.
Thanks to Clinton’s foreign policy ineptitude, Bolton contends, Russia has enjoyed a vast expansion of power in the Middle East and elsewhere.
“If I were Putin, looking at that weakness, I would much rather deal with Hillary Clinton from a Russian point of view, than Donald Trump,” he concluded.
And Bolton’s position makes sense, especially if you believe Clinton’s own claims that Russia is interested in aggression above all else.
A Clinton administration, with a continued dedication to destabilization in the Middle East and working with terrorist-aligned rebels, would provide Putin continued justification to build influence in the region. By comparison, Donald Trump’s repeated assertion that working with Russia to eliminate instability in the region is a good idea suggests that Putin will have to consider a more diplomatic approach to expanding Russian influence if Clinton is defeated.
But it isn’t just Russia that lacks a clear motive in revealing the corruption and evil lurking within the Clinton campaign.
According to the U.K.’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan, it’s ridiculous to suggest that WikiLeaks has any interest in working with either Trump or Russia to harm Clinton’s electoral chances.
Murray, who recently visited Wikileaks founder Julian Assange at London’s Ecuadorian embassy, says he’s prepared to say with “100 percent certainty” that Russian actors didn’t provide the Clinton emails to the transparency organization.
Based on the information WikiLeaks chose to publish, Murray says the media’s repeated retelling of the Clinton lie is evidence that American journalists are working on behalf of Democrats to avoid discussing real controversies and violations of public trust involving the Clinton camp.
After his visit with Assange, Murray wrote:
The control of the Democratic party machinery deliberately to unfairly ensure Clinton’s victory over Bernie Sanders is a matter of great public interest. The attempt by the establishment from Obama down to divert attention from this by a completely spurious claim against Russia, repeated without investigation by a servile media, is a disgrace.
The over-close relationship between the probable future President and Wall Street is also very important. WikiLeaks has done a great public service by making this plain.
The attempts by the mainstream media to portray WikiLeaks as supporters of Trump and Putin because they publish some of Clinton’s darker secrets is completely illogical and untrue in fact. The idea we must pretend Clinton is a saint is emetic.
But the key point is that WikiLeaks is a publisher. It is a vehicle for publishing leaks, and is much more of a vehicle for whistleblowers than for hackers. It does not originate the material. I have often seen comments such as “Why has WikiLeaks not published material on Israel/Putin/Trump?” The answer is that they have not been given any. They publish good, verifiable material that they are given by whistleblowers. They are not protecting Israel, Putin, or Trump. Nobody has given them viable material.
And that should be the main takeaway here.
Even if the Russians hacked Clinton’s emails in an effort to sway public opinion in the U.S., is that really such a bad thing for the average American?After all, all we’ve learned from the hack is that the person almost every media outlet says is the most qualified for president has succeed only because of media manipulation, selling of access and outright propaganda and psyop-level trickery.
The Clinton political machine has spent three decades building complex and entangling relationships with the people running all of America’s major media outlets to the point where Americans get nothing but “dear leader” style coverage of the Democratic presidential candidate. So Clinton is basically claiming that a totalitarian government is foiling her attempt to mimic the type of sham politics present places like… Russia?