Dnc, The Russians, Intrigue, Suspense!

It's rigged in the sense that wealthy donors spend unlimited sums of money on elections, and the media has its darlings as well.

Bernie was a legitimate candidate. He took donations from the people to fund his candidacy. Anybody who uses superPACs is an illegitimate candidate. Anyone who accepts money from Wall Street is an illegitimate candidate.

It's amazing Bernie did so well considering the odds that were stacked against him. Like he said, he was going up against the biggest political machine in the country. And if he honestly didn't win, which is doubtful as it is, the media blackout certainly put the final nail in the coffin.

Actually if you want to get technical, we're still waiting on the proof that Russia had anything to do with it.

All that happened was that WikiLeaks read the emails, realized how corrupt the Clinton campaign and the DNC were, and decided not to be of any help to them.

The public is, right now, fighting corruption in one arena or the other. There are a lot of us who learned our lesson well this election that we have to get money out of politics. Plus there was all of the nasty business the WikiLeaks exposed. But the media says "Russia" and all the dogs start barking.

 

Hey rollingstoned. Did you vote for trump because of the DNC emails?

 

It's not what I believe. It's what the record shows. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst human rights violators; Clinton's Foundation accepted money from them anyway; the Saudis received a great arms deal anyway.

 

We need to get money out of politics. My main issue is with the Russian affair overshadowing that. Nothing should overshadow that. I'm willing to listen objectively to the CIA et al, but Russia is just something to keep into consideration. Our primary focus should be on getting money out of politics. And I genuinely suspect this whole Russian affair is the establishment's way of trying to distract the public from these more pressing matters.

Like I've said, I would be totally against Russia if I thought they were messing around with real elections.

We are diametrically opposed on this, so perhaps it is a waste of time to converse about it. I don't trust Putin, but I certainly trust Assange more than any intelligence agency. I think the intelligence agencies are just a means for the institution of the United States to guarantee its own survival. I'm not sure what private firms you're talking about, but most private firms have their own interests as well.

If there was nothing incriminating in them, how could they hurt Clinton? What was Rudi's foreknowledge?

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence. I honestly think that WikiLeaks went through the leaks, saw the corruption in the Clinton machine, and decided to release the information. I'm sure they were trying to hurt the Clinton campaign, but WikiLeaks doesn't claim to be an impartial source. Where they see injustice they seek to correct it, and I earnestly believe that the same standards they apply to Clinton they will apply to anyone else when their corruption is brought to attention.

 

Would you consider the act of an assistant attorney general giving a presidential candidate's campaign chairman a heads-up concerning the next step in the FBI investigation of that same presidential candidate an act of corruption? And if not, explain why.

 

Because there's no proof and I'm not naive enough to take our intelligence agencies' word for it *cough*cough* weapons of mass destruction *cough*.

I don't know if he had any role in the hacks. I just need to see some proof.

I don't think as many people as you've numbered have seen this proof. Or if they have then there goes the theory that the government can't keep a secret, because that's a whole lot of people in on it with no hint of any proof to the public.

I agree intelligence exists to safeguard the United States, but only the institution of the United States. As far as people's basic human rights are concerned our intelligence agencies could care less...at least as institutions themselves. I'm sure there are a lot of honest people working for these agencies, but self-preservation is their modus operandi. They'll preserve "the United States," and as long as the people of the United States aren't crawling on our knees we'll be thanking them for it.

Why do you keep suggesting that because corruption has precedent it isn't wrong, no one should be outraged, and nothing should be done about it? I don't care if our last ten presidents murdered infants in their sleep. It's still not okay for the DNC to claim impartiality and then rig the primary against one of the candidates. I'm not going to get into a war of attrition with you -- we all read the emails. Debbie and Co. are as unethical as they come.

All I'm saying is that expecting WikiLeaks to be fair and balanced as far as the nominees are concerned when they have the dirt on one and not the other is ridiculous. They had the dirt on Clinton and they saw fit to release it. I'm not sure what Trump could have been hiding that would have been worse than what the Clinton campaign was hiding.

The DNC discussed with the media ways to discredit Sanders and CNN even went so far as to give Clinton tips for the debates. And this is only scratching the surface. We can't have this, and I demand that if public opinion is to be dead set against Russia then it is to be dead set against what happened at the DNC during the primaries and dead set against the donors pouring billions into election cycles as well.

I tend to believe that people aren't so up in arms about Russia because they're worried about election interference so much as they seek a way to delegitimize Trump. But now that Trump is president it's too late and everyone will jump on to some more effective way to delegitimize him. Now it's time to switch gears and focus on how we can impeach him. The only time this election tampering business will be brought back up is when Trump tries to make allies with the Russians.

And the whole thing is just a thinly veiled attempt at censoring what news people are allowed to see, because the establishment wasn't allowed to control our thoughts with its media's interpretation of events this election cycle.

 

So if an Assistant Attorney General emails the campaign chairman of the democratic presidential candidate--a candidate whom the FBI is investigating--to give him a heads-up concerning questions that will be asked at a hearing, that doesn't indicate anything like a conflict of interest in your eyes? Okay. Apparently, Senator Chuck Grassley, who happens to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee doesn't share your "so what" assessment of the situation.

Grassley wants to know about possible conflicts of interest stemming from Peter Kazik's close ties to Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta. Kadzik, the Justice Department's liaison to Congress, emailed Podesta in May 2015, giving him a "heads up" that the head of the DOJ Civil Division was about to testify before the House Judicial Committee and was "Likely to get questions on State Department emails."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/grassley-asks-justice-department-ig-investigate-investigators-clinton-email
_________________________________________________________________________________

You've indicated that the questions that were going to be asked was public knowledge because they had been reported in the media. Of course this makes one wonder why Kadzik would bother giving a campaign chairman a "heads-up" in an email concerning information that was already public. Anyway, could you provide your source for that statement?

 

Has anyone mentioned the pied piper email in this thread yet?

The one that showed the DNC colluded with the media to give coverage to Trump and Cruz and Carson in order to make a joke out of the Republican party and make the Democratic party look better in comparison?

Isnt this exactly what the media did, giving Trump free publicity and coverage around the clock?

People want to sweep the information revealed in the hacked emails under the rug and write it all off as insignificant

Some of it is

And yet...the plan revealed in this email backfired spectacularly and influenced the outcome of the election! And now we have Trump. And some excuse this as politics as usual.

Maybe this is the crux of the issue, the reason why I find the outrage over Russia so hypocritical. When the Russians leak information to the media, well Wikileaks, in order to influence the election it is called rigging the election. And yet when thr DNC uses the media in order to influence the election it is politics as usual.

And we end up with Trump.

If the DNC didnt have their cozy relationship with the press and if the press actually did their job and gave each Republican and Democrat candidate fair coverage rather than bowing to the demands of the Democratic party, maybe we wouldnt have have Trump. Maybe we would have a Democrat, maybe we would have Bernie Sanders, maybe we would have a reasonable Republican. Instead of Trump.

Anyways, i personally am much more disturbed with the fact that the DNC had a heavy hand in Trump's media attention and subsequent popularity than I am with an outside influence doing the same thing.

 

No. My position is that, since they are unethical, I don't trust them. Again, where is the proof that Russia interfered?

It's the same thing all over again. Authorities tell you there's proof and you just believe them, no questions asked. I'll bet a thousand dollars that if this were the year 2002 you'd be the first one telling me to believe that Iraq was in possession of WMDs too. And then later if I call the President a liar, what's your excuse? "Presidents always lie"?

Proof. Proof is all I need. That is proof. I.e. not taking the President's word for it or an intelligence agency's word for it.

How did I come up with the idea that these institutions are more interested in their own survival than the people's survival? It wasn't too much of a stretch. I just look at all of the people who are tortured, detained, have mind control experiments performed on them...all of the private information that they are gathering on us, the surveillance state, the militarization of the police, the interference in countries overseas, the wars we wage because of this, and the pieces just sort of come together.

Yeah it takes time. It would go a lot faster if some people would stop denying that we have a problem. If some people wouldn't do everything in their power to be apologists for the regime.

I didn't say the DNC was more corrupt than the RNC. The whole election process needs an overhaul. WikiLeaks just didn't have proof of the RNC's corruption, or it would have published it.

WikiLeaks' is a news outlet whose job it is to expose the truth. The truth doesn't schedule itself on being timely and provincial to one side of the other. The DNC has all the time in the world to be fair and balanced. There is never any lack of information that is stopping it from being fair and balanced. That is, if you don't count the glaringly obvious facts that are staring them right in the face, such as the fact that the people do not want their corrupt establishment politicians.

That's fine with me. Like I said, I'm not fighting a war of attrition with you. If you want to keep pretending to be ignorant, then I'm just going to start assuming you are ignorant. I'm not here to jerk myself off like I'm some political correspondent. All I want is the brass tacks.

What U.S.? There is no people's U.S. These are just gigantic self-aware machines fighting, going at it. The "U.S." can concern itself with these attacks. It should stop pretending it wants my support or anyone else's.

What do you mean how is that? How does the mainstream media have its own narrative that it pushes and blacks everything else out? How is it that these companies are owned by like six people. Billionaires with agendas controlling everything we're allowed to consume, packaging it however they see fit.

Now the internet exists. They can't control what we experience, so they want to crack down, and they want the public to essentially police themselves. They want it to be our decision not to swallow anything that isn't regurgitated from their mouths.

 

You failed to provide a source for your claim that questions concerning Clinton's emails were public knowledge before the heads-up email from Kadzik to Podesta. Nor did you explain what business Kadzik had emailing a heads-up to the presidential candidate's campaign chairman when that candidate was under an FBI investigation, or why on earth Kadzik would give a heads-up to Podesta concerning information that was public knowledge anyway. What would be the point of that? Of course, we now know that Kadzik and Podesta were good friends, and that Kadzik contributed to Clinton's campaign in 2008.

Define conflict of interest.
__________________________________________________________________________

Who is Kadzik? We have learned in WikiLeaks emails that he is a very good friend of Clinton campaign chair Podesta. Here’s how the Daily Caller reported their relationship last month.

The day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October, John Podesta, the Democrat’s campaign chairman, met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends, including Peter Kadzik, a top official at the Justice Department. The dinner arrangement, revealed in hacked Podesta emails released by WikiLeaks, is just the latest example of an apparent conflict of interest between the Clinton campaign and the federal agency charged with investigating the former secretary of state’s email practices.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/did-wikileaks-just-uncover-clintons-mole-within-the-doj

 

That's the one I was wondering.

 

So here you have exposed the corruption of the entire Bush Administration which led to the death of about a million innocent people and untold human misery, and also the corruption of the Intelligence community who would not stand up for the truth.