How many people are likely to overlook the fact that there aren't any denials that the E-Mails that were leaked by Wikileaks are accurate?
The lack of denials is virtual proof that they're accurate; and that they've been far more concerned about manipulating the public than they've been about serving their interests; either that or incredible incompetence from the DNC.
As for the Russian conspiracy to hack the DNC server, that hasn't been proven; and it is one of at least three relatively high profile conspiracy theories to explain the hack. Even if it were true it still wouldn't change the fact that the DNC has been deceiving the public all along!
It is now routine for both nominees to get caught in one scandal after another virtually every week; and both of them are also using many of wildest conspiracy theories to attack each other or defend against their own scandals when they can't come up with a better defense.
There are so many conspiracies being exposed and conspiracy theorists among the mainstream media that it must make Michael Shermer's head spin since the corporations and governments he usually defends are the ones getting caught while simultaneously promoting the Conspiracy Theories he ridicules, as part of his scientific beliefs.
The most widely reported conspiracy theory explaining how the DNC computer system was hacked is that it was done by the Russians; however there is no conclusive evidence of that even though they repeat it so often that it often appears to conclusive and there are at least two other high profile explanations getting much less attention from the traditional media including WikiLeaks offers reward for help finding DNC staffer’s killer 08/09/2016 and NSA whistleblower says DNC hack was not done by Russia, but by U.S. intelligence 08/01/2016
On top of that Assange Slams Clinton Campaign, Says There Is No Evidence Putin Behind Wikileaks; 07/26/2016 he added "We have not disclosed our source and of course this is a diversion being pushed by the Hillary Clinton campaign,' said the founder of Wikileaks after publishing hacked DNC emails," which would be quite clear to anyone concerned about the rigging of the primaries.
Assange's claims seem to imply that he thinks it is more likely that Seth Rich might have been involved in the leak before he was killed; however he doesn't say that for certain. Even if he isn't involved in the leak his death does appear suspicious and should probably get more attention. According to 4th Mysterious Death Connected to the DNC 08/10/2016 other alleged conspiracies related to suspicious deaths are even less credible; however they've been adding to conspiracy theories surrounding Hillary Clinton to confuse the issue.
Even before the DNC leak was made public Guccifer 2 had already disclosed that the DNC had planned on HRC being the democratic nominee as early as May of 2015 long before even one primary was held, and before they knew that Bernie Sanders would provide as much of a challenge to her according to The Democratic Party’s Civil War. 06/18/2016
They didn't deny this anymore than they denied the leaks from Wikileaks implying it is also true; and their defense against that was the same conspiracy theory that the Russians were behind it so their alleged interference in our elections should be more important than the rigging of the elections, according to the people implicated in the leaks.
Additional alleged evidence for their Russian conspiracy theory includes flattering statements by Trump and Putin about each other and statements that they would be willing to work together, as well as new claims that his campaign manager Paul Manafort had connections with the previous corrupt Ukrainian government which was also supported by Putin. However Clinton also had connections with Russian and already gave them preferential treatment according to the New York Times, Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal 04/23/2015
This is a major part of a much larger trend with both campaigns; whenever one of them is involved in a major scandal the other also seems to be involved in a similar one. In most if not all cases Trump is involved in many scams like Trump University, not paying contractors, Casino scams where other investors lose money while he makes a lot, in the private sector; while Clinton is involved in one scandal after another including connections to the Clinton Foundation and her official duties in the public sector. In Clinton's case she collects enormous amounts of campaign donations and speaking fees from corporations that receive preferential treatment from the government when she's in office; but according to rules made by those involved this isn't considered bribery.
Trump outsources in the private sector; Clinton uses public office to help outsourcing; Trump suppresses wages by busting unions in private sector; Clinton's State Department lobbied to keep Haiti's minimum wage from rising to 61 cents from 31 cents, remained silent on the fight for 15 until it gained momentum then supported 12 to head it off; when she failed and it went up in NY and California she tried to take credit for it; Trump has 13 economic advisers from corporate sector including hedge fund managers; Clinton gets the vast majority of donations from hedge fund managers, presumably to encourage her to stand up to them, if you believe her.
This trend just keeps going on one issue after another.
Whether you call it bribery or not, while she's been fighting for us including the poor women children and workers the people she fights for keep getting poorer and she keeps getting richer along with her campaign contributors.
Is it any surprise that many people were skeptical when Clinton friend McAuliffe says Clinton will flip on TPP, then walks it back? 07/26/2016
This isn't the first time her backers have claimed they could rely on her once she gets in office, assuming she wins it wasn't that long ago that Chamber of Commerce President and Lobbyist Tom Donohue said Clinton Will Support TPP After Election. 12/28/2016 He said, "If she were to get nominated, if she were to be elected, I have a hunch that what runs in the family is you get a little practical if you ever get the job," and he has good reason to believe that she would do this since not only has she had a track record of doing just that but so have their other supporters that take their donations, including Barack Obama who also promised to stand up to free trade deals once elected, refuse to hire lobbyists and even "put on a comfortable pair of shoes" and march with protesters after being elected if necessary.
Barack Obama, of course broke everyone of those promises and Hillary Clinton has broken her share of promises after taking donations from the corporations that she claims she will stand up to; this includes her reversal as Senator on the banking bill after taking donations from the banks.
Choosing one of the leading supporters of TPP for her running mate adds to the doubts about her opposition to TPP and her surrogates blocked opposition to it in the Democratic platform. Of course she also called in "the Gold Standard" as secretary of state" before claiming that when she finally found out what was in it she decided to oppose it. It was actually watered down a little since then as a result of all the protests but it is still far worse than most people would support; however this is according to leaks, since the government has been reluctant to release the full details of the agreement they want to approve.
If it's so good why won't they let us know what is in the deal?
How did she negotiate it or come to the conclusion that it was "the Gold Standard" if she didn't know what was in it until her campaign when deciding to oppose it?
We're supposed to believe her when everything she says doesn't make sense and contradicts her track record.?
This is just the beginning of the conspiracy theories surrounding the election, and some of the more rational ones that are almost certainly at least partially true. However even when it comes to the less rational ones, or at least those that seem less rational there often seems to be some behavior on the part of the establishment that enables or encourages conspiracy theories and some of their defenses of them don't make much more sense than the bizarre conspiracy theories, implying the possibility that even though the conspiracy theories are often wrong their denials may also be wrong as well and that something else might be going on. On top of that they often use fringe conspiracy theories to distract from their corruption; so is it that surprising that some people speculate about the possibility that they might be creating them to look better by comparison?
Even though there's no evidence to support this hypothesis, they do take advantage of conspiracy theories when they come up to ridicule rational complaints along with irrational ones clearly using it for effective propaganda stereotyping their opposition; and even using it to justify using supportive audiences that have been screened by the campaign like in Orlando when they did a surprisingly bad job screening them and Seddique Mateen was smiling in the background while Hillary Clinton gave a speech honoring the victims of his son.
 |  |
This high profile blunder gave some fringe conspiracy theorists the opportunity to create a meme falsely claiming that he visited Hillary Clinton's office while she was Secretary of State; however he did apparently visit the office after she had left, although many of his claims were almost certainly exaggerated. According to The Father of the Orlando Shooter Recently Visited Congress, State Department, Writes Open Letters To President Obama June 2016 he visited Washington in 2014 and posted many pictures on Facebook or other Social Media outlets. These photos don't appear to be faked including pictures with three congressmen; however according to Congressmen Dana Rohrabacher, Ed Royce confirm meetings with Orlando shooter's father 06/13/2016 and Congressmen Dana Rohrabacher, Ed Royce confirm meetings with Orlando shooter's father 08/13/2016 they were brief meetings in hallways without much if any further discussion, which they couldn't remember after the shooting.
Even though there is no evidence to a bizarre conspiracy it should be worth considering that the vast majority of their rallies are carefully staged with supporters rarely letting opposition in if they can screen them out. If they wanted to avoid embarrassing photo ops like this and stop staging their rallies they could easily find a consistent way of screening people and they wouldn't automatically assume that everyone in their rallies is a supporter or has been approved by the campaign. However they don't want to do any such thing since they use these staged rallies to make it seem like they have much more support than they do and it has worked for a long time; and still does, at least for constituents that rely on traditional media for their information.
Some of the bizarre conspiracy theories about her came as a result about her bizarre behavior which, intentionally or not have served to distract from more important issues like epidemic levels of corruption that really matter and lack of coverage of candidates that don't have all these scandals. This includes a bizarre joke from her about Hillary: I don't sweat ... because I'm a robot 10/12/2015 and an extremely weird laughing scene that distracted reporters from addressing issues and was later interpreted to be a possible epileptic seizure.
If the two leading candidates really did want to avoid bizarre conspiracy theories that distract from the issues, not only would they stop coming up with some of them but they could at least try to stop providing the bizarre behavior that encourages others to come up with even more. Some of the absurd theories actually make more sense than many of their promises, which have no credibility after their record or many of their bizarre conspiracy theories since the facts seem to provide circumstantial evidence that they might be true; like a relatively common one that Trump is helping Clinton rig the election for her with his odd behavior.
In many cases when she needs help getting out of one scandal or another he provides it intentionally or not by coming up with something stupid. Hillary Clinton's record and favorability ratings are so horrendous that she would never have any chance at all unless she was up against someone as outrageous as Donald Trump!
Even if most people don't take this absurd conspiracy theory seriously most of the time there is something seriously wrong with this situation and a rational explanation as to how we wound up in this situation. The DNC leaks exposed enormous rigging of the coverage for Hillary Clinton and as I reported in Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating? even that wasn't enough; they had to rely on voting irregularities to win or create the appearance that they won.
There is no doubt that Donald Trump and the extreme right wing exaggerate and even come up with absurd lies about many of Clinton's scandals; however that doesn't mean that there's nothing to them. In many cases, after sorting though the details, there are serious problems but the traditional media often doesn't do this; and the best criticisms of both candidates are often on lower profile alternative media outlets.
Whether this is intentional or not, it enables the Clinton campaign to claim that most if not all of the critics of her are fringe conspiracy theorists often with the help of the media that is supposedly impartial, or other allies of hers including President Obama. One of the most blatant examples of this is when He said "Of course the election will not be rigged! What does that mean? That's ridiculous. That doesn't make any sense."
After all the coverage of the DNC leaks this comment is as ridiculous or senseless as the claims he's trying to debunk! However he's right that it isn't being rigged against Donald Trump. Donald Trump has received enormous amounts of air time that gave him an enormous advantage and enabled him to get the nominee. As I've said previously numerous times including in this series of posts, the most effective way the media rigs elections, isn't the discussion in the leaked E-mails or the voter suppression described in Can Hillary Clinton win without cheating?, the elections are rigged when the media gives enormous amounts of coverage to candidates they like year after year, while refusing to cover those that they don't like so that voters only choose from those that the media tells them are viable.
The election is being rigged against the candidates that actually discuss the most important issues, and against the vast majority of the public that never gets to hear from the best candidates or many of the most important educational information that enables them to make their decisions!
Donald Trump won thanks in large part because the media gave him enormous amounts of air time for years as a reality TV star to build up his popularity; then when he declared his candidacy they provided enormous amounts of air time covering his rallies even though they didn't provide many other candidates including Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein nearly as much time and they avoided fact checking a lot of the issues for years, which continued during the election. There are plenty of psychologists studying what Irving Janis called "groupthink" and how crowds can be manipulated by demagogues. Is it really that unreasonable to think that advisers to the Trump campaign might be providing hims some advise about how to manipulate crowds? There are plenty of books where some of these manipulators virtually admit they're doing this including "Words That Work" by Frank Luntz and "The Lucifer Effect" by Philip Zimbardo that indicate that not only is it reasonable to speculate about this but it is virtually guaranteed that psychological manipulation research is routine; and the DNC leaks confirm some of the details behind that.
Even Mika Brzezinski has come out and said that she doesn't think Trump is trying to win after hearing Mark Halperin say his campaign makes no sense if he's trying to win. Rachel Maddow, often a skeptic of conspiracy theories, has also made similar statements, floating the possibility that many presidential candidates like Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich do it to sell books and other items or to increase their status so they can make money off of other scams. She has also provided an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence to indicate that even if that wasn't what they intended that was what they were doing.
Mika Brzezinski was also mentioned in the DNC leaks when Debbie Wasserman Schultz was trying to get management including Chuck Todd to stop criticizing her.
Could this be a conspiracy to give her credit for standing up to bad reporting? Absurd of course; however it wouldn't be the first time she did something that appeared to stand up to pressure; there was also a story about her refusing to read trivial stories about Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton and pass them off for news. They made a big deal about this for a while which might make her seem like the hero of MSNBC to many people; but considering her family connections is she really someone that is inclined to stand up to corrupt media?
It may not seem like a rational theory to most but there is no way someone without connections could get away with that and people with connections routinely get presented in a positive, often heroic way. As far fetched as it sounds I wouldn't rule this out or something similar. And I certainly wouldn't count on her to be the hero of the corporate media.
That still doesn't answer everything, since this research also indicates that they know how to do a much better job rigging elections and have been doing just that for decades without making it so clear.
There's a good chance that there's a much more far fetched conspiracy going on right now; but the simple ones joked about are either too simple or not nearly complicated enough. As I said before Yes Virginia There Is A Trump And Clinton Conspiracy but even though some smaller conspiracies have been proven if there's a bigger one involving something as absurd as Clinton and Trump working together it may be much bigger involving many other interlocking conspiracies and I won't completely rule out the possibility that if we could expose them it wouldn't stop until someone claims it involves UFOs and alien technology using us for a research project, assuming that hasn't already happened.
Even without such a bizarre conspiracy something extremely bizarre is going on at a time when epidemic levels of income inequality is escalating; environmental destruction and permanent war is threatening to cause escalating problems that could destroy society and the entire establishment is behaving insane.
Assange Claims ‘The Clinton Threat Machine Is Ferocious’ 08/08/2016
Wikileaks Says They Have 1,700 Emails Proving Hillary Clinton Knew About U.S. Military Weapons Shipments To Al Qaeda And ISIS 08/11/2016
Julian Assange: My Next Leak Will Ensure Hillary’s Arrest 07/24/2016
The following are some additional stories including some of the best leaks not previously covered in other posts in this series. They include efforts to help give Debbie Wasserman Schultz an unfair advantage in her own reelection campaign which she may wind up losing in less than two weeks now that her corruption has been exposed. Either that or her constituents are either complicit or perhaps more likely being used by more corruption.
Hacked Emails Prove Hillary Sold Weapons To Terrorists, Worse Than You Think 08/02/2016
Clinton State Department approved U.S. weapons shipment to Libya despite ban 10/20/2015
The Juiciest Leaks so far 08/0/2016
DNC Jusiest leaks so far
Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC’s leaked emails 07/25/2016
Freedom Rider: Wikileaks Exposes Democrats’ Corruption 07/26/2016
9 Leaked Emails the DNC Doesn’t Want You to See 07/23/2016
The DNC Is Playing ‘Chicken’ With Progressives 07/25/2016 Debbie “will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally.”
Wasserman Schultz to Have a New Role in Clinton Campaign 07/24/2016
DNC sought to hide details of Clinton funding deal 07/26/2016
WikiLeaks releases hacked Democratic National Committee audio files 07/28/2016
In Leaked Recordings, DNC Shown Controlling Donor Access 07/27/2016
W: Question regarding CrookedHillary2016.com 04/28/2016
HERE IT IS=> Detailed List of Findings in Wikileaks DNC Document Dump 07/24/2016
"Sha-dyyyyyyy" Secret DNC plan to win Sanders' Millennials by using LGBT issues. #DNCLeak https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/ema
Re: Millenial Engagement Plan 05/05/2016
Re: Robbie Kaplan blast language 05/07/2016 For the invite you just sent me (Robbie Kaplan Blast language), you have to remove Tina Tchen’s name because there is a hard ask in the e-mail
RE: Gloria Allred blast language for lawyers approval 05/19/2016 When sending out an e-mail fundraising blast, the ask cannot have the appearance of being earmarked for the purpose of defeating Trump.
Christina Freundlich Woman who posed for a selfie at scene of East Village gas blast has been hired as DNC spokesperson 07/08/2015
Wikileaks E-Mail RE: need comms approval - craigslist job post 05/18/2016 From: Freundlich, Christina .... digital created a fake craigslist jobs post for women who want to apply to jobs one of Trump’s organizations.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz Served Class Action Lawsuit for Rigging Primaries 06/30/2016
WikiLeaks releases thousands of documents about Clinton and internal deliberations 07/22/2016
Wikileaks E-Mail: RE: Offered support for Congressman Nadler 05/20/2016
Julian Assange: WikiLeaks will show how US intelligence interferes in European elections 08/10/2016
Paris strikes astonishing partnership with secret Isis sponsor tied to Hillary Clinton [EXCLUSIVE] 07/29/2016
Catastrophe: Hacker leaks phone numbers, email addresses of every House Democrat 08/12/2016
Julian Assange: WikiLeaks will show how US intelligence interferes in European elections 08/10/2016
RE: Getting on same page from Mark Paustenbach to Luis Miranda 05/20/2016
FW: Getting on same page from Luis Miranda to Mark Paustenbach 05/20/2016
With or without a fringe conspiracy theory it should be clear to people that check their own facts that the candidates the media presents as "viable" are often the most corrupt while those they decline to cover unless they're under enormous amounts of grassroots pressure are much less inclined to support corrupt policies benefiting corporations donating to campaigns like Jill Stein. As long as we allow the media to pre-select which candidates are "viable" we'll never have a political establishment that represents us or a real democracy.
