Far too many people got sucked into the Hillary Clinton campaign’s McCarthyite coverup of her destruction of 30,000 emails that she decided unilaterally were “personal.”
The Friday, July 22 release by Wikileaks of approximately 20,000 emails and other documents from a Democrat National Committee server on the eve of the party’s convention caused Hillary Clinton’s campaign two problems, one I can characterize as “procedural,” and the other as substantive.
The procedural problem was that the unauthorized release of emails from a party server provided a vivid reminder Hillary Clinton’s recent wriggling out of yet another scrape caused by her misconduct, specifically her “extreme carelessness,” actually illegal handling of classified information on an outlaw private server, and the coverup that followed. Recall that during that coverup Mrs. Clinton assured everyone that she had never transmitted or received classified information on her private home brew server (not true), that she had turned over all “work-related” emails to the State Department (also not true, despite a signing a sworn statement stating that she had handed them all over), and that her setup had been “approved,” something that a State Department Inspector General Report released in May 2016 specifically contradicted. There were more lies and deliberate deceptions, but it’s not necessary to restate them all here. The last thing the Democrats and Hillary’s campaign needed the weekend before her coronation was email hacking being the lead story.
Of course, all the discussion of the hacking didn’t even touch the substantive problem; that is, what was in the emails. And that was really bad. The emails revealed that the democrat party, far from being a neutral organization, letting its two candidates battle it out on a level playing field, the fix was in from the beginning to make sure that Hillary got the nomination and that Sen. Bernie Sanders, and his passionate supporters, were screwed over.
So specifically what was in those DNC emails? The fact that the party planned to destroy Bernie’s campaign, even if it took questioning his religious faith, name-calling and squabbling over money. The bottom line, though, was that the revelation that the party had been in the tank for Hillary all along, and that the Bernie’s campaign was doomed from the start.
It was a real mess. It’s like watching Uncle Edgar get drunk again on Thanksgiving and remembering all the times that happened before, and all the unfortunate consequences, like the time he tried to carve the turkey and it went squirting off the platter right onto the dining room floor, or the time his face ended up in the punch bowl. What if this time he blurts out that he’s been having an affair with Aunt Sally?
So the democrat establishment had to change the subject and FAST. Enter silly, low-information Hillary apparatchik, Robby “All Presidential Elections are Close” Mook, another millennial moron, with his revelations that unidentified “experts” had told him that the Russians were behind it. Shades of Joe McCarthy.
The Russians? Whaa? Of course, because Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are BFF’s, at least according to democrats, CNN and the rest of the media. Didn’t you know that? Oh yeah. Never mind that it was the Obama Regime that promised Vlad “flexibility,” and who has given Putin pretty much anything he wants, including backing off that “red line,” to the delight of Putin’s client Bashar Assad.
So the narrative was set. The media had its marching orders, and amazingly, it seemed to work. Almost no one seemed the slightest bit interested in what was actually in the emails, only the “fact” that the Russians, friends of Trump, were behind the skullduggery.
All of this is, or should be, obvious. I know that you know that. Don’t stop reading. I do have a point, and this is it. What shocks me, and I hope shocks you, is how readily many people are willing to swallow this fairy tale whole without asking the obvious questions; specifically, what was in those DNC emails? And why aren’t those truth seekers in the media the least bit interested in that? It’s like Woodward and Bernstein finding out that Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign had connections to the Watergate burglars, and saying “OK. That’s nice So? Got anything worth investigating?”
RELATED STORY: “Flexible” Obama Explains Russian Email Hacking
In addition, many low information people, and by that I mean nearly every “reporter,” has been parroting the line: “Donald Trump said he wants Russia to hack U.S. Email. Isn’t that terrible? What an irresponsible, unpresidential thing to do!” It might be, had he actually said that. His sarcastic remark was intended to say that since Hillary Clinton unilaterally decided that it was perfectly ok to delete over 30,000 emails from her outlaw server, that were she and she alone decided were strictly personal, perhaps the Russians could give the American people and investigators a chance to see what she was hiding.
Inadvertently, the Clinton campaign may have outsmarted itself. Hillary said that the 30,000+ emails that she deleted had nothing to do with national security. By suggesting that encouraging Putin to reveal their contents is someone irresponsible and damaging, aren’t they admitting that these messages contained something other than yoga routines and Chelsea’s wedding plans?
Now the democrat convention is over, and the media circus has moved on without spending any time on the question “what were the democrats and Hillary up to?” I predict the pretend news and the “journalists” who work on it will show as much interest in this question for next 100 days as they did on “who is Barack Obama?” in 2008. And we see how well that worked out.
Why do you think many people still buy the phony narratives created by the pretend news? How can we counteract it?