What is WikiLeaks’ Agenda?
WikiLeaks is a non-profit journalist website that focuses in releasing large sets of documents that would have otherwise been secret or unaccessible to the public.
There is a lot of controversy over the ethics of what WikiLeaks is fundamentally doing. Many have a polarized reaction to WikiLeaks, either loving or hating the notion of what they represent. On one hand, they are attempting to expose what is actually happening in the world, based upon factual data, rather than people’s opinions or the media’s spin. In a world where it is clear that at least 90% of the media has the interests of large corporations, it becomes difficult for many Americans to trust their TVs for reliable news.
Wikileaks promises to always publish documents in an unedited form, letting the truth speak for itself. Also, Wikileaks never reveals the identity of the person or people who provided the leak of information. This brings some concern for some, as it becomes difficult to know how to trust WikiLeaks sources. In particular, it seems that many in the establishment would not approve of WikiLeaks’ agenda.
Others may also dislike WikiLeaks by claiming that their organization may be poking around in areas that are too big for them to fully understand. WikiLeaks is often compared to the likes of Edward Snowden, which fundamentally addresses the notion of secrecy. Wikipedia takes a bit of a negative bias, as they state that many people are worried that WikiLeaks can “endanger innocent lives”.
Do we trust our governments to act in our best interest? If so, should we grant them the privacy of secrecy, or should the people demand a more transparent system that is not obfuscated in complications meant to confuse or bore the public so that they stay uninvolved?
Considering the recent leaks of emails from Hillary Clinton and the DNC, it seems pretty clear that these leaks are not endangering innocent lives, but rather exposing serious corruption in our democratic system. While people established in the democratic party may argue that WikiLeaks is trying to attack the political system itself, which may be counterproductive, many others do not look at it in the same light.
Many Americans are frustrated with the media coverage of Hillary Clinton, as it seems everyone with money is pushing for a Hillary victory. Others are also disgruntled with the way that Bernie Sanders campaign has ended, as many believe that the election was either rigged or unjustly influenced. Let’s dive into the emails themselves to learn what happened.
Directly from wikileaks.org, we see that they have released over 30,000 of emails between Hillary and various people.
On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016.
On July 4th, WikiLeaks also released over 1,000 selected emails from Hillary’s archive that were pertinent to the Iraq war. This was done in anticipation of the UK’s release of their own 9/11 report, which stated that the UK was apologetic for the end result of what had happened in Iraq, but they were merely doing so to support their strong ally, the US.
Around this time, Julian Assange stated that there is enough information out there to indict Hillary Clinton, but that is impossible with Loretta Lynch in charge. Julian was exactly right, as the FBI did find wrongdoing of Hillary, but did not follow up with any charges.
There is clear evidence of Hillary lying about these emails.
Everyone in the media talks about the security of these emails, but few discuss the content of the emails. Perhaps the worst is that it seems Hillary Clinton single-handedly helped influence the UN to take out Gaddafi in Libya, destroy their dreams of a gold backed currency, and exploit the energy reserves of the country.
This type of action is just one example of many times the Clintons have exploited foreign countries for mining or energy resources, helping large Western corporations profit.
In an interview, Julian Assange said that the CIA warned Hillary that going into Libya would most likely lead to terrorist groups such as ISIS to take control of the country. Hillary did not care about this, and pushed the UN into Libya. If anything, it seems that Hillary is jeopardizing the safety of Americans by allowing regime changes that will support the growth of terrorism.
With the UN now pushing nukes up to Russian borders and conflicts in Syria and Turkey, tensions are starting to rise and many wonder if Hillary could influence the return of a second Cold War.
Less than 10 days ago, WikiLeaks is at it again, with almost 20,000 emails from the DNC. WikiLeaks had this to say about the documents.
Today, Friday 22 July 2016 at 10:30am EDT, WikiLeaks releases 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee — part one of our new Hillary Leaks series. The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC: Communications Director Luis Miranda (10770 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3797 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finanace Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1472 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails). The emails cover the period from January last year until 25 May this year.
It is clear that this is just the first release of a series of many to come. One source claimed that there were 6 releases planned to happen sporadically leading up to the election. What is interesting is the particular timing of these emails. Assange specifically said in an interview that it is simply a difficult task to get all of this material sorted and indexed. He set it as a goal to get the first set out before the DNC national convention, as he thought many people would be disappointed if he had released it later than this.
But what if these emails could have been released before the primaries? This information clearly would have helped Bernie Sanders. With more scandals coming out about Hillary, and with a delayed rape charge against Trump, it is now becoming difficult for Americans to trust either party.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the head of the DNC was forced to resign, which is interesting, considering that she was not one of the people with the most emails released. It seems she has taken a bullet for the DNC, making it seem like she is accepting all of the responsibility for the wrongdoing of the emails. Hillary responded by hiring DWS for her campaign within a couple of days.
So what did the emails show? First, it is evident that there were discussions to undermine Bernie, and specifically there was an email directed to attack Bernie on the topic of his religious beliefs.
The DNC followed up at the convention by apologizing to Bernie, but obviously Hillary was still nominated.
These emails also address the media’s response to WikiLeaks’ last leak of Hillary’s emails. Morning Joe had been ripping her to shreds for lying, and redditors were going wild.
The emails also specifically showed that they intervened with the media, in particular by telling Morning Joe to stop hating on Hillary. People on Reddit also pointed out that they noticed that their political coverage had changed exactly around the time of the DNC email to Morning Joe, showing that Morning Joe did listen to the DNC.
The media attempts to discredit the WikiLeaks documents, as they claim that the source is from Russia. WikiLeaks states that they authenticate all of their released documents, ensuring that they are indeed accurate. Assange also goes to say that multiple groups have hacked the DNC. Even if the Russians did hack the DNC, who cares where they came from, if they are indeed all factual. Snowden said that if Russians hacked the DNC, NSA would clearly know about this.
DWS in an email on May 21st already considered Bernie out of the race, when there were still 9 states who had not had their primary elections yet.
DWS also interfered with CBS media by appearing on “Face the Nation”, as she was quite pro Hillary in email sentiments leading up to this appearance.
“It’s clear that Bernie messed up and that we’re on the right side of history,” Miranda wrote in another bullet point, referring to the Nevada convention.
The above quote truly shows the bias of the DNC against Bernie and for Hillary. The DNC is supposed to support all of their candidates equally.
Politico reporter also emailed the DNC of their reports before they were published, which violates fundamental principles of journalism ethics.
The DNC also posted fake jobs on craigslist, implying that they would work for Trump’s campaign and subject them to humiliating acts. They were trying to fabricate dirt to throw on the Trump campaign.
The DNC also appointed big donors to government positions, showing how just about everything in politics can be bought.
WikiLeaks did expose big donors’ personal information, including bank account numbers and social security numbers.
The DNC also were making fun on some black person’s name.
People working within the democratic party were told to not to even look at wikileaks.com, as their site would contain dangerous malware. Julian Assange specifically said that there is no such possible risk. Even though the emails that they downloaded may contain malware, these malicious files would not get transferred over to the wikileaks.org website when they host the text copy of the email. Anyone who understands basic computers, has used emails, and has viewed websites should easily understand this.
It is very clear that the DNC does not want their own people to look into its internal affairs.
Remember, Hillary blatantly lied multiple times by saying that she had no private email server, no classified communications, or anything of the likes. With WikiLeaks releasing these documents, it is proof that Hillary is a habitual liar.
Facebook has also been blocking Assange’s releases, as they did not let WikiLeaks post material, claiming it was due to technical difficulties.
Google has been not showing the result “Hillary for prison”. It was alleged to be a top search term on Google. Bing also would show “Hillary for prison” as the first keyword auto-complete suggestion after typing in Hillary, yet Google did not show that keyword. Even to this day, it will suggest “Hillary for prison sticker” over “Hillary for prison”. There is no way people are Googling “Hillary for prison sticker” more than “Hillary for prison”, which suggests that Google is blocking this search term.
It seems that not only has the traditional media been compromised, but also social media and search engines.
The Washington Post had just about nothing interesting to say about the DNC leaks. This Bilderberg media company would not like to dive too deep into Hillary.
Future WikiLeaks Releases
Julian Assange is not done with Hillary. It appears that this DNC is the first of six releases. Assange has also stated that he will put out enough information to allow for the arrest of Hillary Clinton.
Questions for Thought
Why did Debbie Wasserman Schultz get fired? Did she specifically say bad things in the emails, or did she simply take a bullet for all of the DNC? The wound from this metaphorical bullet was soon healed with a new position on Hillary’s campaign.
Why is it so difficult to find specifics from the emails in the media? The media is known for having democratic values and liberal interests. Is it possible that the media is purposefully not discussing the details of the emails? Googling around for 30 minutes and skimming through 10 mainstream news articles seems to provide very little information about what actually was released in the emails. They simply state that emails were released. They talk about Trump’s reaction, or the fact that DWS got fired, but they don’t seem to focus too much on what is actually in the emails.
After all, DNC vice chairwoman had been a CNN political commentator. Now that she is filling the shoes of DWS, she has cancelled her contract with CNN. The fact that the vice chairwoman of the DNC was working for CNN already is suspicious.