Wikileaks shows that Sanders, as controlled opposition, made a non-aggression “agreement,” and Clinton had “leverage” to enforce it.
Think about it. If Bernie Sanders was controlled opposition and yet still hurt Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, imagine what uncontrolled opposition could do!
Late Friday Wikileaks tweeted:
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 5, 2016
So, after all the outrage against Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others at the DNC, the final conspirator (or blackmail victim) is revealed to be Bernie Sanders, himself. Here’s Mark Dice’s summary:
Hillary Clinton was blackmailing Bernie Sanders into not attacking her on certain issues, Wikileaks has revealed. Clinton campaign emails reveal they had “leverage” to use against him and that they had to “signal” him after he “violated” their agreement.
According to Heatstreet,
Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook emailed campaign chairman John Podesta to express his displeasure with Sanders’ remarks, and suggested that Sanders had violated an “agreement” of some kind between the campaigns.
Sander’s remarks were made to CNBC, in response to a question about the Clintons’ wealth.
Theoretically you can be a multibillionaire and in fact be very concerned about the issues of working people. Theoretically that’s true. When you hustle money like that, you don’t sit in restaurants like this. You sit in restaurants where you spend, I don’t know what they spend, hundreds of dollars for dinner and so forth. That’s the world you are accustomed to. And that’s the worldview that you adopt. I’m not going to condemn Hillary and Bill Clinton because they’ve made a lot of money. That type of wealth has the potential to isolate you from the reality of the world.
If that statement was over the line, to Mook, then that indicates how restrained he expected Sanders to be as controlled opposition.
In fact, realizing how easily Bernie Sanders could have brought attention to the issue of how the Clintons acquired all that wealth makes it seem obvious that there had to be some sort of deal. Why not ask how the Clintons amassed such a fortune? What foreigners contributed and how much did they contribute while she was Secretary of State?
Bernie Sanders pointed out Hillary’s Wall Street connections, but he never questioned how the Clinton Foundation operated or suggested pay to play.
Whatever leverage the Clinton campaign might have on Bernie Sanders, his controlled opposition has been a mixed bag. What he unleashed may be too strong to bring back to Hillary.
According to Fox News, reactions to Sanders’ campaigning for Hillary in Iowa were mixed:
“Get beyond personality,” he told the crowd. “Alright, you don’t like Hillary Clinton, you don’t like Donald Trump fine. You like yourselves. I hope so, if that means taking a hard look at the issues the candidates stand for. We’re not running here for class president of the local high school. This is not a popularity contest. We are electing the most powerful individual in the world.”
Yet many still see Clinton’s positions as too centrist and her remarks to Wall Street firms, provided by WikiLeaks, too deferential to financial firms’ interests.
“This is home of rural populism and it manifests in very different ways on the left and the right,” said Rachel Caufield, an associate professor of political science at Drake University in Des Moines.
Now, the newest Wikileaks revelations will give them reason not the trust Sanders.