In an interview with Sean Hannity, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange denies that the DNC or Podesta emails came from “any state actor.”
In the footage below, which is part of an interview that airs tonight, Julian Assange denies that Russia had anything to do with the leaked emails.
Obviously, just because Julian Assange denies Russian involvement doesn’t prove that the Russians weren’t involved. He could be lying or he could be mistaken. I don’t think either of those possibilities is likely but the issue needs to be debated.
But it is not being debated in the mainstream media. Despite the many times Julian Assange denied Russian involvement, the media has treated the assertions of Federal workers (“intelligence agencies”) as proof that Putin got Trump elected. The fact that Donald Trump is skeptical of Russians “hacking” is treated as proof of at least bias on the part of the President-elect, if not outright collusion.
It is true that Donald Trump has a vested interest in denying that Russia did not give him his victory over Hillary Clinton. It is also true that such an interest doesn’t mean that his denial is false.
What is more interesting is what the media ignores: that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the rest of the Democrats have a vested interest in claiming that Russia “interference” cost them the election. Furthermore, Democrats have party loyalists in all the intelligence agencies. Combine those people with the Democrat loyalists in the media and you have a recipe for a national hysteria campaign.
It is a lot easier to believe the Democrats could create a false story than it is to believe that Russia could interfere in our national election.
Kellyane Conway recently pointed out a New York Times editorial that claimed Barack Obama put sanctions on Russia to “box in” Donald Trump when he assumed office.
According to Real Clear Politics,
“I will tell you that even those who are sympathetic to President Obama on most issues are saying that part of the reason he did this today was to quote ‘box in’ President-elect Trump,” Conway told CNN’s Kate Bolduan on Thursday. “That would be very unfortunate if politics were the motivating factor here. We can’t help but think that’s often true.”
But why stop at the sanctions? If the sanctions are politically motivated, then the accusations themselves might also be politically motivated.
Mike Shedlock puts the accusations against Russia in proper perspective:
Facts of the Matter
- The US waged war on Iraq on trumped up charges of weapons of mass destruction.
- The US entered a war in Vietnam on a senseless “domino theory” fueled on trumped up Gulf of Tonkin incident.
- The US helped overthrow Mohammad Mosaddegh, an Iranian Prime Minister. Mosaddegh was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a coup d’état aided by the the US. The results were disastrous.
- The US tapped Angela Merkel’s phone.
- On the death of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bragged “We came, we saw, he died.” ISIS and radicals took over Libya following the death of Qaddafi.
- Thousands of innocent men, women, and children have been killed by US drones. Obama justified targeted killings under the pretext of wars that were never declared.
Facts vs. Allegations
Like it or not, those are the undisputed facts. Meanwhile, the editorial board nut cases at the Washington Post, the Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal are on the loose, multiple times over.
It is possible Russia is involved, but all we have now is allegations. And these are the same kinds of allegations we saw about Iraq, Vietnam, drone policy, etc.
If Julian Assange denies that Russia was involved, we ought to demand evidence from those who say they were. So far, we’ve been given nothing.