We have asked this questions here before: Why would the most powerful country in the world base its dwindling credibility on a report that possesses no warranties of any kind as far as the validity of its information, when it comes to blaming Russia for allegedly interfering in the last US election?
Why would Barack Obama accuse Russia of hacking anything without sufficient proof of it and go as far as to impose sanctions – toothless sanctions, but sanctions nonetheless – on diplomats if he had no proof of any hacking?
We ask such questions again in light of yesterday’s Julian Assange’s interview with Sean Hannity on FOX News.
During his interview, Assange took apart the narrative of Russia meddling in the recent US election. He cleared up the issue on whether Russia, Putin, Trump or any of their surrogates had been in contact with him previous or during the leaks that revealed corruption and collusion in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the illegal action carried out by that organization and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.[media url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEYwJbtZydQ” width=”650″ height=”400″]
Assange explained that Russia had not been the source of the leaks and that Wikileaks would have undoubtedly published information of the same sort, had it been about Trump or the Republican National Committee (RNC).
Publishing anything about RNC collusion or corruption had not been necessary as the Republicans were open on their opposition to Donald Trump being the party’s candidate. Both the RNC and the mainstream media campaign strongly against Trump. However, it is comforting to know that Assange and Wikileaks would have had the same attitude towards the other party.
Why believe Assange, many ask? He could be lying about the whole thing! Sure, he could. The main reason is that Assange and Wikileaks have an impecable record when it comes to the veracity of the information the have put out over the last decade. Also, because the alternative would be to believe a deeply flawed intelligence community, or worse, to believe the politicians who have lied their way to power for decades. The validity of Wikileaks’ actions and revelations comes down to one question: Who do you believe?
Another fact that provides more validity to Wikileaks’ revelations is that no one in the DNC, the Clinton campaign or the White House has challenged the truthfulness of the content of the documents and information put out by Wikileaks.
There are, however, people on both parties who believe that the American people and the world do not have the right to know information such as the type revealed by Assange and his organization. That is why, when asked about whether they approve of the public having access to such information, they avoid answering directly and instead express their opposition to anyone leaking any information.
The narrative being used by the US president, the Clinton campaign and the DNC, after losing to Trump in November, has been that they will not let a ‘thug’ like Putin determine America’s destiny, yet the same White House, DNC and Clinton herself failed to address the hacking of millions of documents by the Chinese government and parties associated with it during Obama’s eight years in power.
Why the double standard? Why is Putin such a dangerous enemy for allegedly affecting the US election while China gets a free pass for doing worse things?
The answer is easy. The White House, the Clinton campaign and the DNC firmly believed that the election was in the bag for them. Raising the issue of Russia meddling in the election, had Clinton won it last November 8, would have delitimize her victory. Remember when Clinton herlsef warned about questioning the election results? Remember when she said that questioning the results was an assault on democracy?
The White House, the DNC and the Clinton campaign already knew of Russia’s alleged interference when Clinton made such a claim, yet they did not call for investigations or sanctions before the election because they thought every chip had fallen into place for them and that the victory was assured.
Trump is right on one thing: It is a very serious accussation to blame a nation or a political leader of influencing an election. There must be unequivocal assurance by the intelligence community that a person or a country were involved in hacking or meddling before an accussation of that sort is made. Up until now, neither the White House nor the intelligence community have presented any credible proof to support their claims. All that they have presented is their word and their word is woth nothing.
Do Obama, the White House, the intelligence community, the media and other Trump opponents seek to delegitimize his presidency even before he is sworn into office? It could be worse than that. They may want to avoid him getting to that moment. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, a former Reagan aid, has said publicly and openly that if they can’t stop him from becoming president they’ll kill Trump just as they did with John Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield and William McKinley.
Roberts’ statement is not an unreasonable prediction since the US has been behind at least four assassinations of its own presidents as well as countless other leaders around the world.