Did Julian Assange — a Lifelong Pacifist — Prefer Clinton, Trump or Sanders in 2016?
My March 11, 2017 Facebook Note (copied below), today showed up on my Facebook Timeline as a Facebook Memory. Retrospectively, it raises some interesting and seldom-discussed questions:
1) If Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange (a lifelong pacifist) — and his colleagues — held a preference in the 2016 presidential race, is it a fair view they would have supported peace-minded Bernie Sanders over war hawks Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?
2) If Wikileaks preferred Sanders, why didn’t the publication actively seek information sooner to release the DNC/Clinton-damaging information in a way that would have helped Sanders defeat Clinton in the primaries, especially since Sanders led Trump by double digits throughout all polling?
3) The DNC documents that Wikileaks received were provided too late to help Sanders in the primaries. Many theorize disgruntled DNC employee Seth Rich copied the files onto a thumb drive between May 23rd and 25th and got them to Wikileaks. Presumably, the hope would have been to influence the voting of superdelegates to pick Sanders over Clinton at the upcoming late-July DNC convention.
As was customary before a big drop, Wikileaks released its insurance file (unredacted back-up data) on June 17, 2016. Seth Rich was murdered on July 10th. On July 21st, Wikileaks announced it would release DNC-Clinton documents prior to the convention. On July 26th, Clinton was nominated. On August 9th, Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for finding the murderer(s) of Rich.
Why’d this timeline happen like it did? Is it possible Rich, when murdered, was also robbed — but what was taken was a thumb drive, not his gold watch, necklace or wallet? Did Seth Rich have an accomplice if he were the leaker?
The fact America’s main media never much, if at all, posed these questions is perhaps the best hint we have as to what actually happened. Note that Seth Rich is never discussed at all and any context, almost as if he never existed. This is sad. Because if Rich were the leaker, in my humble opinion, he’d be an American hero!
Bottom line, America’s media continues to report that the Russians hacked, whereas highly credible experts in the field prove otherwise.
Below, is The Facebook Note I Wrote March 11, 2017:
A Possible Answer Why Wikileaks Couldn’t Help Bernie Sanders?
I think my favorite phrase resulting from the 2016 elections was “running down the rabbit hole!” And there sure were lots of rabbit holes! Let me run down one:
I’m now thinking out loud about the mystery of who leaked the DNC/Podesta emails and why. Behind the cloudiness of the many Russian allegations — which effectively have provided cover for the Clinton Campaign wasting 1.2 billion dollars — I’ve never heard the following question asked:
Of the three most possible presidential candidates — Sanders, Clinton or Trump — which candidate would Wikileaks prefer to support? Which of the candidates better fit the Wikileaks vision of how the world should be?
My answer is Bernie Sanders!
Why would they possibly want Trump? Why would they possibly want Clinton?
My conclusion is based on the character and personalities of the folks who’ve publicly been associated with Wikileaks over the years, neither of whom impress me as being conservative, capitalistic or militaristic in nature.
So the next questions become: If it’s true Wikileaks would want more to support Sanders, why then didn’t the publication organization provide early support for the Bernie Sanders campaign? Why weren’t more documents released either at the beginning or in the middle of the primaries? Most of the DNC material became leaked to the public during the days around the Democratic Convention. Conclusion: Were this information leaked earlier, don’t you think it would have aided the Sanders campaign?
Next arises the question: Was Wikileaks blocked from prematurely releasing its earth shattering and blockbusting information? With worldwide resources at its fingertips I don’t think the delay had anything to do with vetting the material. Wikileaks historically has been famous for taking names and releasing them, no matter the consequences. How much vetting would be required? My guess is contingent upon receiving and releasing the DNC/Podesta documents is it possible also included was a provision pertaining to the timing of how the DNC/Podesta information would or could be released?
This then begs the question: Who or what entity would proscribe a timing for the leaks as a prerequisite for Wikileaks receiving it? One easy conclusion is it would come from an entity that could care less about Bernie Sanders. Thus, it would be a source supporting either Clinton or Trump.
The out loud conclusion to this question becomes: The Deep State (a shadow government)! Perhaps a faction within it believed it was losing its power and influence by imposition from insiders of the Clinton Campaign which also held power and controls within the Obama Administration.
Perhaps these Deep State elements felt it could better hold influence over a Trump Administration and thus helped to get him elected using the ruse of Russian interference.
But, remember, Wikileaks is more in tune with Bernie Sanders. And the CIA, by its actions, clearly had let the horse out of the barn. Hence, the Wikileaks release of Vault 7 which shows the CIA can hack into computer systems and make it appear like a completely different entity (a nation state perhaps) was doing the hacking.
Anyway, so many questions and so few answers. Lots of conjecture, much like what I’ve written above. What do you think? Below, is a presentation of a woman who keeps digging in a valiant effort to find solutions, The Sane Progressive:
[3/11/19 UPDATE: The above video does not show due to The Sane Progressive being booted and censored from YouTube.]
Glenn Greenwald commenting dangers of both the Trump Administration and The Deep State:
PS: Or was the leaker of documents Seth Rich, frustrated over how the Sanders campaign was treated?