Unless you have been in solitary confinement or a medically induced coma for the last several weeks, you are aware that Wikileaks has been accused of “interfering” with the 2016 US presidential election.
The crux of that complaint is the release by Wikileaks of a series of emails collectively known as the Podesta Emails, which are centered on the antics of Hillary Clinton and her crew as she runs for the presidency.
The untrustworthy who made these accusations include the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security. In a no facts revealed statement: Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security, the claim of interference is made but not substantiated.
The cry of “interference” has been taken up by an uncritical media and echoed by President Barack Obama.
There’s just one problem.
We know who was sent the emails in question and despite fanciful casting of doubt on their accuracy, out of hundred of participants, not one, nary one, has stepped forward with an original email to prove these are false.
Simple enough to ask some third-party expert to retrieve the emails in question from a server and then to compare to the Wikileaks releases.
But I have heard of no moves in that direction.
Have you?
The crux of the current line by the US government is that truthful documents may influence the coming presidential election. In a direction they don’t like.
Think about that for a moment: Truthful documents (in the sense of accuracy) interfering with a democratic election.
That makes me wonder what definition of “democratic” that Clinton, Obama and the media must share?
Not anything I would recognize as a democracy. You?