RE: DISCREDITING HILLARY CLINTON
Jack Kerwick of Townhall describes it nicely...
if the Putin government had hacked away at the DNC email, wouldn’t a man who is supposed to be as big of a thug as everyone says Putin is want to exploit all of that information to blackmail Hillary Clinton and her party?
It would have made eminently good sense for a master conniver like Putin to help Clinton win so that he could exert control over the American presidency for the next four or eight years.
On the other hand, if, as Democrats like Obama assure us, the hacked emails were “boring,” then why would a heavy-hitter like Putin even waste his time with them? If they were so unremarkable, then how did they manage to undermine trust in the Democrats and tilt the election in favor of Trump?
The Democrats can’t have it both ways here: If the DNC/Hillary emails were dull, then there would’ve been no point for the Russians, or anyone else, to have hacked them, for no one is going to care about dull emails. If, though, the Russians or anyone else went through the trouble of hacking and releasing these emails with an eye toward catapulting to victory a candidate who was the Underdog of all underdogs, and if this strategy worked, then the content of those emails must have been anything but “boring.”
What was “discovered” simply CONFIRMED what any well informed voter already knew about Hillary Clinton. With or without Russia’s attempt at “discrediting” her, her record is already a DISCREDIT to herself.
I think Putin did hack it and was going to blackmail her. But it got hacked again and released to WikiLeaks. The second “hack” may have been a patriot leaking it on purpose so as to prevent having a blackmail-able president.
Seem like there was an initial news flash that the Russians hacked Hillary’s home brew State Dept server. Then crickets. Then the DNC hack was released but not blamed on Russia immediately. The home brew server hack will never be fully disclosed and the courts are not ordering enough disclosure for us to ever understand what Russia, an god only knows who else, gleaned from it.
We don’t hear much about that hack. But the Dims are all over the least consequential hack. Makes sense. Blame the Russkies for the one they didn’t do to divert attention form Mil’s criminal and treasonous malfeasance on the hack they did do.
Plus, the MSM barely mentioned Wikileaks. So where was the ‘influence”?
Those of us who actually aware of them and read them, had our minds made up anyway
The media barely covered anything in the emails. Leaking emails wouldn’t have discredited Hillary if there wasn’t anything in them that wasn’t good in the first place.
My question is, the RNC says they weren’t hacked, but everyone else is saying they were hacked, so what is the truth? If the agencies and media are lying, there goes the theory that Russia didn’t leak RNC emails to help Trump. Assumed in that theory is that RNC emails would contain any info discrediting to Trump.
During the ‘lection, the DNC-MSM told us not to read the memos exposing their collusion in the 2016 campaign cycle and that the emails could not all be trusted, these are the same political whores who assured us (again this campaign cycle, courtesy of Time-Lies-Warner-Turner-HBO’s revisionist docudrama) that the Bush National Guard memos may indeed have been forged but they were “still accurate”.