Thursday, October 13, 2016

Election 2016: A Race About Important Issues or Race to Bottom of the Barrel — Easy-Peasy


Here is the proof positive extract published by WikiLeaks re: the John Podesta hacked personal email account by the Russians and published by Russian media (Sputnik) (on the left and note the date) compared to the original article (on the right and, again, note the date), AND note the one word difference between the original and the Russian "edited" release for American consumption... 

Hint: The word “the” is missing in the Russian hacked copy that was in the original article. The overall purpose: To taint Clinton via Podesta’s email, which is NOT Podesta's email at all and thus gives ammo to GOP voters, however, falsely and thus to try and influence the outcome of the election to favor Trump...!!!

Now, Donald J. Trump peddles this vicious attack and outright lie as the truth kinda of acting like Russian operative. So, where is the outrage now, Mr. and Mrs. GOP?

The original post starts from here:

The Two Finalists in this Trump-Dominated Reality Show

The level of discourse and tactics in at least one of these campaigns has reached all-time lows. Warning: It's not pretty — hide the children (smile).

At least two operatives who’ve worked for Donald Trump have connections inside the Russian government and help answer that question:

For example, trusted and close Trump adviser, Roger Stone, sent out tweets this summer alerting (or warning, I guess) that John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, was about to become embroiled in a scandal.


Stolen (hacked and published by WikiLeaks) email from Podesta’s personal G-mail account began showing up last week on WikiLeaks and other hacker sites. Note: Those emails have nothing to do with official government business. Instead are the property of a campaign strategist (Mr. Podesta) and they came from his personal email account (Gmail); not from servers owned or operated by any government entity.

Is there really some sort of alliance between the Russians, the hackers and the Trump campaign? An absolute 100%.

The whole article is great and yes, I took parts of it to make it fit this blog without any malice intended. The whole piece is here in total. Matt Bai is one the top journalists in the country who is fair, honest, very smart, and a darn good writer. Enjoy.

My final observations on this whole WikiLeaks, Russian hackers, Trump denials on top of denials, and other crazy campaign stuff:

1.  No, Mr. Trump and your supporters, all men don’t act the way you did and do, whether in a locker room or not.
2.  Yes, the public does have a high expectation of privacy in our lives and that includes mail, email, personal conversations, wireless, and home phones (unless under court order).
3.  Hackers, anywhere in the world, once caught and tried, should get the maximum punishment possible.
4.  The media, as much as a lot of the time I dislike their slant or pitch, is not to blame except for the errors in judgment that Matt Bai uses in his summary, which I think hits the proverbial nail on the head in his summary.

Matt Bai concludes in his summary:

Maybe in an editor’s chair, embroiled in complex and fast-moving events, I’d have made the same decisions. But in a few months, when this “Jackass” movie masquerading as a presidential campaign has finally come to an end, we’d do well, as an industry, to think more deeply about where to draw that line between pressing news and prurience in the age of hackers — if not for the public interest, then at least for our own. Because sooner or later, you can be sure, it’ll be our private email, our candid notes to colleagues and friends and children that end up plastered on digital billboards by some nefarious hacker with an agenda. I wonder how enthusiastically we’ll report it then.”

Finally, I really like this part from Frank Bruni, New York Times, re: the Trump tape and the crude remarks and how some, if not many Republicans have been framing their criticism of Donald Trump speaking to Billy Bush around their daughters and wives. He concludes:

The behavior is objectionable in and of itself. When you say I have a wife and I’m offended, I have daughter and I’m offended. It’s almost as if you’re saying, ‘If I didn’t have a daughter and I didn’t have a wife, I wouldn’t be offended.’ There’s also a seed when you say, ‘I have a wife, I have a daughter,’ that an issue only matters when it comes to my doorstep, and the definition of public service and political leadership is caring about things that go well beyond your doorstep.”

I agree 100% with both Matt Bai and Frank Bruni on their fine articles … it’s very good stuff.

Thanks for stopping by.

No comments: