I wonder if anyone will ask Julian Assange why he helped Donald Trump get elected?
Last edited Tue Jun 25, 2024, 11:44 PM - Edit history (2)
(From 2016)
FiveThirtyEight
December 23, 2016
HOW MUCH DID WIKILEAKS HURT HILLARY CLINTON?
How did Hillary Clinton blow a 7-percentage-point lead over Donald Trump in the final month of the campaign?
Most of the post-election analysis has revolved around FBI Director James Comey's letter to Congress on October 28.
Less attention was spent on the role that Wikileaks played.
Until, that is, news broke that the CIA thought Russia actively tried to help Trump win; figures connected to the Russian government allegedly hacked Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails, which then found their way to Wikileaks.
So, what effect did Wikileaks have on the election?
More:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wikileaks-hillary-clinton/
JULIAN ASSANGE DID NOT WANT HILLARY CLINTON TO BECOME PRESIDENT
Assange wrote on Wikileaks in February, 2016:
"I have had years of experience dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables.
Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism....she should certainly not become the President of the United States."
In a 2017 interview by Amy Goodman, Julian Assange said that choosing between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is like choosing between cholera or gonorrhea.
"Personally, I would prefer neither."
In November, 2017, it was revealed that the Wikileaks Twitter account secretly corresponded with Donald Trump Jr. during the 2016 presidential election.
The correspondence shows how Wikileaks solicited the co-operation of Trump Jr., a campaign surrogate and adviser in the campaign of his father.
Wikileaks urged the Trump campaign to reject the results of the 2016 presidential election at a time when it looked as if the Trump Campaign would lose.
More:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks
[Scroll down to "2016 Presidential Election"]
Meadowoak
(5,955 posts)JohnSJ
(94,843 posts)for Hillary by either voting for Jill Stein or not voting.
David Sirota, Nina Turner, Cornell West, Brihana Joy Gray, Susan Sarandon were given TV time to spew their nonsense with messaging that there was no difference between Hillary and trump, etc. Everyone knew the Supreme Court was at stake, and these self-identified progressives did everything to undermine Hillary.
It didn't take much either. In every critical swing state Hillary lost by less than 1%, while in those critical swing states, Jill Stein received 1% of the vote.
Of course Comey sealed the deal along with the MSM pushing every right-wing pundit across their outlets pushing the LIE that the email investigation had been reopened 11 days before the general election, and late on the weekend before the general election Comey quietly came out and made a statement that nothing new was found to justify opening the investigation. Of course the damage had been done by then.
The lesson that should have been learned is that those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary in 2016 are no reliable voters, just like Nader's green party voters in 2000.
It would be nice if they voted for Biden and Democrats straight down the ticket, but I sure wouldn't count on it if the past actions are any reflection of the future.
I have more faith in American women, independents, labor, and Democrats to pull us through this election.
Zambero
(9,427 posts)Indiscriminate leaks are not necessarily a good thing.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(112,790 posts)According to Susan Sarandon at least.
SarahD
(1,732 posts)Obama was hard on whistle blowers and wanted to go after Assange quite vigorously. Maybe it stems from that?
John1956PA
(3,197 posts)It was a trying time for us supporters of Hillary. Podesta's negative comments of Hillary as set forth in his emails (purveyed by Team Assange) were not newsworthy, but every drip ultimately cost Hillary some votes.