Real Clear Politics posted an article about why WikiLeaks email attacks “fizzled.”
Writer Bill Scher downplayed the exposed machinations of the Clinton campaign, and even Hillary’s handsomely rewarded speeches before big banks and Wall Street. He explained how “WikiLeaks tried to take down a candidate with embarrassing private emails and failed.”
Scher wrote that the only thing “exposed” by the Podesta emails is the “grist of political life.” This is just the way things are. “It doesn’t make our politicians or our Democracy a sham,” he stated.
In fact, if we were to uncover the emails from the Ted Cruz campaign, or some other candidate, we’d find similar calculations, political maneuver plans, and discussions about how to spin certain things in interviews with the media. And Donald Trump’s internal campaign emails would be “in their own category of insanity,” according to Scher.
I don’t contest his premise that so far the WikiLeaks revelations have “fizzled.” But Scher missed a big point about why that’s happened. It’s not that the American public doesn’t care about the contents of the leaked emails. It’s that most people – particularly those of the Democratic persuasion – don’t care enough to even find out what’s in them.
Most people allow their opinions to be shaped by their media networks of choice. With the exception of Fox News, the national media isn’t covering the contents of the Podesta emails; the pay-to-play schemes revealed by them between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation; Hillary’s numerous paid speeches before big banks and financial institutions – that she claims to hate in public – that have until now been kept secret by the Clinton campaign; and the overall dirty politics that Americans have long grown weary over.
Most of the media is either downplaying the corruption, or pretending that there’s nothing there to report on, leading their viewers to believe that there’s just nothing to see, and that the real focus needs to be on the several unsubstantiated claims of women against Donald Trump. Remember, if the media doesn’t report on something, it doesn’t exist. And when they do report on something, it must be true.
One other thing. There’s no evidence that these emails were “stolen” or are the result of a hack. Nor is there evidence that Russia is behind it. That’s the Clinton narrative. If they can convince people that it’s “stolen” private information, and that Russia is deliberately interfering with the U.S. electoral process, then that makes Democrats’ case better that people shouldn’t be reading them. But it’s all conjecture.
The way WikiLeaks has always operated is by having sources leak information, documents, and emails to them. They don’t hire hackers to steal this information. It’s a refuge for whistleblowers. Liberals used to champion WikiLeaks for being a voice for exposing corruption in governments around the world. But now liberals hate WikiLeaks, because the organization has shown itself to be independent and non-partisan. They’re not on any political party’s team.
Does that mean that it must have not been the result of hackers? No. It just means that there’s no evidence to support that claim.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com