Saturday, June 18, 2016

Thoughts on #Guccifer (so far)

Image via Bernie2016

#‎Guccifer‬! Or else, That which MSNBC et. al. would seem to be ignoring.

As soon as Debbie Wasserman Schultz said no "documents of interest or donor information" had been hacked--all the while telegraphing her whopping lie with her risibly obvious body language--I knew we would soon have access to countless documents of interest and detailed donor information. And oh boy, was I right. My observations thus far:
  1. The ‪#‎DNC‬ absolutely, and shamelessly, colluded with media to anoint Hillary Clinton--they refer to her, and her exclusively, as the nominee as early as June 2015. O'Malley and Sanders do not appear, at least not in the first two batches of documents I've had the opportunity to skim through. (There are many more coming, including a big one yesterday, referred to as ‪#‎Guccifer3‬.) (Some of the more incendiary ones, I'm told, were given to Wikileaks. Stay tuned.)
  2. The DNC's hired media consultants had plans in place early on to deal with questions surrounding Clinton's various...let's call them "sticky issues". Their strategy was referred to as "muddying the waters", which generally means deflect, disarm, discredit.
  3. The DNC-Clinton individual donor list is jaw-dropping. If a candidate asked for it, would you be able to stroke a check for a cool million USD$ ? These people could, and did. Mostly people you and I have never heard of. People living not far from you, I bet (I saw plenty of Florida addresses. Yes, addresses. So much for donor information not being accessed.)
  4. The DNC had lots of tips for squeezing money out of people and getting around campaign finance law, including suggested ways to turn a potential donor's expressed interest in donating soft money (money to the Democratic party in general) into HARD money (money specifically directed to one candidate, guess who). This is obviously where the Hillary Victory Fund scam came in: I read actual suggested scripts for people to use, in which they were encouraged to say to a donor wanting to give $1,000,000 to the Democratic Party something like "Rather than a general donation, we would like you to give [the maximum] to HRC; then [another amount] to [Hillary-Victory-Fund-approved Candidate X]; then [another amount] to [Hillary-Victory-Fund-approved Candidate Y]; then [another amount] to [Hillary-Victory-Fund-approved Candidate Z]", with the exhortation that they should aim to convert any potential soft-money donations to hard-money ones.


I'm sure I'll have more to say on this in the days ahead. And I'm looking forward to seeing what Wikileaks has got hold of, too. In the interim, if you have the interest and time, you can read more here:

Guccifer2 (a Wordpress site on which numerous DNC docs and spreadsheets are posted, with promises of more)

The Observer weighs in. Money quote is the title: 

Guccifer 2.0 Leak Reveals How DNC Rigged Primaries for Clinton 
Hillary Clinton didn’t win the Democratic primaries through democratic means

1 comment:

  1. A poignant commentary on American Politics. Thank you for raising awareness on the travesty we call the United States Government.

    ReplyDelete