[quote]In April 2013, Clinton said lawmakers should conceal the policy-making process from voters because the backroom deals it entails could make them “nervous.”
“If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position,” Clinton said during a speech to the National Multi-Housing Council, for which she earned $225,000.[/quote]
[quote]In an interview with Fox News this past April, President Obama asserted that he did not put pressure on the FBI’s criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server. “I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI—not just in this case but in any case,” he said. There is now mounting evidence suggesting Obama’s claim was false.
“Newly disclosed emails show top Obama Administration officials were in close contact with Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign in early 2015 about the potential fallout from revelations that the former secretary of state used a private email server,” reported Bryon Tau for The Wall Street Journal on October 7. The emails were obtained by the Republican National Committee through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit requesting those records.[/quote]
[quote]U.S.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s full remarks to several Wall Street audiences appeared to become public on Saturday when the controversial transparency group Wikileaks dumped its latest batch of hacked emails.
The documents showed comments by Clinton during question-and-answer sessions with Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein and Tim O’Neill, the bank’s head of investment management, at three separate events in 2013 in Arizona, New York and South Carolina. [/quote]
Considering the timing, and how long Assange has been holed up at the embassy, that explanation seems a little simplistic. Correa is a Hillary supporter, but he also derives great pleasure from giving the middle finger to the U.S. by providing Assange with asylum. The more likely explanation is threats/bribes from the U.S. government. Ecuador is flat broke, and because they use the USD, they can’t print their way out of the problem (like certain world powers are known to do).
Correa’s government also has extensive dealings with Goldman Sachs (they did a big deal to swap Ecuadorean gold reserves for liquid assets), and GS probably isn’t to happy that Wikileaks released the transcript of Hillary’s speech to them. Of course, we’ll probably never know the full story…
This election cycle is pure fantasy all around, especially when it comes to the media narratives, which is what makes it so fascinating. What I don’t get is why anyone would think that cutting off Assange’s internet at this stage in the game is a good idea. They didn’t think he had a contingency plan? The move just comes off as petty and plain silly. The correct response would be to ignore him…cutting him off just gives him legitimacy.
No it’s not. The fantasy comes from all kind of pundits who seek to spin every development large or small as a conspiracy theory or an apocalyptic vision. It doesn’t matter, reality will trudge along as usual.
It’s their embassy. They can do what they want. They should shove him out into the gutter like the trash he is.
Ouch! Have you always felt that way about Assange, or just since he put Hillary in his sights? Seems to me like the world would be a much more boring and opaque place without Wikileaks around to spice things up. Or maybe you’re a big supporter of government secrecy?
Fair enough. I prefer transparency myself, but to each his own. At least your view is consistent. Unlike some on the right who wanted Assange prosecuted for treason in the past, but now love him because he apparently has it in for Hillary. Or those on the left who used to love him, but now think he’s a wacko Trump supporter.
They’ve proven to be very selective in their transparency, and are focused on their own self-aggrandizement. They don’t seem to care much about anyone except themselves. Hopefully Ecuador will relegate him to an old moldy bathroom.
He’s being the willing stooge of a foreign enemy trying to subvert our electoral processes. At least he’s not American. I won’t sugar coat it–I’ve lost a great deal of respect for any American who is willing to sign up for that kind of thing, maybe all. That kind of short-sightedness and political selfishness is enough to make me want to vomit.
[quote]On Monday, however, the various issues associated with Clinton’s email setup came roaring back. According to emails released by the FBI,
Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy asked the FBI to ease up on classification decisions in exchange for allowing more FBI agents in countries where they were not permitted to go. The words “quid pro quo” were used to describe the proposed exchange by the FBI official.[/quote]