WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claims Google involved in Hillary Clinton campaign
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claims that Google has been working closely with US presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton's campaign in efforts to promote the candidate in the race to the White House. Speaking from the Ecuadorean embassy in London, via video conference as part of a two-day media event named "New Era of Journalism: Farewell to Mainstream", he said: "Google is directly engaged with Hillary Clinton's campaign," the Sputnik reported.
Pointing out that Google's former CEO Eric Schmidt is now heading the Pentagon's innovation branch, Assange said: "Google is heavily integrated with Washington power, at personal level and at business level... Google which has increasing control over the distribution channels... is intensely allying itself with the US exceptionalism."
Commenting on Clinton's nomination prospects, Assange said: "What we have with Clinton is someone who is a hawk but who has the tools of legal interventionism, a rhetorical cover to start the wars, and someone who seemingly wants to start them... From WikiLeaks' perspective Hillary Clinton is a problem in terms of war and peace."
According to a report by RT, Assange is not the only one to have identified a connection between Clinton's campaign and Google. Behavioural psychologist Dr Robert Epstein said in an interview that Schmidt has set up a little-heard-of start-up called Groundword, the sole purpose of which is "to put Clinton in office".
"It's a very secretive organisation, super high-tech stuff, and [it's] very likely they're using these techniques that we've been studying in our research to make sure that votes are shifted to Clinton in November," he added.
"There is a merger between the corporate organisations and state... 80% of the National Security Agency budget is privatised. The NSA is the core of the US deep state... There has been a smoothing out between the government and the corporations," said Assange, indicating that there may be quid pro quo deals between the US government and private tech giants like Google.
"[Google] shows the will to use that at different levels. It will inevitably influence its audience," Assange added.
Assange has been staying in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since 2012 in efforts to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning on sexual assault allegations, which Assange has denied. The whistleblower fears that if extradited to Sweden, he could then be extradited to the US where he is wanted for charges relating to espionage, conspiracy, theft of government property and computer fraud for his involvement in the WikiLeaks revelations.
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in February declared that Assange was being unlawfully detained and that the British and Swedish authorities should end his detention and grant him freedom. However, British authorities have maintained that Assange faces arrest and possible extradition if he chooses to step out of the confines of the Ecuadorian embassy.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/wikileaks-f...ews&yptr=yahoo
From APMedia already saying she's the presumptive nominee.
Apparently she's crossed the threshhold tonight by one delegate.
Oh good. Now California won't matter anyway.....The former secretary of state, New York senator and first lady reached the 2,383 delegates needed to become the presumptive Democratic nominee on Monday with a decisive weekend victory in Puerto Rico and a burst of last-minute support from superdelegates
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/ite...-tuesday-night
Thanks to The Associated Press, I was awake well past midnight on Wednesday morning watching a series of non-events come to a grateful conclusion. I wanted to see the speeches, especially Bernie's, which came after 1:00 am; they were the one thing the "news" media couldn't screw up. How did Tuesday's primaries become non-events? Because The Associated Press on Monday night, straight out of the blue, declared Secretary Clinton to be the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.
Wait, what? Yeah, they did that. They polled a bunch of Democratic Party elites -- "superdelegates" -- and decided Clinton had enough delegates to call it a day. The margin? One delegate. Five primaries and a caucus that would have decided the race fair and square 24 hours later got tossed into the dustbin because the AP wanted the hot take, the big scoop, and in doing so broke a cardinal rule of journalism: They became the story instead of reporting the story.
The "news" media's reaction to that declaration was like tossing a live hand grenade into a hedge filled with chickadees: lots of squawking and flapping and smoke and a ringing in the ears from the explosion. All the AP had to do was wait a day. They didn't, and it was a mess. Beyond the impact on the presidential side, there are the down-ticket races to consider. The AP's little wingding certainly depressed voter turnout across the board -- exactly 354 people voted in the North Dakota Democratic caucus on Tuesday -- and that depressed turnout affected down-ticket races all over the country.
Sanders supporters by and large have been reading the writing on the wall for a while. All they wanted was the opportunity to die on their feet, to take it to the end and let the chips fall. Now? They're pissed and feeling cheated. We're deciding nominees through polls of party elites? It was as undemocratic an act as I have ever witnessed after Bush v. Gore and the shenanigans in Ohio in 2004, and there will be consequences down the line, especially for Clinton. Good luck bringing Bernie's folks into the fold for the big push to November after that crud. It was disgraceful.
Doesn't matter now bro. The goose is cooked after last night. Bernie got dismantle badly.
ABC: Newly Released Emails Show Unqualified Clinton Foundation Donor Appointed to Sensitive Intelligence Board
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...d_pro_quo.html
Another Neocon Endorses Clinton, Calling Her '2016's Real Conservative' and 'the Candidate of the Status Quo'
Neocon James Kirchick joins a slew of right-wing pundits who support war hawk Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.
Kirchick is a hawkish pundit and fellow at Foreign Policy Initiative, a neoconservative think tank where leading neocons Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan sit on the board of directors.
Kagan, who served as foreign policy adviser to Republican Sen. John McCain in his 2008 presidential campaign and has been described as “the neoconservative movement’s chief foreign policy theorist,” has also strongly come out in support of Clinton.
In his defense of Clinton, Kagan told The New York Times he is “comfortable with her on foreign policy,” noting it is “something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”
Kirchick and Kagan have joined numerous right-wing confrères in endorsing Clinton for president.
Max Boot, a hard-line war hawk and self-declared “American imperialist,” lauded Clinton in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times in May.
http://www.alternet.org/election-201...dorses-clinton
Kagan's wife is Victoria Nuland, who orchestrated the Ukraine nazis overthrowing the Putin puppet.
Kagan + Nuland = the Poison Couple.
==================
F*** the EU: Senior US diplomat Victoria Nuland makes her position clear in bugged conversation with Ukraine envoy
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/f-the-eu-bugged-us-diplomat-makes-her-position-clear-9113380.html
Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party
For nearly a half century – since late in the Vietnam War – the Democrats have been the less warlike of the two parties, but that has flipped with the choice of war hawk Hillary Clinton
Since the Vietnam War, the Democrats have been viewed as the more peaceful of the two major parties, with the Republicans often attacking Democratic candidates as “soft” regarding use of military force.
But former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military force to achieve “regime change” in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires.
She abides by neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.
Amid the celebrations about picking the first woman as a major party’s presumptive nominee, Democrats appear to have given little thought to the fact that they have abandoned a near half-century standing as the party more skeptical about the use of military force.
Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war at udes.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...sive-war-party
We can be reasonably certain that Chelsea and her hubby won't be enlisting to fight Hillary's bull wars.
I wonder if she'd be telling Chelsea the day before she delivered that sure, it's okay to have an abortion - that thing in there is not a person.
Last edited by rmt; 06-11-2016 at 03:46 PM.
Neoliberals and neoconservatives occupy an identical slice of the political spectrum, their similar policies and actions overshadowed by their seemingly dissimilar rhetoric.
Hillary: If you're being investigated of federal crimes by the FBI, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.
And yet she can run for President?
Hillary: If you're being investigated of federal crimes by the FBI, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.
And yet she can run for President?
Yeah, she will need to take that back.Hillary: If you're being investigated of federal crimes by the FBI, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.
And yet she can run for President?
so funnyHillary: If you're being investigated of federal crimes by the FBI, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.
And yet she can run for President?
Way to link terrorism with emails. Makes sense.
Is she being investigated by the FBI for federal crimes yes or no?
Hillary: If you're being investigated of federal crimes by the FBI, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.
And yet she can run for President?
And since I'm here....Russia set to release what they intercepted (huge grain of salt)
There are various forms of investigations. Some are benign white collar crimes and some are domestic crimes. There is a clear distinction.
Is she being investigated by the FBI for federal crimes yes or no?
Priceless.
Hillary: If you're being investigated of federal crimes by the FBI, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun.
And yet she can run for President?
Julian Assange: Next Leak of Hillary Clinton Emails Will Be Enough to Indict Her, but ...
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says his organization’s upcoming leak of more Hillary Clinton emails should be enough to indict her—but doubts the FBI will do so.
“We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton,” he said. “We’ve ac ulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton. We could proceed to an indictment.”
Assange said, however, that in his opinion, the FBI would choose not to indict her in hopes of gaining favor with a Clinton administration. “The FBI could push for concessions from the new Clinton government,” he said. But, he added, “there’s very strong material, both in the emails and in relation to the Clinton Foundation.”
As The Guardian notes, Assange has long been a critic of Clinton’s politics. He once said that “she has a long history of being a liberal war hawk,” and last week he even accused Google of manipulating search suggestions to help her campaign.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegrou...+the+Headlines
Law enforcement can't use evidence obtained illegally, some judges have ruled.
Anyway, how does "Hillary is corrupt" disqualify her from WH? ALL politicians are corrupt.
"quid pro quo"
"scratch my butt, I'll scratch yours"
Entire political class is corrupted, until proven innocent.
Rightwingnutjob activist SCOTUS is also corrupt, nothing but tools of VRWC/BigCorp, eg: Citizens-United, "money is speech", class actions against BigCorp crippled, etc, etc.
America (of the 99%) is ed into decline and un able, and You People have absolutely no suggestions how to un it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
