So here’s the headline then

Assange: Clinton resisted FBI, and now they’re out for payback (JOHN PILGER EXCLUSIVE)

You just know it’s all going to be entirely bollocks, don’t you? John Pilger talking to Julian Assange about Hillary, the FBI and the emails. On RT.

Even despite the manner in which Wikileaks has done sterling work in releasing the emails, the interpretation of these drongoes is clearly going to be bollocks.

22 thoughts on “So here’s the headline then”

  1. More interesting is how the media, which previously fawned over Assange, has abandoned him to protect the lefty political establishment’s candidate of choice and has failed to comment on the damning emails, except labelling their release as “a vast rightwing conspiracy”. Hence the curious must rely on Breitbart, zerohedge and now RT to get a peak before making up their minds.

  2. An example, the Graun leads its online version with:”
    Melania Trump was paid for modeling jobs before gaining work visa, records show”. Obviously of earth shattering importance compared with Hillary starting WW3 in Libya and approving the world’s largest arms deal with Saudi Arabia and increasing arms exports to Qatar by almost 1500% as SoS, thereby arming Isis. She is “the safe pair of hands”.

  3. Any publicity for the emails–including the Toxic twins Bill & Kill’s connections with Epstein a millionaire paedo and their visits to his island (20x for Bill/6x for Kill).–is good.

    When any analysis of the meaning of these emails–beyond the obvious– is done by a leftist creep like Pilger however–nonsense on a stick is highly likely.

    PS–To any who want to try to contrast my defence of Rolf Harris as innocent of ancient,pumped up, evidence-free paedo charges vs my belief that Epstein very likely is a fancier of barely old-enough girls–14 minus types (albeit not a little kiddies-freak). Below I copy the Wikipedia account of the Epstein affair.

    Consider if you will the way that the UK “authorities” brought in their best legal theatre brains and bent over backwards to convict Rolf in order to bolster their collapsing CM femmi-scam “Operation Yewtree” and keep its politically-motivated evil alive.

    Contrast that with the kid gloves with which the politically–connected insider Epstein was treated.

    After Epstein was convicted it is true that a couple of dubious claims were made by women who said nothing at the time about what was allegedly done to them but moved in for a slice of a millionaires cash after his conviction. Demonstrating that even a genuine conviction can have most likely opportunistic false claims subsequently tacked on.

    Wikipedia:

    “In March 2005, a woman contacted Palm Beach police and alleged her 14-year-old daughter had been taken to Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion by an older girl and paid $300 after stripping and massaging him.[10] She had undressed, but left on her underwear.[19]

    Police started an 11-month undercover investigation of Epstein, followed by a search of his home. Subsequently, they alleged that Epstein had paid several escorts to perform sexual acts on him. Interviews with five alleged victims and seventeen witnesses under oath, a high-school transcript and other items they found in Epstein’s trash and home allegedly showed that some girls were under 18.[20] A search of Epstein’s home found large numbers of photos of girls throughout the house, some of whom had been interviewed earlier by the police.[19] Papers filed in 2006 state that Epstein installed concealed cameras in numerous places in his property to record the rape of sexually trafficked minors by prominent people for criminal purposes such as blackmail.[21]

    Epstein had set up a system of young women recruiting other women for his massage services.[10] Two housekeepers stated to the police that Epstein would receive “massages” every day whenever he stayed in Palm Beach.[19] In May 2006, Palm Beach police filed a probable cause affidavit saying that Epstein should be charged with four counts of unlawful sex with minors and one molestation count.[19] His team of lawyers included Gerald Lefcourt, Alan Dershowitz and later Ken Starr.[10] Epstein passed a lie detector test in which he was asked whether he knew of the underage status of the girls—although lie detector tests are generally not admissible in a court of law.[22][23]

    Instead of following police recommendation, the prosecutors considered the evidence weak[22] and presented it to a grand jury. Former chief of Palm Beach police Michael Reiter later wrote to State Attorney Barry Krischer to complain of the state’s “highly unusual” conduct and asked him to remove himself from the case.[10] The grand jury returned only a single charge of felony solicitation of prostitution,[24] to which Epstein pleaded not guilty in August 2006.[25]

    In June 2008, after pleading guilty to a single state charge of soliciting prostitution from girls as young as 14,[26] Epstein began serving an 18-month sentence. He served 13 months, and upon release became a registered level three (high risk of re-offense) sex offender.[27][28] There is widespread controversy and suspicion that Epstein got off lightly.[29]

    After the accusations became public, several parties returned donations they had received from Epstein, including Eliot Spitzer, Bill Richardson,[11] and the Palm Beach Police Department.[20] Harvard announced that it would not return any money.[11] A range of charitable donations Epstein had made financing children’s education were also brought into question.[26]

    On June 18, 2010, Epstein’s former butler, Alfredo Rodriguez, was sentenced to 18 months incarceration on an obstruction charge for failing to turn over, and subsequently trying to sell, a journal that he said recorded Epstein’s activities. FBI Special Agent Christina Pryor reviewed the material and agreed it was information “that would have been extremely useful in investigating and prosecuting the case, including names and contact information of material witnesses and additional victims”.[30][31] Epstein allegedly lent girls to powerful people to ingratiate himself with them and also to get possible blackmail information.[29]”

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    But she did resist the FBI. She lied. Under oath. To Congress. She deleted e-mails – that is obstruction of justice. She did so after those e-mails were subpoena’ed.

    Yeah they are after payback. It what law enforcement does. People break the law and then they are punished. Even if, one hopes, they are Clintons.

  5. Hang on, isn’t RT Russia Today? And isn’t that basically a propaganda channel for Putin? And isn’t Putin supposed to be putting his hackers to work for The Donald?

    Why am I surprised the leftards’ conspiracy theories fall apart so quickly?

  6. On R4 last night they had a short slot talking to a social media traffic analyst who had apparently correctly predicted Brexit. After a few minutes discussing his methods, the presenter asked about the US elections.

    ‘At the moment it’s 90% Trump.’

    *3 seconds of uncomfortable silence*

    ‘And now it’s time for the weather…’

  7. There is some evidence, admittedly from ‘anonymous sources’ in the FBI, that there was a revolt within the Bureau after Director Comey announced that Clinton wouldn’t be charged – even though she’d broken the law.
    These new e-mails have given the FBI the chance to do the job they should have done years ago.

  8. Ljh:

    More interesting is how the media, which previously fawned over Assange, has abandoned him to protect the lefty political establishment’s candidate of choice and has failed to comment on the damning emails, except labelling their release as “a vast rightwing conspiracy”.

    Indeed. One of the most amusing things of this election is that for years lefty dingbats like Michael Moore and Susan Sarandon have been railing against the corruption in Washington, corporatism, the elites shafting the masses, etc. and that America needs and alternative candidate. And now they’ve gotten one, but rather than being a demented lefty like Bernie Sanders – who they really wish was doing the job – they’ve got Trump. They’ve finally got what they want but their inherent leftism can’t bring themselves to support him. They are tying themselves in knots, same as the media are over Assange. I really hope this continues after the election.

  9. Mrs Proudie (archbishopcranmer.com) says it best:
    “One good thing about this campaign – and the Brexit coverage before it – is nobody now believes a word the media say. My Lord the Bishop has decided to hold a service in the Cathedral to mark the death of objective journalism and unbiased reporting”

  10. The details of the emails are of great interest, of course, but if there are substantial numbers of State Department emails, and any are classified, she really should be toast. She lied about the use of the personal email server for State business and she destroyed evidence to back that statement up.

    This is the person the Left believes is suitable to be President.

  11. Fox, ‘the right-wing network.’

    It’s not right-wing at all. But the Lefttards can’t stand any opposition, so Fox letting some conservatives speak makes it a ‘right-wing network.’

    I wish it were. Giving a microphone to Alan Colmes or Leslie Marshall does not serve humanity.

  12. I’m rarely in alignment with Ecksy, but re Epstein – without wanting to get all tin-foil – I’ve always felt there may well be a MINDBOGGLING amount of stuff we aren’t being told. Suspect we will never get to find out who exactly he has the dirt on, if indeed he does, but it has the potential to be an extraordinary list.

    Incidentally, if the dirt-gathering was a major part of his plan all along, it seems to me to be a flawed one. For blackmail purposes what use would the videos be? Secret footage tends to be grainy and deniable. It isn’t as if he could pass it on to the police for authentication as it would reveal serious criminality on his part. Not sure the media would touch it without authentication. They couldn’t publish pics of underage sex anyway, moreover proof of the girls in the pics being underage could only ultimately come from Epstein himself (or the girls themselves, in a way that would incriminate Epstein anyway).

    So I don’t really get how it works for blackmail purposes – it only seems to work as a “mutually assured destruction” ploy, you take me down and I’ll take you down too. But then, in the event of Epstein being arrested, he would lose access to his repository of blackmail anyway. I’d be fascinated to know what precisely the police found and had access to (plausibly little if he encrypted all the dirt) and whether the fact they haven’t launched a string of prosecutions against the rich and famous is because a) they’re under political instruction not to, because of how connected some of these folk are, b) they found the dirt but didn’t think it would hold up in court eg those caught out could easily claim they reasonably believed girls to be over the age of consent, c) there was dirt but police couldn’t find or access it, d) actually the whole thing is overblown and Epstein didn’t have a stash of dirt.

  13. MBE: It is a last ditch defence–you get me /I get you.–against the Toxic Two. Given the 60+ mystery deaths trailing them it is understandable he wanted an edge.

    Wee-Knee prob didn’t think about his downfall coming from the direction it did.

  14. Can I get this right?

    Hellary claims that Wee Donnie is in Putin’s pocket; Hellary claims that Wee Donnie is bound to start a nuclear war against Putin.

    Conclusion: Hellary has been drinking, or is irrational, or is dishonest, or all three.

  15. I find it amusing how Clinton supporters (which seems to be high number north of the border) try to justify it when I point out that her lawyers reviewing emails and deleting half of them because they claimed they were personal and weren’t relevant before handing over the rest to FBI doesn’t sound like a good way to run an investigation.

  16. so Fox letting some conservatives speak makes it a ‘right-wing network.’

    Your casual use of the word “some” belies the truth. Fox is largely right-wing, and everyone knows it. Does a left-wing channel suddenly become centrist if it allows a right-winger on from time to time? Because even the BBC isn’t all lefties.

    Anyway, what’s wrong about it being right-wing? Why run from that description? Are you ashamed of it?

  17. Coverage in Canada is very pro Hillary, some bits from a columnist

    ‘Slowly and painfully, it’s unveiled a democratic society at war with itself, divided between those longing for a simpler, whiter past and those willing to acknowledge (if not entirely embrace) a diverse citizenry in a world fraught with complexity and nuance.’

    ‘There is no way to “balance” Trump’s racism, misogyny, his cruel statements about the disabled, the grieving parents of a decorated soldier and members of his own party or his incitement to followers to riot and jail his rival.’

    ‘Trump’s unwillingness to commit to accepting the outcome of Tuesday’s vote coupled with the interference of the FBI’s director in the final days has led more than a few people to believe that the system is “rigged.”’

    Though I do like the description of the election race

    ‘a race between farce and tragedy.’

  18. Bloke in North Dorset

    I saw some clips of Hillary at an election rally last night and she looked pissed or high on drugs, or both. She’s definitely looking weirder as the campaign goes on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *