Contributed by Joe Montero
In an exclusive interview with Four Corners, Hilary Clinton continued her relentless and vicious attack on Julian Assange, the founder and public face of WikiLeaks.
She accuses him of being a tool of the Russians, of colluding with an intelligence operation to disrupt the 2016 US election and damage her candidacy for president.
“Assange has become a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator,” she said and added that “WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian intelligence”.
Julian Assange has hit back on Twitter by suggesting that “There’s something wrong with Hillary Clinton” .
“It is not just her constant lying. It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement. Watch closely. Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen,” he pointed out.
The bottom line is that Clinton has relied on claims an innuendo and has not presented a shred of evidence to back her claim. Why not? The simple answer is that there isn’t any.
WikiLeaks revelations had an impact, because they were primary sources, much of it in the form of emails, that showed conclusively that Hilary Clinton was lying and continued to lie about key issues. If not for this, the impact would have been minimal.
Even now, she fails to own up to what cannot be denied and this means that she needs to put up a screen between the events of the past and now. Raising the Russian bogeyman does the trick.
Not only was Hilary’s dishonesty paraded for everyone to see, the exposures brought out that she was the Darling of Wall Street big money. This is a bad look for a candidate that was supposed to stand for the Democrats. And let’s not forget the shameful treatment of contender Bernie Sanders by her camp and the disenfranchisement of the grass roots during the primaries. Blaming the Russians is a way to re-write history.
Hilary Clinton did not win the election, because she was a rotten candidate full stop. A candidate who turned out to be even more unpopular than Donald Trump. And that took some doing.
In both words and action, Hilary Clinton showed little fundamental difference to Trump. Both represented big money. Both backed economic policies that hurt those in the weakest position and favoured those with wealth and privilege. Both played out the politics of division. Both stood for aggressive foreign policy, based on the notion of American superiority and dominance of world affairs.
So long as the Clinton camp and the leadership of the Democrats fail to deal with these issues and provide credible alternatives, they will continue to suffer the consequences.
In her Four Corners interview, Clinton went no further than to insist that Putin is out to destroy democracy around the world and the United States. Again comes up with nothing to make her claim credible. Sounding more like Donald Trump than ever, she insists that the Russians want to wreck the existing US Australia Alliance.
Undoubtedly, Russia has an interest in what is happening in the United states and its global activities and is itself involved in its own form of global geopolitics. The Americans have a long record of doing the same and far a more extensively practice of involvement in the internal affairs of other countries, spying and supporting some political forces and opposing others.
But to claim that the election loss was the result of a plot to discredit her is going too far.
The best answer as to why the blame the Russians campaign and the attacks on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and the Clinton camp and Democrat leadership fails to come to terms with what really happened, is that their greatest fear is an emerging grass roots movement looking for change, and which has the potential to eat away at the Democrat’s political base. The Russia issue is being used as a diversion to sidetrack the attention of the disgruntled into a manageable dead end.