Pages

Your Life And Style Magazine

Latest News, Sport Update, Inspiration And LifeStyle

Tuesday, 11 October 2016

Donald Trump caught using Russian propaganda to attack Hillary Clinton.

Courtesy of Newsweek: 

The documents that WikiLeaks has unloaded recently have been emails out of the account of John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s election campaign. Almost as soon as the pilfered documents emerged, Sputnik was all over them and rapidly found (or probably already knew about before the WikiLeaks dump) a purportedly incriminating email from Blumenthal. 

The email was amazing—it linked Boogie Man Blumenthal, Podesta and the topic of conservative political fevered dreams, Benghazi. This, it seemed, was the smoking gun finally proving Clinton bore total responsibility for the terrorist attack on the American outpost in Libya in 2012. Sputnik even declared that the email might be the “October surprise” that could undermine Clinton’s campaign.

Here was the "smoking gun" according to Sputnik:  

In a major revelation from the second batch of WikiLeaks emails from Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta it was learned that Hillary's top confidante Sidney Blumenthal believed that the investigation into Benghazi was legitimate because it was "preventable" and the result of State Department negligence. 

In an email titled "The Truth" from Hillary's top confidante Sidney Blumenthal, the adviser writing to undisclosed recipients said that "one important point that has been universally acknowledged by nine previous reports about Benghazi: The attack was almost certainly preventable" in what may turn out to be the big October surprise from the WikiLeaks released of emails hacked from the account of Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta. 

Then came the money quote: "Clinton was in charge of the State Department, and it failed to protect U.S. personnel at an American consulate in Libya. If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate," said Blumenthal, putting to rest the Democratic Party talking point that the investigation into Clinton's management of the State Department at the time of the attack was nothing more than a partisan witch hunt.

The problem with this "smoking gun" is that the words attributed to Syd Blumenthal were actually from a Newsweek article written by the same reporter that wrote the piece I am quoting from here.(And of course they were taken out of context.)

Which he sort of noticed.

As it turns out Sputnik finally recognized their mistake and took the article down.

So that's that, right?

Wrong. Because as it turns out somehow the article ended up in the hands of Donald J. Trump. You know, that guy who is turning American democracy into a joke and destroying the Republican party?

At a rally in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, Trump spoke while holding a document in his hand. He told the assembled crowd that it was an email from Blumenthal, whom he called “sleazy Sidney.” 

“This just came out a little while ago,’’ Trump said. “I have to tell you this.” And then he read the words from my article. 

“He’s now admitting they could have done something about Benghazi,’’ Trump said, dropping the document to the floor. “This just came out a little while ago.” 

The crowd booed and chanted, “Lock her up!”

The author of the article quoted by Sputnik was more than slightly disturbed by all of this, to put it mildly:

This is not funny. It is terrifying. The Russians engage in a sloppy disinformation effort and, before the day is out, the Republican nominee for president is standing on a stage reciting the manufactured story as truth. How did this happen? Who in the Trump campaign was feeding him falsehoods straight from the Kremlin? (The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment).

The Russians have been obtaining American emails and now are presenting complete misrepresentations of them—falsifying them—in hopes of setting off a cascade of events that might change the outcome of the presidential election. The big question, of course, is why are the Russians working so hard to damage Clinton and, in the process, aid Donald Trump? 

Good question.

And one that any politician endorsing Donald Trump, or any American voting for him, should stop and ask themselves. 

Source http://ift.tt/2eoW8Ze

Artikel Terkait

Back To Top