Posts Tagged ‘DNC’

TulsiGabbardDebate

 

queen-hillary-no-choice-clinton

 

One of the CAA-repped actress/propagandists on the below list is the one that Twitter intervened for to freeze THIS account (PolFilmBlog).

These are the malignant pustules all connected through CAA and shoveling the exact same neoliberal, warmongering bullshit, fighting against moral policies and non-interventionism.

This article is important:

Tulsi Gabbard Has Enemies In High Places

 

Clinton insiders use their Hollywood agencies to marshal their “entertainment” industry propagandists:

 The ceremony was attended by Bill and Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker, Elon Musk, Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Crown Prince Hussein of Jordan, and Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg. Also, none other than Kamala Harris, who Kives donated $5,000 to, was supposed to attend but had to cancel according to THR’s sources. As a matter of fact, CAA employees were the 8th largest donor to Harris’ “Fearless for the People” leadership PAC, to the tune of $16,500 that yearCAA as a whole donated almost $479,000 to candidates and PACs in 2018, with Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, and Elizabeth Warren all getting donations of $11,000 or higher. Oh, and CAA represents all of Joe Biden’s interests.

 

And onto the “TALENT” at the Creative Artists Agency (CAA)…
  • Anderson Cooper
  • Jake Tapper
  • Chris Cuomo
  • Bill Maher
  • Whoopi Goldberg

 

[United Talent Agency] UTA is another firm much like CAA with the same function and goals, and years after he authored that email, Darnell Strom would leave CAA to head up the newly launched “Culture and Leadership Division” there. His role is described as working with clients who “want to expand their diverse businesses and cultural influence at the intersection of entertainment, politics, the arts, and thought leadership” enabling clients to “connect and create big, bold, brave ideas…across all mediums”. He also described UTA as a “creative hub” for leading voices, helping them “build businesses and find global audiences in unexpected places”.

 

 

 

HT_seth_rich_jef_160711_4x3_992

 

For several years, fake, foundation-funded “progressive” media (propaganda) have been trying to shame people into shutting up about the unsolved murder of Seth Rich. Rich worked at the DNC, where those Hillary Clinton emails originated.

You should know that Rich’s name first surfaced when Julian Assange personally mentioned him in interviews, implying that he was connected to the release of sensitive documents from the DNC. No one has ever disproven this. Period.

 

Judge Amos Mazzant of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled Wednesday that the $57 million suit brought by Ed Butowsky makes plausible claims that the network may be liable for defamation for a series of online stories about Butowsky’s role in publicizing assertions that the murdered DNC staffer, Seth Rich, may have been involved in leaking Democratic emails.

Judge greenlights libel suit against NPR over Seth Rich reports

 

NPR argued that many of the claims in its reports, like assertions that Fox’s reporting on the Rich murder was “baseless” and “fake news,” amounted to opinion and not the kind of factual claims that can be the basis for a libel suit.

But Mazzant disagreed.

“The statements made by Folkenflik were made as verifiable statements of fact,” the judge wrote. “The statements at issue were not merely expressing a subjective view. Looking at the context of the verifiable facts, nothing shows the statements expressed Folkenflik’s opinion or merely offer Folkenflik’s personal perspective on disputed facts.”

julianassange-600x337

 

Judge rips DNC repeatedly for having no evidence!
Judge’s ruling throws huge spanner into US extradition proceedings against Assange
  • Wikileaks has every right to publish stolen documents.
  • Wikileaks/Assange is a publisher.
  • DNC has no evidence of any Russian involvement at all.

who-killed-seth-rich

 

Some more evidence pointing to Seth Rich as the DNC leak source, plus fireworks from a new, perhaps unreliable, conspiracy character…

 

russia-russia-russia copy

 

 

Mueller exposed for lying about “Exoneration,” which is not a legal standard.

 

WikiLeaks-Assange-Russia-NOT-Source - Copy

 

Assange is caught up in these games. The government claims “Guccifer 2” was:

  1. A Russian intelligence person
  2. The supplier of the Clinton emails

Both these claims look like nonsense. Guccifer 2 was a fraud created to frame Assange. It’s long and it’s tiresome.

Mueller’s Own Report Undercuts Its Core Russia-Meddling Claims

 

 

More important, as Raffi Khatchadourian has reported for The New Yorker, the documents Guccifer 2.0 released directly were nowhere near the quality of the material published by WikiLeaks. For example, on June 18, Guccifer 2.0 released documents that it claimed were from the DNC, “but which were almost surely not,” Khatchadourian notes. Neither was the material Guccifer 2.0 teased as a “dossier on Hillary Clinton from DNC.” The material Guccifer 2.0 initially promoted in June also contained easily discoverable Russian metadata. The computer that created it was configured for the Russian language, and the username was “Felix Dzerzhinsky,” the Bolshevik-era founder of the first Soviet secret police.

WikiLeaks only made contact with Guccifer 2.0 after the latter publicly invited journalists “to send me their questions via Twitter Direct Messages.” And, more problematic given the central role the report assigned to Guccifer 2.0, there is no direct evidence that WikiLeaks actually released anything that Guccifer 2.0 provided. In a 2017 interview, Assange said he “didn’t publish” any material from that source because much of it had been published elsewhere and because “we didn’t have the resources to independently verify.”

..

Assange also made public offers to testify before Congress. The Mueller report makes no mention of these overtures, though it does cite and dismiss “media reports” that “Assange told a U.S. congressman that the DNC hack was an ‘inside job,’ and purported to have ‘physical proof’ that Russians did not give materials to Assange.”

Mueller does not explain why he included Assange’s comments as reported by media outlets in his report but decided not to speak with Assange directly, or ask to see his “physical proof,” during a two-year investigation.