"Fake" News: In Hillary's Name...

We've been hearing about a lot of stuff in Hillary's name since the election -- the "Clinton Campaign," the "Clinton camp," "Clinton advisors," etc -- but again and again, when one tracks it back to the source, it's not Hillary herself... it's actually John Podesta, her campaign manager. Given his position in her campaign, one would expect Podesta to speak for her at least occasionally... But oddly enough, again and again, what Podesta says -- and what is attributed to Hillary in one way or another -- is at odds with Obama says, and even what Hillary herself says on those rare occasions where she is actually quoted.

There seems to be a power struggle going on here between Team Obama and Team Podesta.... and Hillary would seem to be on Team Obama, NOT Team Podesta.

The Recounts

After the elections, Podesta received the same information about election rigging that Jill Stein received, but whereas Jill Stein ran with it, the Clinton team initially shrugged off the recount effort, and then did a quick about-face and joined the recount. I can find no quotes or statements from Hillary herself; just from her attorney, Marc Elias, who was with Podesta during the briefing.

Elections "Rigged"

We do know that before the election, Hillary denounced Trump for his claims of the elections being rigged. As did Obama, even going so far as to call Trump's claims of rigging "dangerous." But, oddly enough, while Hillary was denouncing Trump and rigged elections, Podesta was already claiming the Russians had hacked his emails to influence the election.

Actually, there are a couple things that are odd about this.

The connection being asserted here by Podesta is that the Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta's email account, which were then turned over to and released by Wikileaks/Assange. That is what Podesta is charging.

But Assange explicitly said it was an insider leak -- NOT a hack by Russians or anyone else. Assange also suggested that the insider leak was now-deceased (murdered) Seth Rich. And a former intelligence analyst, the British Ambassador Craig Murray, is claiming to have met the source of the leak, and that he (she?) is an insider leak -- NOT a hacker, Russian or otherwise.

But here's the oddest part to me: Even if it could be proven that the Russians had hacked those emails, there's no way to prove that was the Wikileaks source!!!

"Faithless Electors"

The grumblings from and about the so-called Faithless Electors started immediately after Trump was declared the winner, but I don't find any quotes or statements about the so-called Faithless Electors from Hillary, Podesta, Obama or the DNC... not "yay" nor "nay," not even so much as a "no comment.".

Elector Briefing

Now we have Christine Pelosi, an elector from California and the daughter of Nancy Pelosi, leading the demand for an intelligence briefing for all electors on the alleged Russian hacking and election interference. (The House Intelligence Committee also asked for a briefing and they were denied by the intelligence agencies, so I don't think it's looking good for the electors. I don't see how they can get away with briefing citizen electors but not high-ranking members of Congress. But we'll see, eh?).

And guess who was all over it almost before the letter was even delivered? Yup. John Podesta. Supposedly in Hillary's name -- see CNN, USA Today, and Politico.

But nowhere in Podesta's statement does he even mention Hillary's name -- not even once -- but simply refers to "our campaign," and always in the past tense. Nowhere in his statement does he state that he is calling for the elector briefing on behalf of the Hillary campaign or Hillary personally.... obviously, since he never mentions her name.

Weirdest part of all is that this statement seems to have come out of nowhere. It's quoted in lots of articles, and a Slate reporter tweeted the full statement, but there is no link to the original statement anywhere that I can find, and no article I've read reports where it was first published/posted. It seems to me that if it had been done on behalf of the campaign, that it would have been released on the campaign website or some other way specifically related to the campaign. As of now, I can find absolutely nothing that indicates Hillary has anything to do with this -- it's all Podesta. Hillary has still not commented publicly.

Nor has Obama; but Obama has ordered a full review of potential Russian hacking by intelligence agencies.

The timing is interesting. Obama ordered his review on Friday, the 9th. Chr istine Pelosi's letter demanding a briefing was "released" sometime Monday morning. Literally within minutes of Politico posting its first story about the letter demanding an intelligence briefing, Politico published another story with Podesta's response.. I can't help but wonder if Obama knew this was coming and maybe tried to beat them to the punch?

(to be continued in next post...)

(continued...)

Regarding the electors, no one is demanding that the electors vote for Hillary. In fact, many electors who are supposed to vote for Hillary, now don't want to vote for Hillary or Trump. They want a "consensus" or "compromise" candidate. In other words, it could be no one (if they don't find a consensus) or literally anyone and everyone. But there is a concerted push to let electors vote for whoever they choose. And if Trump cannot get the requisite 270 votes -- even if that's because 50 electors voted for Mickey Mouse -- then it will go to Congress, and the House of Representatives will pick our next president.

Oh! And here's a real kicker... you'll just love this... Bill Clinton is an elector for the state of New York!!! Yes, you read that right... Bill Clinton -- Hillary's husband, the former prez himself-- is an elector and will have to take a stand on this one way or another, sooner or later, but maybe not publicly.

Election Night

I sooooooooo wish I could have been a fly on the wall in Hillary's campaign headquarters on election night.... I'm sure we'll never know the whole story, but as it's being told now, in the wee hours of the morning, while Podesta went to tell Hillary's supporters at the "victory party" that they weren't giving up and wouldn't have final results until much later in the day, Obama told Hillary to concede -- and she did. This happened after reports that Hillary would not attend the victory party -- or even appear at all. There are other reports that Hillary physically attacked Podesta on election night.

All this to say, this isn't about Hillary anymore -- if it ever really was -- and nothing is what it appears. We are led to believe that they are united. They aren't. There is some kind of power struggle taking place, and the usual monikers we throw around just won't cut it. We can't throw all the Democrats and Liberals and Progressives into the same apple cart. It behooves all of us to pay close attention.

Hillary told us to beware fake news. The MSM is spinning her words as addressing the "self-investigator" at Comet Ping Pong -- although she never ever specifically mentions him or the scandal. Maybe. Maybe not. I think she was telling us more than we realize.

If you have actually persevered and read this far, thank you. And my apologies for the length.

I think the right wing fear of Hillary is extremely funny.
Much like their irrational fear and hatred of Obama.
She lost, she has no chance of over-throwing Trump. But, every day we have fear-mongering threads by the terrified right.
Up to and including threats of violence and self-sacrifice.
And the right is the "tough" side always throwing out the term "snowflake".

They only show weakness. Not strength.

It's not threatening. It is adorable. All of those cute ass right wing tough guys make me smile on a daily basis.

Hillary is pulling the strings on this, make no mistake. No one in her circle makes a move without her say so. Does anyone really believe they're doing this in her name, without her blessing? She is laying low, so she doesn't look like a sore loser [ way too late ] and that she is trying to manipulate the election, after very publicly trying to shame Trump. She is doing all this behind the scenes, so it can't be used against her in her next run at the White House.

a reply to: Jefferton

I think the right wing fear of Hillary is extremely funny.

At one time, I would have been right there with you... not so much today. It is exactly that HDS (for want of a better term) that makes it so easy to hide behind the Hillary boogeyman. Hence, the proliferation of news in Hillary's name... but not in deed. Too many folks react to the name and don't read between the lines.

a reply to: DAVID64

Hillary is pulling the strings on this, make no mistake. No one in her circle makes a move without her say so.

That's a very big assumption... especially when you realize that the facts don't support that reality.

Please -- PLEASE!!! -- look deeper. There's cracks in that picture.

a reply to: Boadicea

Do you truly think that they're trying to flip the election, without her blessing? Why would those in her inner circle refer to "our campaign" if they didn't mean Hillary? If Kellyanne Conway said "our campaign" who would you think of? Would you think she was doing it all by herself...or on behalf of Trump?
So, who stands to gain the most? Hillary and those she picks for her administration. And her big donors.
If she becomes publicly involved or outspoken on this, it makes her look bad. VERY bad. But, if she can just sit back, stay out of the public eye and let her cronies do the dirty work................

No. Sorry. You will never convince me Hillary isn't involved in all this.

a reply to: Boadicea
If Hillary wasn't pulling the strings...she would have fired Podesta. That is what you do with someone who goes "rouge". But it looks better for her if she hides...then in the future she can say "It wasn't me".

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Boadicea

Do you truly think that they're trying to flip the election, without her blessing?

At this point, the only thing I think is that I don't know the whole truth. But to answer your question, yes, because I KNOW that the effort to overturn the election is NOT to give it to Hillary. So why would I assume that she's part of the effort or that she gave her blessing? Especially since she has said absolutely nothing publicly.

More important, I don't believe for a minute that Hillary is omnipotent or invincible, and I don't believe for a minute that the power hungry live and breathe to serve Hillary -- they live and breathe to serve themselves, and would grasp at any opportunity to grab that power for themselves if they thought they could get away with it.

Why would those in her inner circle refer to "our campaign" if they didn't mean Hillary?

How about so that the public keeps their eyes on Hillary and blame Hillary for everything... and "they" continue pursuing their agenda in obscurity?

If Kellyanne Conway said "our campaign" who would you think of? Would you think she was doing it all by herself...or on behalf of Trump?

That depends on what Trump and everyone else was saying...

So, who stands to gain the most? Hillary and those she picks for her administration. And her big donors.

But, AGAIN, the efforts to steal the election are NOT TO GIVE IT TO HILLARY!!!

If she becomes publicly involved or outspoken on this, it makes her look bad. VERY bad. But, if she can just sit back, stay out of the public eye and let her cronies do the dirty work................

Yeah, right, because Hillary is afraid of suddenly looking bad??? No. Her supporters will cheer her (like always) and her opponents will demonize her (like always).

No. Sorry. You will never convince me Hillary isn't involved in all this.

I never said she wasn't involved in all this. She's obviously "involved" in all this. The question is just what that involvement consists of.... and just what Podesta's involvement consists of.

There is a reason we have words like "betrayal" and "double-cross" and "treason" in our vocabulary.

a reply to: Martin75

If Hillary wasn't pulling the strings...she would have fired Podesta. That is what you do with someone who goes "rouge".

Unless the person who goes rogue knows which closets your skeletons are hiding in... and/or has managed to frame you for this, that or the other thing.

Sometimes people going rogue set up insurance files... or deadman's switches...

In that case, who is really "pulling the strings?"

a reply to: Boadicea
So your take is Podesta is able to do this because of Clinton's skeletons? LOL Imagine if she had gotten President!

a reply to: Martin75

So your take is Podesta is able to do this because of Clinton's skeletons?

Yes, I think blackmail is a very real possibility. Given your opinion of Hillary, it's safe to assume that you would agree there are many skeletons in her closets, yes? And given Podesta's relationship with Hillary, isn't it also safe to assume that Podesta is very familiar with those skeletons?

Let's add in Podesta's skeletons (without getting too specific -- there are plenty to choose from). Podesta has to protect himself as well. Podesta may be feeling rather desperate these days, and desperate men do desperate things.

Here's another hypothetical: Perhaps Hillary gave him some indication that she wasn't going to protect him... and he knows Trump won't protect him... and he decided that either she's going down first or she's going down with him... or he's just taking it ALL down...

a reply to: Boadicea
Very interesting and scary take on the current situation. BUT, I can totally see where it could completely come into play. There is too much dirty there....one reason I was a never-her.

Good discussion.

There are 2 possibilities.

1. It's TPTB that are pushing the Hillary side.

2. Hillary can't directly say anything because she would need to lie about most points.

Hillary got toasted when all the government reports and investigations proved she lied many times.

She has never directly addressed the lies.

And, imo, the Clinton Campaign is still active.

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Boadicea
Very interesting and scary take on the current situation. BUT, I can totally see where it could completely come into play. There is too much dirty there....one reason I was a never-her.

Yeah, it is pretty scary... especially because there is so much damn dirty there. The only upside I see in this scenario is that perhaps because there is a power struggle between the bad guys, it protects us good guys -- to a certain extent -- as they stop each other from anyone getting their dirty way. I hope.

Thanks for the civil discussion. I appreciate that!

originally posted by: Boadicea
We've been hearing about a lot of stuff in Hillary's name since the election -- the "Clinton Campaign," the "Clinton camp," "Clinton advisors," etc -- but again and again, when one tracks it back to the source, it's not Hillary herself... it's actually John Podesta, her campaign manager. Given his position in her campaign, one would expect Podesta to speak for her at least occasionally... But oddly enough, again and again, what Podesta says -- and what is attributed to Hillary in one way or another -- is at odds with Obama says, and even what Hillary herself says on those rare occasions where she is actually quoted.

The same thing happens in the Trump camp and others.

After the elections, Podesta received the same information about election rigging that Jill Stein received, but whereas Jill Stein ran with it, the Clinton team initially shrugged off the recount effort, and then did a quick about-face and joined the recount. I can find no quotes or statements from Hillary herself; just from her attorney, Marc Elias, who was with Podesta during the briefing.

A fake news story is when the whole thing is a lie. "Fake news" is not when a politician changes their stance. What was fake about a stance change?

Elections "Rigged"

I'll go with this one - the original sources during the campaign were op-ed and fake news sites - "Millions of Mexicans bussed over to change the vote" (you remember this... we have lots of threads here on that.) It was fake.

The miscounts, however (reported from another source) which happened in the election itself. So both are actually true.

Even if it could be proven that the Russians had hacked those emails, there's no way to prove that was the Wikileaks source!!!

Actually, there is. It's extremely difficult and you have to be very good at hacking.

The grumblings from and about the so-called Faithless Electors started immediately after Trump was declared the winner, but I don't find any quotes or statements about the so-called Faithless Electors from Hillary, Podesta, Obama or the DNC... not "yay" nor "nay," not even so much as a "no comment.".

How is the reaction of the people who voted for Clinton a fake news story? How is their "no comment" a fake news story?

Now we have Christine Pelosi, an elector from California and the daughter of Nancy Pelosi, leading the demand for an intelligence briefing for all electors on the alleged Russian hacking and election interference. (The House Intelligence Committee also asked for a briefing and they were denied by the intelligence agencies, so I don't think it's looking good for the electors.

How is this fake news? They really did ask for the information.

And guess who was all over it almost before the letter was even delivered? Yup. John Podesta.

What's made up about this? Why is this fake news?

But nowhere in Podesta's statement does he even mention Hillary's name -- not even once -- but simply refers to "our campaign," and always in the past tense. Nowhere in his statement does he state that he is calling for the elector briefing on behalf of the Hillary campaign or Hillary personally.... obviously, since he never mentions her name.

So are you saying that Podesta made up the story that he called for the elector briefing?

Weirdest part of all is that this statement seems to have come out of nowhere. It's quoted in lots of articles, and a Slate reporter tweeted the full statement, but there is no link to the original statement anywhere that I can find

Uhm... the pic that was linked there- That's Podesta's letter that he (Podesta) tweeted from Podesta's own account with the time stamps and reaction icons shown.

...and the rest of the things you link - how are these fake news items?

A fake news item is an item from a news source that is completely fiction and has no basis in fact. It is not "a campaign manager says one thing and the candidate saya another (as has happened frequently n the Trump camp and every other presidential candidate.

a reply to: Jefferton

You little lefties always make me smile

a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah, I agree that Hillary has gotten herself between a rock and a hard place.

I'm sure the Podesta email leak is key to this.... and especially the fact that no emails to/from Hillary were released. Why???

Is it possible that Hillary herself was behind the leaks in an effort to take Podesta down without incriminating herself? I'm not saying that's it; just one possibility that comes to mind.

I do believe, however, that Podesta hijacked what is now her "campaign." I don't think she's in control any longer. Podesta is acting on his own, and letting everyone believe he is doing it in her name. I know the campaign website is still up and taking donations, but I don't know all the ins and outs of the legalities of it now. But I'm assuming that Podesta was at one time given some kind of power of attorney to act on her behalf and is still doing so. Perhaps Hillary doesn't want to rescind that now and attract even more attention...

So many questions and so few answers.

a reply to: Byrd

The same thing happens in the Trump camp and others.

Yup. And people accept it without question. Which only shows how easily it can be misrepresented without question by either the media or the public.

A fake news story is when the whole thing is a lie. "Fake news" is not when a politician changes their stance. What was fake about a stance change?

No. Fake is fake -- including mis-truths, half-truths, and un-truths.

I want the whole truth (fat chance I'll get it, I know!). If you can show me anything that indicates Hillary personally changed her position, I would very much appreciate it. But right now, I cannot find anything to that effect.

Actually, there is. It's extremely difficult and you have to be very good at hacking.

School me. I understand hacking... and the difference between hacking and leaking... but how could the intelligence agencies prove that the Russians gave the hacked information to Wikileaks?

How is the reaction of the people who voted for Clinton a fake news story? How is their "no comment" a fake news story?

I didn't say it was. I was just noting the lack of comment on it.

How is this fake news? They really did ask for the information.

What's made up about this? Why is this fake news?

What's made up about this? Why is this fake news?

I didn't say it was... it was necessary info for what is fake news:

So are you saying that Podesta made up the story that he called for the elector briefing?

Nope. I'm saying the fake news is the media's misrepresentation of Podesta's endorsement of the elector briefing as coming from Hillary... especially since even Podesta doesn't say that he's speaking/acting on behalf of Hillary or her campaign.

Uhm... the pic that was linked there- That's Podesta's letter that he (Podesta) tweeted from Podesta's own account with the time stamps and reaction icons shown.

Ahhhhh... thank you! I found Podesta's twitter account and there it is!

...and the rest of the things you link - how are these fake news items?

A fake news item is an item from a news source that is completely fiction and has no basis in fact. It is not "a campaign manager says one thing and the candidate saya another (as has happened frequently n the Trump camp and every other presidential candidate.

If you want to limit your definition of fake news, okay -- that's your choice. If you want to assume the same things as the media tells you, okay -- that's your choice.

But I stand by my premise: Much is being done in Hillary's name without so much as a peep from Hillary herself, much less Hillary's confirmation and approval.

It is what it is.

a reply to: Boadicea

Thanks for the civil discussion. I appreciate that!

I wish we had more here....and I am part of that. I get snarky, LOL I know I do. Both sides start slinging mud...conversation over. I have said from the beginning, we need to quit letting them divide us...we are so much stronger together!
Thank you too!