For Thinkers — What’s Underneath Underneath?
By: Michael Weddle
Tags: Wikileaks, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Politics, 2020 Election

For Thinkers — What’s Underneath Underneath?

[Originally written as a Facebook Note on March 26, 2017, edited for style]

Unreported by US corporate media, former British Ambassador Craig Murray claims he flew to Washington DC to retrieve materials which he directly delivered to Wikileaks.

Wikileaks Exposures

How many of you have applied logical thinking to Wikileaks? Since its inception, Wikileaks has persistently published information governments do not want citizens to know about? One could argue Wikileaks is the greatest open book on the planet. Not only does it open minds of its readership but also applies forced transparency upon political leaders of governments.

Impact upon America:

Wikileaks became a near-daily threat against the Bush-Cheney Administration by exposing its lies and deceitful behavior throughout its War on Iraq, its use of torture as policy and how it used terrorism as a tool for repressing people. The Bush-Cheney neocons who promulgated these policies were deeply exposed by Wikileaks.

During the 2016 election almost all of the Bush-Cheney warmongering neocons endorsed Hillary Clinton who coddled to Wall Street, undemocratically controlled the DNC organization and who took Clinton Foundation money from global corporations and corrupt-repressive governments.

Why wouldn’t Wikileaks also expose Clinton?

Bush-Clinton Presidencies

Consider — since the Reagan-Bush presidency — the long string of Bush-Clinton influential presidencies. Obama, essentially servied as a ‘caretaker president,’ winning because the Bush-Cheney public image had become extremely poor. Had America’s oligarchy gotten its way in 2016, America would have seen two Bushes and two Clintons as the president in four of five presidencies (actually five of six given former CIA chief Daddy Bush was mostly at the dials throughout Reagan’s presidency).

Looked at a different way, had Hillary Clinton been elected in 2016 and re-elected in 2020, America would have seen a Bush or a Clinton (Hillary was Obama’s Secretary of State) at the very top in 10 of 11 presidential terms.

Is this the kind of democracy we wanted to place upon Iraq? Or Libya? Or Syria? Is this even democracy!

Of the 2016 candidates who held a realistic chance of winning the presidency, Bernie Sanders was the only one who advocated open and transparent governance. Sanders also led every general election poll, won lots of exit polls in states he actually lost and often in the states he won he walked away with fewer delegates than did Clinton.

Some Logical Questions:

* The Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is a well-known pacifist. As such, one must ask: Why didn’t Wikileaks support the candidate who most closely resembled pacifism? That would have been Bernie Sanders!

* Why were the Wikileaks documents released at the time of the Democratic Convention when it was too late to help Sanders?

Logic would follow that the Russian government, for all kinds of reasons, would have preferred a Sanders non-interventionist presidency over the hard-nosed policies of Trump or Clinton. Thus, the questions become:

* Why would the Russian government, as we’re told by Clinton political operatives and powerful inside-beltway media connections, be backing Trump — an unpredictable mad man — who clearly was the wrong horse in the race?

* Was the Russian government really backing Trump? If so, how is this actually proven?

* Was it mostly out-of-favor Russian oligarchs — those who came into existence after the US backed Boris Yeltsin — who were supporting Trump?

Frankly, except for Trump’s political base of about 20 percent, not many people in the world wanted Trump as the US president. It’s a fact he only became president because Hillary Clinton, a political insider, was so despised as a candidate. Frankly, one could easily argue that democracy was absolutely sickened at the repetition of electing Bushes and Clintons!

Theoretical Possibility

The only entity I can think of which would have held a strong enough motive — an entity with power and influence sufficient to help elect Trump into the White House — was possibly a competing element within America’s Deep State. Perhaps an element that could have evolved into a conflict from the decades-worn Bush-Clinton neocon politics.

Was the 2020 election, with Sanders effectively forced from the race, a Clinton Deep State vs. Trump Deep State scenario whereby America’s oligarchy would win with either Clinton or Trump as president, but the profiteering would be greater from a Trump presidency?

If America’s oligarchy could take advantage from a guy like Barack Obama (95% of all new wealth went to the fatcats at the top), why couldn’t it also take advantage of less-experienced Donald Trump who was deceptively masquerading as a political outsider?

From a geopolitical standpoint, perhaps it was thought oligarchy could gain more from the Trump presidency than it could from a Clinton presidency. Forget not that US presidential elections are all about the defense of the interests of oligarchy. It’s been that way ever since JFK was shot. Ultimately, the 2020 race was an ‘Anybody-But-Sanders’ game plan that ruled the day.

The very recent Wikileaks Vault 7 exposures proved America’s Deep State had the power and ability to hack into systems (or gain leaks from systems) and make it appear as if a different entity had done the work. Could it be that once the Deep State obtained the DNC/Podesta information, a process was established to feed Wikileaks the documents as leaks rather than as a hack? Blaming it on a hack would help to create a diversion.

Remember Wikileaks has always insisted the documents it received and released were from a leak, not a hack. Why would Wikileaks, which has always been truthful, ever want to lie?

Importantly, it became ‘the leaker’ who controlled the timing to what and when Wikileaks, after its own fact-checking procedures, was able to release the documents against Clinton and the DNC. A true thinker can’t help but notice that none of the Wikileaks releases were timed in such a way as to help the Sanders campaign.

But logic tells us Assange would have preferred Bernie Sanders as the next US president; not Clinton or Trump.

Assuming both Wikileaks and the Russian government would have preferred Sanders, the timing of the Wikileaks releases inherently show that the information was released by a party preferring Trump over Clinton.

The Question Then Becomes:

Were elements of the Trump Campaign involved with elements of the Deep State relative to hacking and leaking?

My ultimate conclusion? Using a combination of voter suppression (the Crosscheck voter elimination system) and the media, Trump managed to do to Clinton effectively what Clinton did to Sanders … cheat to win!

Bernie Sanders should have become America’s 45th president! Ironically, the people of the United States, Wikileaks and the Russians — the world even — would have preferred a Sanders presidency.

[Author’s Note: In my view, the most reprehensible act of Facebook was its discontinuation of support for its Facebook Notes feature. Essentially, many beautifully-written articles with photographs and referenced material got butchered into hard-to-find html text and have become virtually unavailable for reference. However, these Notes do reappear annually, although not in their original condition, via one of Facebook’s very best features, Facebook Memories. I’ve been doing my best to transpose many of my Facebook Notes into Medium articles.]

Wikileaks Release of Vault 7