‘Holy grail of US journalism’: Wiki - transcripts of Clinton’s paid Wall St. speeches

I know the first instinct for many is to deny. If you are feeling this, please, stop for a second. Beat that (*)(*)(*)(*) back as hard as you can and come to grips with what is happening. If you love this country and if you love freedom, then take a stand now. I can't imagine this getting much more in our faces.

The clock is ticking.

WikiLeaks has released what it dubbed the “holy grail of journalism”: full transcripts of three paid speeches that the Democratic presidential candidate gave to Goldman Sachs back in 2013. The transcripts were discovered in the trove of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair’s leaked emails.

The highlighted texts were taken from John Podesta’s hacked email account, and published by WikiLeaks along with the eighth batch of Clinton’s campaign chair’s emails.
https://www.rt.com/usa/362921-clint...tm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS

 

That’s a gross insult to journalism (and I’m someone with very little respect for that dark art). The main question remains that is this is such a “holy grail”, why have WikiLeaks been sitting on it for so long and only chosen to release it now, behind a drip-feed of other data which, by its own statements here, it didn’t consider as important? Also, if this release is such a journalistic holy grail, why did this article run with a handful of fairly bland extracts from those speeches?

 

Because it's so close to the election date Clinton won't have time to deny it or get people to lie for her. Colin Powell is a case in point when she blamed him for saying it was OK to use a private e-mail server, but it took quite a while for Powell to have the opportunity to say "No I didn't".

 

The "Holy Grail"? Really?

Let's take a look at some of the highlighted parts:

Disastrous!

and

or

and finally

This is what they found out of hundreds of thousands of documents? C'mon you have to do better than painting the picture of a pragmatic center-of-the-road politician.

Let's also not forget that RT is the propaganda outlet of the Russian government and accidentally released the purloined emails before Wikileaks did. How does that work?

We have a foreign government entity deliberately attempting to influence an American election. If Trump wins, the Russians win.

 

It wouldn't give them the time to disprove any lies or misrepresentations either.

Regardless, the main element of this is that it would destroy the claim of WikiLeaks that it is an independent news organisation focused on the free release of data and prove that it is (or has become) just another political operator. I'd expect Americans to be more concerned about secretive foreign organisations actively interfering in their political process.

 

so far, there is nothing very interesting in her Goldman Sachs speeches

 

Unfortunately until Snowden and Wikileaks the secretive dealings were just that, a secret.
Sort of like the dodgy dealings in Europe that only came to light after the leak of the Panama papers.

 

What would you do without Russians in this presidential campaign?

At least - thanks to Russians - you have a chance to find out how your media (*)(*)(*)(*) you up at your own expense.

We keep watching for you.

 

The Wikileaks emails by her campaign manager explained how Clinton would releases bits and pieces of her speeches that were carefully selected to not be very interesting.

 

Wikileaks could not have emails from before they were written and it such a mass of information their tiny staff had a real mess to go thru. To read them all, point out ones of interest and avoiding releasing any that would endanger anyone.

The speech excerpts were picked by the Clinton campaign to release with that explained by her campaign manager in emails Wikileaks got.

 

Clinton isn't incharge of the Wikileaks releases

 

So now WikiLeaks themselves are in on the Great Clinton Goldman Sachs Plot? In which she reveals all the secrets of how the Bilderbergers are going to take over the world in open speeches?

This is getting better than the Kenyan Witch Doctors Time Travel Cabal.

Jeez Louise, is there any difference between the Republican Party and the Paranoid Ward of your local booby hatch nowadays?

 

Yes, they obtained a mass of data which sequentially they processed and released. My point is about the spin, promotion and timing of their announcements and statements, such as attaching rhetoric like "holy grail of journalism" to what is actually just the next set of data in the stream.

It is undeniable that if WikiLeaks ever was an organisation dedicated to being a free and neutral source of pure information, it is currently being used in an attempt to directly influence the US elections in a particular direction. They apparently want to be considered journalists and they should be recognised as no less biased than many of the actual journalists out there.

 

Do you wish this information was never released? Are you concerned citizens may be influenced by the truth?

It seems many Leftists prefer control over the media, even more than they have now.

 

This really does not surprise me.

AA

 

I bet those that were demanding the release of the transcripts now wish that they were not released. When nothing was known about the contents, speculation was a powerful tool for Trump supporters, now that tool has gone. The speeches were such a non-event

Meanwhile Trump tax returns ............

 

I'm actually torn on the release of private communications of politicians (outside anything that's definitively criminal). There's plenty wrong with the kind of behaviour that goes on behind the scenes in politics but I'm not convinced this kind of access becoming more common would actually stop it happening, it'd just be better hidden (and therefore more open to drifting in more serious directions).

The other issue, as we're seeing here, is the selective and managed manner in which the information is coming out. If you believe the kind of political spin and calculations in these e-mails don't happen within every other party and campaign, you're lying to yourself. As I mentioned, the complaints about many in the mainstream US media favouring Clinton and opposed to Trump are valid an that influences how they present their facts. It's clear that WikiLeaks (and Assange particularly) are also biased and that is influencing them, taking them outside the principles the site was purportedly created for.

You seem to have been responding to an answer I'd not even given yet there.

I'm not "leftist" (or any other political hate-label), I'm a Joe. I don't consider WikiLeaks news media at all but I have no desire to control them (even if I thought it was possible). I see no reason why I should be prevented from expressing my opinion of them though. I should also be recognised that disliking WikiLeaks doesn't automatically mean liking the people they're attacking.

 

Haha my wife said the same thing and I fell on the floor laughing. We the United States of America have done, are doing and will continue to do far far worse in constant often violent meddling with other governments.. Seriously get a grip hahaha

 

That would make it the second foreign government to do so; Except that with AIPAC, the Israelis win no matter who is "elected".

I'll grant you that the leaks, if what was in your post the sum of it, are not particularly exceptional coming from the political elite.

 

Undoubtedly. I don't see why that would make you care less (or not at all) about the possibility someone interfering in yours though. That's be like saying you wouldn't care about someone trying to murder your wife because other people commit murder all the time.