In our previous post, through excerpts from Dr. Corsi’s book, Killing the Deep State: The Fight to Save President Trump, published in March, 2018, we exposed how America hating billionaires such as George Soros funded chaos in a Hail Satan attempt to over-ride the Electoral College and install Hillary. In this post, we expose how Hillary Clinton fabricated the Trump-Russia collusion narrative to cover her crimes and set up Trump and his incoming administration.
Hillary blames Russia
On December 15, 2016, Hillary made a speech in New York to donors who the New York Times reported had collectively contributed roughly $1 billion to her 2016 presidential campaign, again blaming her defeat on a long-running strategy implemented by Russian President Vladimir Putin to discredit the fundamental tenets of American democracy. “Vladimir Putin himself directed the covert cyber attacks against our electoral system, against our democracy, apparently because he has a personal beef against me,” Clinton said.
“He is determined not only to score a point against me, but also undermine our democracy.” Clinton acted as if Trump’s collusion with Russia and WikiLeaks was a proven fact. “This is part of a long-drawn strategy to cause us to doubt ourselves and to create the circumstances in which Americans either wittingly or unwittingly will begin to cede their freedoms to a much more powerful state,” Clinton insisted. “This is an attack on our country.”
What’s important to remember here is that while WikiLeaks did obtain emails from the DNC and from Podesta, it has never been proven in either case that the Russians themselves hacked the DNC, nor has it been proven that WikiLeaks was working with the Russians. On December 16, 2016, Assange made another public appearance in an interview conducted by Sean Hannity that was first broadcast on Hannity’s national radio show and subsequently broadcast that night on Hannity’s Fox News television show.
Assange made clear that Russia did not provide the Podesta emails or the DNC emails to WikiLeaks. He insisted the source of the email leaks was not a state party, denying that they came from any government. “We’re unhappy that we felt that we needed to even say that it wasn’t a state party,” he said. Finally, Assange pushed back against Hillary’s accusations. ”Normally, we say nothing at all,” Assange told Hannity. We have a conflict of interests. We have an excellent reputation, a strong interest in protecting our sources, and so we never say anything about them, never ruling anyone in or anyone out. Sometimes we do it, but we don’t like to do it. We have another interest here that is maximizing the impact of our publications. So in order to protect a distraction attack against our publications, we’ve had to come out and say, no, it’s not a state party. Stop trying to distract in that way and pay attention to the content of the publication.”
When Hannity suggested that the leak came from a disgruntled source within the DNC, possibly even within Podesta’s office, Assange sidestepped, refusing to answer the question, in direct contrast to the way in which he vociferously denied that the source was Russia.
Yet on December 18th, 2016, 10 days after the election, Podesta repeated the Russia collusion theory in an interview conducted by host Chuck Todd on NBC’s Sunday morning show, Meet the Press. In response to Todd’s direct questions, Podesta insisted the presidential election had been distorted by the Russian intervention. Asked if the election was a free and fair election, Podesta railed against Putin.
“I think the Russians clearly intervened in the election, and now we know that the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, and the FBI all agreed that the Russians intervened to help Trump, and that as they have noted this week, NBC first revealed that Vladimir Putin was personally involved with that,” he insisted. Pressed by Todd to directly answer whether the election was free and fair, Podesta accused Russia of wanting Hillary Clinton to lose. “A foreign adversary directly intervened in our democratic institution, and tried to tilt the election to Donald Trump. I think that if you look back and see what happened over the course of the last few weeks, you see the way the votes broke, you know,” Podesta replied.
I was highly critical of the way the FBI, particularly the FBI director, managed the situation with respect to the Russian engagement versus Hillary Clinton’s emails. Republican defenders of Trump pushed back against Hillary and Podesta, suggesting that the Russian collusion narrative was a Democratic Party invention that was being disseminated by the Deep State.
Then, on December 18th, 2016, Representative Peter King, Republican New York, a member of the House Intelligence Community, pushed back against the Russian collusion meme. King insisted that CIA director Brennan was orchestrating a hit job against President-elect Donald Trump by leaking information, suggesting Russia was behind the hacking of Podesta’s emails to the press, despite having no evidence to prove the assertion. And that’s what infuriates me about this.
The 2016 election dispute shifted from a contest over policy to a conflict over legitimacy. Hillary Clinton and John Podesta framed their concocted Russian involvement as an attack on American democracy. In truth, Trump was subjected to a Hillary-directed Democrat attack to undermine Trump’s unexpected electoral victory. The resulting Deep State panic and speed with which they became politically fixated on taking down Trump in any way possible forced them and their media allies to gaslight the public with false assumptions, suspicions, and anti-Trump rhetoric.
The resulting grand collusion of the Deep State forces to hide their interference and failed attempt to steal the election. In reference to the Trump-Russia fairy tale, a foreign government may seek to influence an election without directly coordinating with a candidate or a publisher. Likewise, the existence of leaked emails does not by itself establish who obtained them, who transferred them, or whether the recipient knew their original source. However, the multifaceted attack is now being proven to have been a web of deceit to create a fire storm of backlash against the legitimate Trump victory while the Deep State manufactured volumes of lies to damage Trump.
Assange’s statements clearly dispute the Hillary/Podesta attempt to reverse the roles, blaming Trump for what they had done. Assange’s refusal to identify the source the material WikiLeaks published is standard journalistic protocol. The commitment to confidentiality is crucial to protecting sources, but unfortunately, the public had to evaluate his claims without independent verification. His denial that Russia supplied the material directly challenged the Deep State account, yet it did not establish that the source was an insider or that no state-linked actors were involved.
The conflicting reactions from Clinton, Podesta, Peter King, and others also reveal how the Left has made intelligence assessments weapons in their political combat. A classified or partially disclosed conclusion may be treated by one faction as conclusive proof and by another as a manufactured justification for an institutional campaign. When intelligence agencies appear to speak through anonymous leaks, public trust suffers because citizens cannot easily determine what is documented, what is inferred, and what has been omitted. Transparency must therefore be balanced with legitimate secrecy, but secrecy cannot be allowed to eliminate accountability.
The long-term consequence is a more suspicious political culture in which every election is interpreted through the possibility of covert manipulation. Future foreign adversaries will exploit that suspicion, but domestic campaigns will use it to discredit opponents, media organizations, and investigative institutions. Advances in artificial intelligence, anonymous networks, and synthetic media make attribution even more difficult, increasing the value of careful verification while making sensational claims even more problematic.
The lasting lesson is that democratic legitimacy depends not only upon protecting elections from foreign or domestic interference, but also on preserving a shared standard for evaluating evidence after the votes are counted. Citizens must be able to condemn hostile activity, identify candidate complicity, question official conclusions, and demand accountability for illegal actions. We are fighting a battle between patriots and traitors. The greatest success, and primary aim, of foreign interference goes beyond influencing who wins an election, but persuading Americans that no election result can ever be trusted. Remedial action must be taken now.
Do those dots connect? You decide.
The search for truth continues, go to godsfivestones.com for more information and to donate to support our efforts:
Ending Stolen Elections
Defeating Political Corruption
Justice for Obama’s Coup d-Etat
Ending Child & Sex Exploitation
Leading Spiritual Warfare
John 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
GodsFiveStones.com is a tax-deductible 501(c)3 foundation created by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., and Karladine Graves, M.D., managed by Capstone Legacy Foundation.
Corsi Nation Website: https://www.corsination.com
Corsi Nation Sponsor: MyVitalC – ESS60 in Organic OliveOil
https://www.thetruthcentral.com/myvitalc-ess60-in-organic-olive-oil/
