What does Assange have on Hillary?

Wiki-leaks founder Julianne Assange has hinted that he has damaging evidence against Hillary Clinton. I've a hunch that what it might be. I believe Assange has evidence that Hillary tampered and altered the "email" evidence that she turned into the State Department.

Yes. She edited her email files, turned them into .pdf files, printed the edited files, destroyed the digital back-up, then turned in the printed paper as "email" - and it's all a big fat lie.

-and Assange can prove it - beyond all reasonable doubt. 

Consider...

Assange received copies of most of the Clinton emails from the State Department through a FOIA request. He then scanned them and placed them all in a publicly searchable database. Assange next published the hacked emails of the DNC in a seperate publicly searchable database.  In both of these searchable database examples, one can view both the "rendered email" (as it may appear in an email client); or the email source. In the case of the DNC hack, the email source is a text based .eml file - a typical email type of file. In the Hillary database, however, the source is only the scanned .pdf file - because there IS no original source.

UNLESS...

It had been hacked prior to Hillary deleting it - and Assange has it.

If Assange has the original source email, and can show it's been altered from what Clinton submitted as "her email," it would be devastating.

Not sure this is what Assange has, but why would anyone go to the extent that Hillary did to destroy all digital verification of her alleged printed email - if she didn't alter them.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

Add a comment

In Defense of Trumps 3 AM Tweets

Every pundit on the left and right have universally declared Trumps' 3 am Twitter attack on Alicia Machado to be stupid and harmful.

They're wrong. Here's why...

The Machado narrative was a coordinated attack. The Clinton campaign planted the stories of Trump's abuse with major media outlets, then Clinton delivered the obscure assertion of Trumps boorishness at the debate. This media offensive was intended to dominate the news cycle till the next debate. The idea that it would've "gone away" if he'd have ignored it is to be purposefully ignorant of a long history of media offensives against conservatives.

George Allen tried to downplay the ridiculous assertion that uttering  the non-word "macaca" was proof of his inherent racism - it dominated the news for weeks. It destroyed his campaign. In 2012 George Stephanopoulos planted the "contraceptive issue" in the first debate, then for weeks the media and democrats played out the coordinated "anti-woman" theme as the defining aspect of the Romney campaign. Romney never completely recovered. The list goes on. All "ignored" as trite and foolish - all pounded relentlessly by the media into the public conscience until it became the accepted "truth."

The Machado story was clearly set up to have legs and to dominate the news until the next debate. But Trump got down in the gutter, went toe to toe bringing up criminal charges, porn videos, and made it clear he was about to go nuclear on Clinton sex scandals. Trumps' tweets went directly to the TMZ and ETV crowd that has no idea that there is an AM band on the radio. Not surprisingly, the entertainment networks found the Machado story to messy for even them to cover. Make no mistake - if it weren't for Trumps' distasteful twitter attack - Machado would STILL be dominating the news cycle. But.. suddenly, Machado is gone.

Stolen tax returns are up.

Sorry, but this seems like the Democrats are off stride. The tax return story is so weak it's ridiculous. It's so weak that they have to make up half of it. They simply say he lost money, and that means he MIGHT have not paid much in taxes. I have to believe that this story was intended to be held till the week before the election - a la the GW Bush DUI incident.   

The election is five weeks out. The Democrats have already dropped two major oppo research October Surprises - and Trump is barely phased. Democrats have become accustomed to Republicans being stoic and silent in the face of gutter level false attacks, adhering to the flawed conventional wisdom that "it will pass," and that people will admire their restraint.

Not so with Trump. You go into the gutter to attack him. He'll go into the gutter and fight - and he may well hurt you. It remains to be seen if this strategy will ultimately prevail - but it if Democrats feared this level of counter attack from other Republicans, there might be a few less gutter level attacks in the future.  

Add a comment

Are NC Riots "Swing State" Politics?

In the past week, there have been two controversial police shootings. 

One, was in Tulsa Oklahoma, the other in Charlotte, North Carolina.

In Tulsa, an unarmed black man was shot and killed by a white police officer. There were multiple video accounts of the shooting, and while all the facts are not yet known, there is enough evidence to charge the shooter with manslaughter. 

In Charlotte, an armed black man was shot by a black police officer. Again, while all the facts of the case are yet to be revealed, there appears to be NO evidence on which to charge the officer involved in the shooting.

Yet, the BLM movement sprang to life INSTANTLY in which of these cities?

Charlotte NC, of course.

But why?

Could it be that North Carolina is a crucial swing state in the upcoming Presidential election and that motivating black voters to vote Democrat is crucial to the chances of Hillary Clinton winning the state - while Oklahoma is virtually uncontested?

Sadly, in the current state of our politics, it's likely to be true. BLM isn't about Blacks, it's about whites - or more particularly, it's about one elderly white woman and her insatiable lust for power.

Sorry Black folks, you're being used - again.

Add a comment

Tonights Debate Results - in Advance

Despite all the hype, the results of tonights debate are predictable.

Ok, that is, barring the possibility that Hillary collapses in a crumpled heap after a five minute episode of coughing and twitching; or Trump begins frothing at the mouth screaming insults at Hillary. Truth is, neither of those is likely to happen.

This is what will happen...

-Trump and Hillary will both have reasonably good, and reasonably bad moments.

-Talking heads will all agree Trump performed poorly and definitely "didn't help" his chances, while explaining that many of the undecideds will be clearly looking again at Hillary.

-Social media will be flooded with trash talk from both sides.

-On line polling will favor Trump by at least 10%

-Trump will go on the next day, campaigning at a furious pace; Hillary will go back into hiding.

Trumps poll numbers will continue to nudge upward., the polls will be calling the race "too close to call" right up to election day.

Add a comment

Pot Smokers Lose 2A Rights

I will admit. I didn't see this one coming.

Two days ago the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Federal Law banning the sale of firearms to anyone with a medical marijuana user card. 

Marijuana is still illegal under Federal law, and States that have legalized marijuana have done so with no specific change to Federal law - simply a wink and nod from the Obama administration that they wouldn't challenge the State laws legalizing marijuana.

It seems, however, the Feds have no intention of "looking the other way" when it comes to enforcing prohibitions against owning firearms and using "illegal drugs." 

Although this ruling is specific to "Medical Marijuana Card Holders," given that the Feds have now affirmed that using marijuana negates ones right to bear arms, it is only a matter of time before various City, State, and Federal laws expand this legal theory. There is little doubt that in the near future we will see firearms sales banned to marijuana users, and perhaps even confiscation.

Like I said, I didn't see this coming - but it's I'd be stunned if it the prohibition of gun ownership based on marijuana use stopped here. 

Add a comment