In recent days, the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton have made bombastic threats of cyber-attacking Russia because they claim Russia had hacked into those DNC, Hillary and Podesta emails released by WikiLeaks, which are embarrassing and damaging to Hillary’s presidential ambitions.
However, neither Hillary nor the Obama administration has given any evidence that Russia is the hacker, although that hasn’t stopped the media whores from parroting that allegation as truth. Indeed of solid evidence of Russia’s hacking, what the administration said in its press release on this matter is that the U.S. intelligence community merely “is confident” that the Russian government is the hacker.
In other words, the U.S. is prepared to instigate a likely World War III by going to war — cyber or military — against Russia based on the CIA’s vague sense of “confidence”.
Donald Trump pointed that out in the second 2016 presidential debate on October 9. In response to Hillary saying “Our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election,” Trump stated a simple truth:
“She doesn’t know if it’s the Russians doing the hacking.”
Hillary’s media whore, CNN’s Chris Cuomo, even declared that we must not read those emails because “it’s illegal to possess [and read] these stolen documents” — which is rich, coming from Cuomo who had openly admitted that the media are whole-hog for lawless Hillary, saying “We couldn’t help her any more than we have, she’s got just a free ride so far from the media, we’re the biggest ones promoting her campaign.”
In other words, it’s illegal only when we the little people do it, but it’s okay for Hillary to conduct business as U.S. secretary of state with an unsecured email server, in direct violation of State Department rules and U.S. law.
Instead of reading those hacked emails ourselves — which is “illegal”! — Cuomo says we are to rely on media whores like him to read those emails — which is legal! — and tell us what’s in those emails. But as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh pointed out, “The First Amendment offers the same protection to the media as to the rest of us…, the media has no more First Amendment rights than the rest of us.”
But is possession (and reading) of the hacked emails by us little people really illegal?
William Dunkerley, a media business analyst and the author of Ukraine in the Crosshairs (2014 Omnicom Press) and Litvinenko Murder Case Solved (2015 Omnicom Press), maintains that the hacked emails are not stolen because they are in the public domain because no one owns them. And since the emails are not owned by anyone, how then can they be stolen?
In an article for Russia Insider on Oct. 18, 2016, Dunkerley writes:
The issue here is whether or not any documents were stolen. Some suggest that they instead have been leaked by an insider. But no evidence of a leak has been presented.
The overarching issue, however, is that there is no legitimate legal theory under which the documents could have been stolen. Here’s why. For something to have been stolen there must be an owner from whom it was stolen. The fact is that no one had legal ownership of those State Department documents.
On the surface that may sound preposterous. They were indeed State Department documents after all.
But nothing was taken physically. No papers were removed from any premises or taken away from any person. What’s at issue here is “intellectual property.” The body of law that deals with content such as the emails in question is US Copyright Law. It allows a person or organization to own intellectual property.
That law does not protect the emails in question, though. That’s because the law specifically exempts content produced by federal government employees as a part of their jobs. It is considered to be in the public domain. There is no owner. There is no one to have stolen from.
Then there is the question of why the Clinton campaign is focused on whomever or however the emails were obtained. If the Russians had done the hacking, and for all I know they very well may have, why is Russia being blamed for the publication?
Isn’t the publication of the emails the source of Clinton’s embarrassment? Why isn’t Wikileaks the focus of Hillary’s angst? If Russia had just put hacked emails in a vault, would the Clinton campaign be so aggrieved?
That points to the essence of this whole Russian hacking story. It really doesn’t matter who got the ball rolling. It’s the publication of the emails that hurts. And the publication of public domain content does not infringe anyone’s copyright.
I suspect that Russia is being targeted as part of a provocation. Even the use of the word “stolen” is pejorative.
Which then explains why the Obama administration is instrumental in cutting off WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s Internet connection. (See “The Evil Empire strikes back: WikiLeaks’ Internet connection severed; RT’s bank accounts frozen“)
On October 16, Assange’s Internet service was intentionally cut off by “a state actor,” identified by WikiLeaks as the government of Ecuador. Assange has been holed up in the Ecuador embassy in London for the past 4 years.
On October 18, WikiLeaks tweeted that they were told by “multiple U.S. sources” that the Obama administration had pressured Ecuador to sever Assange’s Internet connection:
“FARC peace negotiations” refers to the ongoing negotiations between the Columbian government and the country’s largest Marxist rebel group — the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (in Spanish, Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia or FARC), a guerrilla movement in the continuing 5-decades long Colombian armed conflict since 1964.
An article on wsws.org makes an interesting observation:
Whether the State Department [John Kerry] was the only entity placing pressure on Ecuador on behalf of the Clinton campaign, or whether Wall Street also intervened directly, is unclear. The timing of the Internet cutoff, in the immediate aftermath of the release of Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches, may be more than coincidental.
In the spring of 2014, the government of Ecuador agreed to transfer more than half of its gold reserves to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for three years, in an attempt to raise cash to cover a growing deficit brought on by the collapse in oil prices. It reportedly sent 466,000 ounces of gold to Goldman Sachs, worth about $580 million at the time, in return for “high security” financial instruments and an anticipated profit on its investment. It is hardly a stretch of the imagination to believe that such a relationship would give Goldman Sachs considerable leverage in relation to the Ecuadorian government.
In any case, it is evident that the US ruling establishment is growing increasingly desperate to stanch the flow of previously secret emails and documents that are exposing the real character not only of Clinton […]
The transcripts of Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs and other top banks and employers’ groups, for which she was paid on average $200,000 per appearance, are the most incriminating. They expose the workings of the oligarchy that rules America and the thinking and actions of a politician prepared to do anything to advance the interests of this ruling stratum, while simultaneously accruing ever greater riches and power for herself.
While on the campaign trail, Clinton has postured as a “progressive,” determined to hold Wall Street’s feet to the fire. But in her speeches to Goldman Sachs, she made clear her unconditional defense of the banks and financial houses. Under conditions of popular outrage against the bankers and their role in dragging millions into crisis in the financial meltdown of 2008, Clinton gave speeches praising the Wall Street financiers and insisting that they were best equipped to regulate themselves. She apologized to them for supporting the toothless Dodd-Frank financial regulatory law, saying that it had to be enacted for “political reasons.”
In front of her Wall Street audiences, Clinton made clear she had no inhibitions about ordering mass slaughter abroad. While telling her public audiences that she supports a “no-fly zone” in Syria as a humanitarian measure to save lives, she confidentially acknowledged to her Goldman Sachs audience that such an action is “going to kill a lot of Syrians” and become “an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.” In the same speech she declared her willingness to bomb Iran.
The emails have laid bare the nexus of corrupt connections between the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, her various campaigns and her network of financial and corporate donors, which together constitute a quasi-criminal influence-peddling enterprise that could best be described as “Clinton, Inc.”
The revelations contained in the WikiLeaks material have been ignored or downplayed by the corporate media, which instead has focused unrelentingly on the charges of sexual misconduct leveled against Clinton’s Republican rival, Donald Trump.
H/t Will Shanley