Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Credit attribution: haak78 /

From the beginning, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange and now close confidant Craig Murray have claimed what the organization’s name implies; the emails from Podesta and others of the DNC were obtained not by hacking but by leaking. In other words the emails came from within what we might call the framework of the DNC and perhaps not more specifically from within the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.


Wikileaks:  No hacking from outside the DNC framework was necessary to obtain the highly inflammatory Podesta emails because someone from within the DNC framework provided them first. Unless Russia has a literal seat in the DNC, which no one in the DNC would likely be so bold to acknowledge, Russia and Vladimir Putin did not have anything to do with the election win of President-elect Donald Trump.


Fake News:  Is the failed Hillary Clinton campaign’s opening gambit to delegitimize and possibly upend Donald Trump’s win in November. To discourage Americans from looking any further behind the DNC curtain the Clinton camp started talking about the dangers of “fake news.” They proceeded to blame “fake news” for their campaign’s defeat and they attempted to claim the moral high ground for being the first to warn against it.

Being the most aggrieved by fake news her minions pressed heart and soul into the next step of their scheme for “world domination.” They latched onto Trump statements that indicated his willingness to work with Putin on some of the great problems of our day, especially in Europe and the Middle East. Those who prefer negotiation to the war option saw wisdom in his kind words. They who prefer political diplomacy to war, usually eventually winning both, seized upon Trump’s feigned friendship with Putin as proof positive Putin hacked the DNC to help Trump win.


Uranium:  Who while Secretary of State arranged the sale of a large portion of U.S. uranium to a Russian company in exchange for, “millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation from executives with an interest in the Uranium One/ARMZ transaction [that] were not disclosed, breaching the agreement”? (The agreement being a memorandum of understanding between the Obama administration and the Secretary of State that required donations be disclosed.) The answer: Hillary Clinton.

The one word to remember, just as important as “plastics” decades ago, is “uranium.” The whole thing of pointing Podesta’s finger toward Trump’s supposed ties to Putin and Russia is blown out of the water with the mere mention of a single word: “uranium.” The fake news is Trump has conspiratorial ties to Putin and Russia. The real news is Hillary Clinton had an undisclosed, buried, actually quite ominous relationship with Putin and Russian industry that lost the United States 20% of its uranium holdings. The real news is Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State worked out a transaction with Putin’s Russia in the Clinton’s self interest without regard to American interests to any degree whatsoever.

So, what today was supposed to be a wonderful, beautiful unveiling of a great Secretary of State choice by the Trump transition team has been walked all over by “fake news” generated over the weekend by the media’s highly lauded defenders of “real news.” Podesta’s desperate plea to educate the Electoral College regarding Trump’s alleged close association with Putin has drowned out a reasoned discussion of why Exxon Mobil’s Rex Tillerson is America’s best choice. Most of what we have heard about his selection has been centered on his business dealings and friendships developed among major world leaders around the globe. Everything external, pointing to other world leaders and countries has been discussed.


Swamp:  That which has not been discussed points within to that sizable portion of the Washington, DC swamp which was once known to be a Department of State loyal to the United States. Just yesterday Donald Trump while speaking highly of his possible Tillerson pick emphasized, “…he does massive deals for the company, not for himself for the company.

What a difference that will make within the Department of State. Imagine a leader of the Department of State who demands of his organization they work for the company, for the United States and not for the promotion of the interests of anyone else or for the advantage of any other country.


iPatriot Contributers


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?