The DNC hack has rocked the foundation of the Democrat establishment, and according to Julian Assange, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Thus far, we’ve learned that the DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders in the primary. We learned the DNC asked MSNBC to pull a commentary segment that portrayed Hillary negatively – and they also conspired to create false information about Trump which they wanted to release to the media. We also learned Hillary is so unpopular among young voters that the DNC had to pay young voters to push back against Sanders supporters online.
These emails are just embarrassing, but at least for Hillary, nothing criminal had been released. Yet.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew that the US was sending arms from Libya to Syria back in 2011, a year before the Benghazi consulate attacks. Hillary Clinton denied she knew about the weapons shipments during public testimony (under oath) in early 2013 after the Benghazi terrorist attack.
(Last week), Julian Assange told Democracy Now that the Wikileaks DNC emails contains information on the weapons shipments to Syria.
Julian Assange: So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates. So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails. There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.
So let’s just take a moment to digest this revelation. Using your private email server for transmitting classified information might be “careless” as far as the FBI is concerned. But funneling arms to terrorists cannot be dismissed as careless. And perjuring yourself during public testimony cannot be dismissed as careless.
How will Hillary respond to this one? Most likely, something along the lines of “what difference, at this point, does it make?”
[Note: This post was authored by The Analytical Economist]