A large number of controversial and important items relative to the upcoming election were released Friday. Almost all of them dealt with the corruption, double-dealing, and dishonesty of Hillary Clinton. But one of them was the inflammatory video of Donald Trump discussing his views on women as objects of sexual prey. The mainstream media has largely ignored the lion’s share of the releases (dealing with Hillary) to focus on the 11-year-old, three-minute-long video of Donald Trump expressing a lowbrow, Neanderthalic attitude toward women, when he was recorded on a live mike without his knowledge.
Make no mistake: What Trump said on the video is lewd and ugly. If you plan to watch the video (embedded below), be warned that — while the video does not show anything graphic — it does contain offensive and morally repugnant language. He speaks candidly of what can only be described as the sexually predatory behavior of forcing himself — uninvited — upon women because, as he put it, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” In the video, Trump can be heard describing his attempts to seduce a married woman. He also discusses kissing and inappropriately touching women without asking or waiting to know whether it is welcomed.
Warning! This video contains graphic language of a disturbing sexual nature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY8FwWwIVyQ
After the video became public, Trump released a video apology on Twitter (see below), saying: “I’ve said and done things I regret. And the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me knows these words don’t reflect who I am. I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize.” He also said he had “changed” and pledged “to be a better man tomorrow.” And he added: “I’ve said some foolish things, but there’s a big difference between the words and actions of other people. Bill Clinton has actually abused women, and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed, and intimidated his victims.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipBvoEDBOpw
But how about Trump’s own actions? Trump limited his video apology to the words he used, yet those words describe his own abuse of women — actions that Trump did not apologize for. Are we to believe that he was simply engaging in locker-room-type bravado in his recorded words, and did not actually do or attempt to do what he said?
The video immediately became a major campaign issue when it was released Friday. However, while the mainstream media pounced on this story, the same media sources have been largely silent about the many documents WikiLeaks released the same day that reflect badly on Hillary Clinton.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
As The New American reported last week, WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange promised to release a new batch of leaked documents each week for 10 weeks, descibing the troves of documents as “significant material on war, arms, oil, Google, the election and mass surveillance” that show “interesting features of U.S. power factions and how they operate.” The documents released Friday comprised the first batch of this material.
That first installment includes the Podesta e-mails — 2,060 e-mails involving, among other things, evidence that Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, approved her part of the deal to transfer control of a company called “Uranium One” to Russian interests — along with giving Russia “effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars in “donations” from “individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer.”
Furthermore, though Secretary Clinton was required to disclose all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the “donations” from Tefler were not disclosed. And, just to top it off, when the New York Times reported on this scandal last year, Clinton Campaign spokesman Brian Fallon denied the allegations in an e-mail to the Times, saying:
Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States], it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.
As Julian Assange wrote for WikiLeaks:
What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): “John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign”.
Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that “Jose Fernandez has personally attested that ‘Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter’,” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.
The Podesta e-mails also included a revealing e-mail from Tony Carr, who is a Research Director for Hillary for America. That e-mail listed excepts from the transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street speeches that include some details that are quite damning. The purpose of the e-mail was to highlight those portions of Clinton’s speeches that would have the ability to damage the campaign, so that Hillary could get in front of the narrative if the speeches were released. One is struck by the irony of a Clinton employee cataloging those excerpts in an e-mail for the purpose of helping Hillary Clinton, only to have his e-mail leaked, thereby exposing Hillary’s true colors. For instance, the transcript excerpts show — among other things — that Hillary Clinton:
• Admits to being “kind of far removed” from the struggles of middle class life “because of the life I’ve lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy.” (February 4, 2014 — Goldman-Black Rock)
• Knew that Jordan was in real danger of Jihadists as a result of the refugee situation, since “they can’t possibly vet all those refugees, so they don’t know if, you know, Jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees.” (October 28, 2013 — Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon)
• Said her “dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.” This, of course, casts a new light on her on-again-off-again love affair with the widely hated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which secretary Clinton championed. (May 16, 2013 — Banco Itaú)
• Believes in saying one thing and doing another — or the need for “both a public position and a private position” because “if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least.” (April 24, 2013 National Multi-Housing Council)
Yet the mainstream media has largely ignored the above revelations about Hillary Clinton while focusing on the video recording of Trump’s lewd and crude remarks. Certainly the latter reflects on the character of a presidential candidate — an issue voters should be concerned about. But the former reflects not only on the charater of someone who aspires to hold the highest office in the land but also on her willingness to endanger national security to advance her own personal interests. Shouldn’t the troves of doucments released by WikiLeaks be at least as newsworthy as the release of the Trump video?
Photo of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: AP Images
(The New American never endorses candidates. Our purpose is to inform the electorate and enable them to draw their own conclusions.)
