Tr🍩ll Smear #9: “Bernie hyped the WikiLeaks scandal to his own advantage”
Now this attack is one of the ones that makes the least sense. And in order to make it, the Tr🍩lls need to do some pretty impressive mental gymnastics.
First, they must make the difficult, schizophrenic argument that:
- The WikiLeaked emails were totally “banal” and proved nothing, yet
- The release of those emails cost Hillary Clinton the Presidency.
Indeed, the entire Russian hacking story was predicated on the idea that the DNC emails were hacked by Russian operatives, then passed to WikiLeaks in order to damage the Clinton campaign.
This story has since been debunked and proven to have been a hoax that was “cooked up” by John Podesta and Robby Mook on the night of the election. Still, the Anti-Bernie crowd still want to believe it, because otherwise they would need to place blame somewhere else (like at on the candidate). But incredibly, they feel that Bernie played a role in this.
The proof? Bernie said things like:
“I mean, there’s no question to my mind and I think no question to any objective observer’s mind that the DNC was supporting Hillary Clinton, and was at opposition to our campaign.”
Well, duh. This is milquetoast. And yet in the mind of the Tr🍩ll, this is heresy, this is outrageous calumny worthy of condemning.
The mere fact that Debbie Wasserman Schultz had been National Co-Chair of Hillary’s 2008 campaign was highly problematic. It indicated a very strong relationship between the two, and one can imagine it was only natural that DWS would want to “make up” for the failure of 2008 by guaranteeing her good friend the 2016 nomination.
Add to this the fact that virtually all of the superdelegates had pledged to vote for Hillary before the Primary even started, and these are clear indications of the bias that Bernie mentions.
I will not get into the charge that the debate schedule was minimised and planned to the detriment of the newcomer, the charge that there was clear manipulation of the Primary process in places like NV, NY and CA — these are arguments for another time and place.
For this attack, however, it is sufficient to mention the mental gymnastics and schizophrenic argument above, and couple it with one simple yet intractable query:
If there were no evidence of DNC bias, why did Debbie Wasserman Schultz (plus 4 other top DNC heads) have to suddenly resign on the day before the convention?
For a long time, no Hillary supporter had been able to give me a straight answer on why DWS resigned. They mostly said it was to “save face” or “just for optics”.
But now, with this new Anti-Bernie attack line, they can explain that she was “forced” to resign because of Bernie’s “vicious attack.” Apparently, phrases like “the DNC was supporting Hillary Clinton” and was “at opposition to our campaign” was just too much for poor little Debbie to take. Please.
NOTE ALSO: There is currently a lawsuit charging the DNC with fraud that is currently making its way through the courts (at a hearing in April, a judge refused to grant the DNC’s request to dismiss the suit).