Assange: Podesta Emails Expose Facebook Collusion with Clinton Campaign


Isn’t it just delightful to see hypocrites fall flat on their face? Today’s hypocrites take the form of the establishment media and Congress, two entities who found themselves foaming at the mouth earlier this week over the new evidence for their “Russian meddling” narrative.

What is this evidence? Oh, just 3000 anti-Hillary social media advertisements that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will be turning over to Congressional investigators. Advertisements that show a connection between the social media website and Russian accounts linked to The Kremlin. At least if you, a rational sceptic, take outlets like CNN and The Washington Examiner at their word who assert these claims, ironically enough, without any evidence of their own.

But rest assured that one journalist, Wikileaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange, did indeed find Facebook meddling in the 2016 presidential election… it’s just that the meddling came from The Clinton Campaign which had direct and provable communication with the social media executives.

Since October 7th 2016, Wikileaks published thousands of emails from the private Gmail account of Washington lobbyist and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

The man who claims he was hacked by the Russians while at the same time admitting his emails leaked as the result of a Ukrainian phishing scam. On Thursday, Assange tweeted key sections of his series, The Podesta Emails, that expose the very intimate and positive conversations had between the campaign and those pesky members of the Silicon Valley elite, such as his interactions with Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg.


Yes, while RealClearPolitics made fan-fiction articles wishing on a star for a Clinton/Sandberg ticket for 2016, it turns out as early as February 2015, Podesta copied an email from Clinton aide Cheryl Mills who arranged meetings with Sandberg and researchers in The Clinton Campaign office to “step through the research on gender and leadership by women.”

On June 4th, after the death of her husband Dave Goldberg, Podesta reached out to Sandberg with deepest condolences for her lose. “Can’t imagine your pain,” he wrote, “but know that you are surrounded by people who love you”. Cue her giving Podesta her appreciation, followed by the statement: “And I still want HRC to win badly. I am still here to help as I can. She came over and was magical with my kids.”

And by January 2016, Podesta and Sandberg were on each other’s holiday email list. “2015 was challenging, but we ended in a good place thanks to your help and support,” Podesta sent Sandberg on New Years, “Look forward to working with you to elect the first woman President of the United States.” To which Sandberg replied with how “thrilled” she was by Clinton’s progress.

Even Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO and founder of Facebook, wrote to Podesta to tell him how much he enjoyed his company and he had “a lot to think about” after their conversation regarding the Center for American Progress (CAP).

Elliot Schrage, the vice president of communications at Facebook, was also included in the email thread, telling Podesta that Zuckerberg was looking for a way to “direct his wealth to have an impact as great as Facebook” adding that Podesta’s ideas had “really moved his thinking.”

As you can imagine, this exchange of political bodily fluids points out the exact hypocrisy behind establishment Democrats who have been clinging to anything and everything that shows collusion between President Donald Trump, Russia, and unfair “rigging” of the 2016 election, when their #Resistance leader has evidence so readily available to us.

The methods of Clintonism staying very true to the lesson of her mentor Saul Alinsky and his book Rules For Radicals:

“Accuse your opponent of what only you are doing, as you are doing it, to create confusion, cloud the issue, and inoculate voters against any evidence of your guilt.”

After all, it was Clinton who was wrapped up in a deeply unpopular uranium scandal with Russia which saw Bill Clinton take in $500,000 for giving a speech to a bank investing in Uranium One.

Why not accuse your opponent of your own weakest to blur the lines? It’s deeply effective and terribly confusing.

I mean, review films for work and haven’t been to cinemas that have this much projection.

Bailey T. Steen is a journalist, editor, artist and film critic based in Victoria, Australia. To support this content, and more to come like it, the options include Patreon and Paypal, where I hope to keep this content free.

My content has been graciously published on Trigtent, Janks Reviews, Newslogue and right here on Medium. For updates and contact, the best place to touch base is on Twitter and Facebook, and the comments below.




anxious writer, depressed slug, bisexual simp, enclave enjoyer, compassionate socialist, #LeftIsBest, error 404 gender not found (any/all) 🥂

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

Joking and Chest Thumping at NATO

Get to Know a Legislator: Rep. Sarah LaTourette

Trump expected to order restrictions targeting Muslims and Syrian refugees

Porn Before Peace

If money is the lifeblood of American politics, Donald Trump is a vampire and the Republican Party…

It Takes a Disaster — A Belated Bipartisan Response to COVID-19

The first, and likely most important, debate of the presidential campaign is tonight.

Trump Claims The Courts Are Biased Against Him. The Data Shows Otherwise.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store


anxious writer, depressed slug, bisexual simp, enclave enjoyer, compassionate socialist, #LeftIsBest, error 404 gender not found (any/all) 🥂

More from Medium

Finding spirituality in the West Bank


A New Estimate of Global Unequal Exchange

Antidepressants: Today’s Snake Oil