SHARE
Not your average Internet dating site. (Screen shot of website)

As I’ve written about many times, I’m highly dubious about all these campaign stories that Putin is running Donald Trump, that Julian Assange is a Russian agent, and that Vlad hacked the DNC. Much of the press recycles these charges as if they were fact, not speculation, and even more astonishing is that people who pride themselves on being liberals and leftists have accepted the stories at face value because they so desperately want Hillary Clinton to win.

Do I know that these stories are false? No, I don’t. But I do know that the two main sources of information for these tales are both highly tainted and should not be trusted. The first is Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Whatever you think of Hillary and whether you plan to vote for her or not, if you’re honest it’s apparent that she and her handlers have a strong interest in peddling this narrative because it’s extremely damaging to Donald Trump.

Trusting Hillary about Trump is exactly as ignorant as trusting Trump about Hillary. They are interested parties and neither has demonstrated a reputation for honesty and integrity. In short, they are both big, fat liars. So in terms of evidentiary value, anything either campaign says about the other should be thrown out of court.

The second key source for the claims of Russian intrusion is the U.S. intelligence community, and it has no credibility either. One of the more bizarre spectacles of this campaign has been liberals — and even worse, left-leaning journalists — proclaiming their 100 percent belief in the claims put forth by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that the Russians are behind all the meddling into our glorious, wonderful, laughably undemocratic election.

People, the U.S. intelligence community told us that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and that U.S. troops would be greeted by Iraqis with flowers. The U.S. intelligence community was responsible for egregious failures — for which no one was ever held accountable — that allowed Al Qaeda to carry out the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. intelligence community provided completely erroneous information about Libya which prompted that catastrophic exercise in nation building. I could go on and on here but in terms of the allegations about Russia, I’m not willing to take the word of Hillary Clinton and James Clapper. I’m not flatly saying the stories are false, but until something more solid comes out, I remain dubious.

But let’s now turn to a new story that strongly suggests that Julian Assange was targeted by someone, and it was very definitely not the Russians. This astonishing story by Tim Johnson starts with this curious information:

For an online dating site, toddandclare.com seems really good at cloak-and-dagger stuff. Disconnected phones. Mystery websites. Actions that ricochet around the globe.

But the attention grabber is the Houston-based company’s target: Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, whose steady dumps of leaked emails from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign have given supporters of Donald Trump the only cheering news of the last few weeks.

In some ways, toddandclare.com’s campaign against Assange is as revelatory as the leaked emails themselves, illustrating the powerful, sometimes unseen, forces that oppose WikiLeaks.

Whoever is behind the dating site has marshaled significant resources to target Assange, enough to gain entry into a United Nations body, operate in countries in Europe, North America and the Caribbean, conduct surveillance on Assange’s lawyer in London, obtain the fax number of Canada’s prime minister and seek to prod a police inquiry in the Bahamas.

And they’ve done it at a time when WikiLeaks has become a routine target of Democratic politicians who portray Assange as a stooge of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his reported efforts to disrupt the U.S. election.

One part of toddandclare’s two-pronged campaign put a megaphone to unproven charges that Assange made contact with a young Canadian girl in the Bahamas through the internet with the intention of molesting her. The second part sought to entangle him in a plan to receive $1 million from the Russian government.

Read it all, it’s a well researched story and has a lot of surprises.
And a couple of other things about this story. First off, I have a lot of problems with Assange so I’m not making a case for him personally, but this has all the makings of a sophisticated dirty tricks operation against Assange in which the Clinton campaign had a role.
This operation might well have succeeded because of a weakness of WikiLeaks, namely that it has become largely a one-person show. People are imperfect — Assange certainly is — and if you discredit a group’s leader, you can discredit the entire organization. That was the aim of this bogus dating site’s operation.
Secondly, a well-informed source tells me that toddandclare.com initially sought to bribe Assange so that he wouldn’t release the Podesta emails. When he refused, the people behind the operation flipped it into a child molestation charge against him. Let me emphasize that I can’t confirm that but it’s something that journalists and the public should be asking.

Finally, it’s important to note that, as reported in the story, an assistant commissioner for the Royal Bahamas Police Force, Stephen Dean, said “there is no investigation” into Assange’s alleged child molestation and that “the police have received no evidence that such an incident occurred.” In other words, someone phoned in a compliant but provided no evidence and didn’t actually file a complaint.

And good luck sorting through all the reporting you’re going to be reading for the next few weeks. Most of it’s going to be bullshit as credulous and/or dishonest journalists carry water for their preferred candidate.
And congratulations to Tim Johnson for actually doing his job, unlike the vast majority of shoeshine boys and girls covering this awful, awful election.

 

 

Print Friendly