As the American election nears, less than a month away, WikiLeaks has been releasing hacked emails. There is a lot of interest in and about the emails. Not a lot of media coverage of the actual emails. WikiLeaks say they vet the emails. But, are they true, fake, hype? I posit that if the emails were false, fake, or hype they could be denied. If they were one person’s statements, they could be denied.

We know commonly some emails go to out dozens of people. Government officials and politicians are often communicating with hundreds of people and those people are often forwarding the emails to even more people.

So, to deny an email that one sent and expected to be received by unknowable hundreds, if not thousands, directly or via a forward, risks being caught in a blatant lie. Blatant to all those that received it and from personal experience know it was sent directly to them by the stated author and many others that have reason to believe the forwarded copy they received is authentic. 

In such a case a politician cannot know how many of those people receiving the emails are supporters or opponents. Some would join in supporting the lie to protect the politician. Others with a higher moral code would not lie and thus are likely to out the politician. Others would take the opportunity to oppose/damage the politician and support the authenticity of the email.

While it is debatable whether the majority of people have a high moral code and strong ethics, understanding humans and knowing how many have questionable morals and ethics leads most to assume there is a great risk of the truth being exposed for a variety of reasons.

So, while the political machines are doing all they can to have people doubt the authenticity and accuracy of the emails, I am not seeing authors and recipients denying the authenticity of the emails. So, I am highly inclined to believe the emails are authentic and accurate.

We are seeing more candid emails from politicians who thought they were communicating in private:

Clinton admitted she’s for ‘open borders’ in paid, private speech: WikiLeaks – Clinton called for ‘open trade and open borders’ in private, paid speeches – There are wild estimates of how many immigrants she would admit. There is little doubt it would be in the hundreds of millions. Consider what the arrival of the common estimates of 600 million immigrants would do to the country. Schools, collages, hospitals, doctor’s offices, stores, traffic, homes…

Demand for homes and apartments would increase, meaning the cost for those items would go up. Labor would be in great supply, meaning wages would go down. Demand for food would increase, meaning prices would increase… on and one.

Imagine 2 of every 3 people you meet being a foreign national… what does that do to your culture? Liberals like to talk about diversity and the preservation of various cultures. What about your culture?

On the campaign trail you do not hear Hillary talking about her dream of open borders.

After seeing Congressional Representative Trey Gowdy question FBI Director Comey, who is under oath testifying in a Congressional hearing, about Hillary Clinton’s previous under oath statements to Congress, I don’t see how anyone can trust what she says. See: Trey Gowdy GRILLS James Comey On Hillary Clinton Emails 7/7/16. (6 min video) In the video it is incredibly clear Hillary Clinton lied under oath and provided a clear basis for proof of her criminal intent in destroying emails.

Knowing this, it is no surprise to me that another leak released reveals she is telling groups whatever she believes they need to hear to convince them to support her. We saw the leaked speech-document, where she explicitly said she does opposite private and public statements, come up in the second Presidential debate where she attempted to justify different private and public positions.

The Case for a “Two-Faced” Hillary Clinton – New Republic – Oct 11, 2016. This article gives the source of the claims. In the debate it came out this way: Second Debate October 9 2016 Donald Trump vs Hillary on Abraham Lincoln Wikileaks Russia.

The New Republic article makes it clear how Hillary was spinning the Lincoln idea. Pres. Lincoln used different arguments with different groups to convince them to support a single consistent point; that slavery should be ended. Hillary is telling the general voter she is for immigration control and in private telling people she is for open borders, basically no immigration control.

For the Lincoln illustration to be accurate for Hillary’s claim and behavior, Lincoln would have had to tell people in the north he was against slavery and people in the south he was for it. That is deceit. Hillary was again being misleading (deceitful) about Lincoln and in a nationally televised debate. She apparently thinks people are too poorly educated about Lincoln to catch her lie. Or… worse, she has such poor a poor perception of history she believes what she said.

—

A better and more detailed version of the same Gowdy/Comey hearing: James Comey Gets Nervous as Congressman Trey Gowdy Grills Him over Hillary Clinton! (<12 min) The recordings are of the same event prepared by two different sources.

With 19 people running on the Democrat and Republican tickets I actually thought I would get to vote for someone in this election. But, as things have narrowed down I find once again I am voting against the worst of the two.