Clarice Feldman tipped me off to what looks like a great resource, a website that organizers the vast flood of data from Wikileaks and other sources such as the FBI documents, and focuses on the crucial issues. It is an anonymous piece of work, and the site is titled http://www.
This website is not owned by or affiliated with WikiLeaks. It was made entirely for free by an American citizen who is sick of government corruption and the lack of accountability and justice in our country. The goal of this website is to open the eyes of the American public to the corruption that is Hillary Clinton. This list will be updated every day with new leaks until the election….
I can already hear the Clinton campaign dismissing this as the work of Putin, and have no way of knowing who put it together. But it will stand or fall depending on how accurate and complete its assembly of evidence for some startling propositions turns out to be.
There is an entire section on media corruption, and the site states upfront in a Q&A:
5. Why is the media barely covering them [the Wikileaks revelations]?Because almost 100% of mainstream media sources, as well as several prominent publishing news sources are implicated in the leaks in colluding with the Clinton campaign. These "news" sources (as you will find in the leaks below) have conspired to get Hillary elected, by only reporting anti-Trump smear pieces, manufacturing or exaggerating scandals, and hiding anything damaging to Hillary. Most are even donating big money to the Clinton campaign in order to keep the globalist status-quo. These revelations are the stories journalists dream of, but CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, Huffington Post, AP, and several more are all implicated in the leaks. This is why the media has been so one sided this election season, and why only 6% of people trust the mainstream media. Trump hasn't helped with some past comments, but as CNN said here, the media is doing everything they can to help Hillary and give her a free ride.
Consider the first of the one hundred damaging items it lists:
1. Obama lied: he knew about Hillary’s secret server and wrote to her using a pseudonym, cover-up happened (intent to destroy evidence)
- “Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it in the news… we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov”
- “How is that not classified?” Huma Abedin to FBI when shown email between Clinton & Obama using his pseudonym. Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”
- I can't state how huge this is, it's a cover up involving the POTUS. There are lots of emails implying this, but this email states it very clearly so anyone can understand. The email proves obstruction of justice and shows how they lied to the FBI and likely perjury of congress. This at the very least proves intent by her chief of staff.
- Obama used executive privilege on their correspondence. We have "Ms. Immunity" Cheryl Mills stating they need to "clean up" the Clinton/Obama e-mails because they lacked state.gov.
- Additionally, Obama on video publicly denied knowing about the server. He also claimed on video that he learned about it through the news like everyone else. The corruption goes ALL the way to the top! Flat out lying to the American public.
- Paul Combetta was hired to modify the email headers that referred to a VERY VERY VIP individual, i.e; change the name of who it was from. If you read Stonetear/Combetta story, it's easy to see this is exactly what he was attempting (I am an IT professional). He wanted to change header information on already sent mail to show "state.gov" instead of Hillary's private email address. Multiple people informed him of the infeasibility (and illegality) of it, so somewhere in the next 6 days it was decided that simply eradicating them was the only option left.
- The FBI said they could not find intent of trying to break the law, therefore no recommendation of prosecution. This email proves, in plain language, that they DID mean to break the law.
- This is the real reason why she was never indicted, because she would have taken down Obama with her.Ask yourselves: why would they both be communicating on a secret server to each other? Why not through normal proper channels? What were they hiding? We may soon find out…
Unquestionably, the site seems to make all the worst assumptions. As an honest prosecutor investigating public corruption ought to do while uncovering evidence and testing out those assumptions.
I have yet to explore it in depth, but what I have seen so far indictes that this is a valuable organizer of the Wikileaks data, and I hope it is updated continually.