The title of this post describes what we see in this transcript. An exchange between a liberal useful idiot interviewer and an egopper so entrenched, so practiced, so blinded by the Beltway culture he is not even aware he is a tool of the left. The proof is indisputable. Mike Wallace plays gothca with the typical liberal ploy of conflating two unrelated issues into one, “Do you still beat your wife”, question and the Priebus who is so used to playing the game fumbles around trying to not answer the non-question rather than focusing the exchange on what the topic should be – THE TRUTH.
The issue is not by whom or by what means the information was acquired. Sure, hacking may be an issue of national security but this is hardly what the problem is here as is so clearly demonstrated by the simple fact that if it was Republican email that had been released the msm would not be making a sound about it and the dems and Wallace would be saying, GOOD! The conflation is to make the information invalid because it was released by Assange. Think what you want about Assange, it DOES NOT EFFECT THE CONTENT of the release and it therefore does not effect the character of the players ad that is the story, not the hacking and NOT the Russians. Thus, two useful pawns who are not even aware of it.
Fortunately, the American people seem to have woken up to, if not the tactics, at least the game and so seem to now properly categorize domestic and world events. The shame is Priebus hasn’t learned that yet and my guess is that if he doesn’t learn from his boss soon that, as Andrew Breitbart was fond of saying, “The truth isn’t mean, it’s just the TRUTH”, he is not going to be long for the job. My initial impression thus far of Priebus…the sooner he goes the better.
WALLACE: I want to ask you about something else, because the president-elect this week seemed to put more credibility to believe the founder of WikiLeaks over the intelligence community. And I want to put up another tweet that the president-elect said on Wednesday.
“Julian Assange said a 14-year-old could have hacked Podesta — why was DNC so careless? Also said the Russians did not give him the info.”
Reince, several years back, I don’t have to tell you, Julian Assange published, disclosed, hundreds of thousands of classified cables and other emails and documents that very much compromised the U.S. military in Iraq and that endanger the lives of hundreds of Afghan informants helping the U.S. military.
Why would the president-elect give any credibility to Julian Assange?
PRIEBUS: Well, first of all, to your other point, he has tremendous respect to the people in the intelligence community. In his statement on Friday, it was the very first thing he said, and he wanted to make it clear to everyone working hard in the interest of our foreign intelligence that he appreciates them very much.
As to Assange, he doesn’t think this guy is a good guy. He put in quotes things that he had said. He didn’t say I support this guy. He didn’t say I think he’s a good guy.
WALLACE: Why even quote him? Why even give him any credibility? He’s the president-elect.
PRIEBUS: I think his point is that — well, wait a second, I think his point is that the DNC was so lacking in any of their defenses, by their own admission.
WALLACE: OK, we got that. I’m just asking why he was —
PRIEBUS: Perhaps a 14-year-old could have gotten into the — but perhaps a 14-year-old could have gotten into the DNC. When you have staffers opening up emails that say, you know, “I’m stranded in Mali and I need $20,000, click on this link”, and the DNC is clicking on these links.
You know, I’ve got to tell you something, no one thinks that Assange is a great guy, I can assure you of that. But I think the issue here is yes, bad foreign actors, but it’s also the DNC that has allowed itself to be hacked by about anyone in the world, and that is one of the reasons why this was such a big deal.