If you’re reading this, you are someone who has learned long ago not to rely on the so-called “mainstream” establishment media for your news. Those outlets lie, obfuscate and generally shill for one political party and ideology – the Democratic Party.
And because you’re reading this, you’re set to learn more about the Clinton’s malfeasance and corruption via their family “foundation.”
Zero Hedge reports that, after notorious hacker Guccifer 2.0 breached the servers of the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of Hillary Clinton, a hack of the Clinton Foundation had finally taken place, as if we didn’t know that was coming.
“So, this is the moment. I hacked the Clinton Foundation server and downloaded hundreds of thousands of docs and donors’ databases,” the hacker wrote on his website.
The hacked information shows that big banks and corporations agreed to donate to congressional Democrats in exchange for taxpayer-supplied TARP funding.
But the most damning evidence of all is a root directory of folders that Guccifer 2.0 listed on his site – including one folder marked “Pay to Play.”
Now, two factors could be at work here: Either this “pay to play” folder is real and the person who titled it is arrogant (or stupid) enough to believe it will never see the light of day; or the hacked files aren’t real. Indeed, Donna Shalala, a former official in Bill Clinton’s White House and currently president of the foundation, says no hack of the charity’s data has occurred.
But given that Shalala would say that, what’s even more damning here is that the establishment media once again passed on a story that could damage their self-anointed presidential choice – Hillary.
Then again, we’ve come to expect this from the establishment media types. If Hillary is implicated in anything negative or bad, the story gets a pass and is left to the independent alternative media, like us, to report.
One establishment outlet, The Hill, did a brief summary report on the alleged hack, probably because it is a political issue and the publication focuses on Washington politics. But even here the publication attempted to downplay the alleged hack’s significance.
For instance, The Hill noted, “a number of red flags” include the suggestion that the documents posted on the Guccifer 2.0 website came from a previous hack on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), rather than a new hack of the foundation. Then again, a “spot check” on some of those on a donor list that Guccifer 2.0 posted against Federal Election Commission filings “found that they all lined up with DCCC contributions.”
The political news site also claimed that the Clinton Foundation disclosed its donors – many of which were on the list published by Guccifer 2.0- and that many of them did not give to the organization.
And while The Hill stated this matter-of-factly, in reality the foundation has attempted to hide 1,100 donors.