WikiLeaks: Email Suggests Sanders Was Manipulated to Support Hillary

WikiLeaks: Email Suggests Sanders Was Manipulated to Support Hillary

by Micah J. Fleck

UPDATE: It has been pointed out that the original headline of this article read as if literal money-exhanging was involved – this is not at all what the author intended, and as such the article has been updated and rephrased to better reflect the actual content and intent.



A new email uncovered by WikiLeaks heavily suggests that Brent Budowsky, an ex-legislative director to Congressman Bill Alexander and oddly short-lived political blogger, was involved in an initiative to manipulate the Sanders campaign to support Hillary Clinton.

In the email, written to Clinton 2016 campaign chair John Podesta, Budowsky states the following strategy for defeating Sanders:

Screen Shot 2016-10-15 at 3.40.30 PM

(scan courtesy of WikiLeaks)

In other words, Budowsky suggested the HRC campaign and the DNC ingratiate Bernie and his supporters by speaking and writing positively about him until the right time… Then get him to back Clinton officially so the game can go according to plan. Or at least, that is what is being alleged by those who have read the email.

Libertarian Party chair Nicholas Sarwark called it a “double-cross” on his official Twitter upon reading it:

Screen Shot 2016-10-15 at 3.46.05 PM

And mainstream news sources have picked up the leak of Podesta’s gmail account and pulled other gems from it, as well.

The most interesting thing about this email is that it corresponds directly with Budowski’s evidenced behavior regarding the Sanders campaign – he did precsicely what he promised he would do in the email. He wrote and spoke publicly about Sanders until it was the right time to stop doing so. His blog posts on show as much, where we can see Budowski posting pro-Bernie content until May, and then suddenly ceasing his output never to write again during the election cycle.

If the emails are in fact pointing to a “double-cross” or ingratiation like it appears, this is by far some of the most compelling evidence yet of the Clinton campaign’s string-pulling and underhanded campaign tactics.

  • 109

Latest Stories


  • GFresh
    October 16, 2016, 2:38 am

    Writing positive pieces about Bernie when he’s a HRC supporter.
    He says being nice will be like money in the bank to Bernie AND “his people”.
    Money in the bank is a saying, a phrase. I highly doubt he literally meant putting actual money in Bernie and his people’s bank accounts because they need Bernie supporters votes.
    The context should show that and the lack of specifically saying Bernie’s bank account or his people’s (voters?) bank accounts.
    I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say maybe, that phrase isn’t used anymore? and therefore you’re too young to understand what that phrase means?
    If this is a satire site, I’m going to feel stupid.

  • megcnut1985
    October 16, 2016, 2:38 am

    Okay, one of two things is happening her: either you want to turn people away from Sanders completely, so they will not vote democratic down tickets, so the Republicans keep the house and the senate, or you have no concept of reading comprehension and critical thinking whatsoever, and should be doing ANY writing, based on how stupid and ignorant this article is. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and go with stupidity over corruption.

    The email in question states that this reporter was writing good things about Sanders, so that when it was needed, he would have some clout with Sanders supporters, because HRC was going to need them in the general.


  • jphillies08@GFresh
    October 16, 2016, 6:20 am

    I’m in my 20’s and I recognized “money in the bank” as a symbolic phrase for clout or persuasive credibility. Not an actual dollar amount going into Bernie’s pocket. I don’t think age is a valid excuse for that mistake

  • Micah J. Fleck@megcnut1985
    October 16, 2016, 7:37 am

    The article itself actually isn’t making any accusations of literal money exchanging. The headline was not meant to be literal. Read The Federalist Papers’ piece that cites my article; they completely get that a virtual pay-off is what was being referenced – empty promises, ingratiation, etc., until Sanders wasn’t useful anymore. Then the insider support stopped and it all shifted to Hillary. I find that despicable behavior.

    So, it’s actually neither of the two things you are accusing me of – I actually quite like Bernie, and am registered Democrat. This is not an attempt at a conspiracy piece to make Bernie or the DNC look bad unjustly. i’ve written pro-Bernie and pro-Dem pieces in the past (seriously). This was simply a case of the headline not working very well to convey the actual content of the article itself. It has since been changed and a clarification has since been posted to the top of the article.

    Thank you for the comment, all the same. I appreciate the fact that our readers want to keep us honest.

  • Micah J. Fleck@GFresh
    October 16, 2016, 7:43 am

    The headline was not meant to be literal – the “payoff” being referenced, as The Federalist Papers’ citation of me in their article was able to deduce, was a virtual one – one of empty promises and faux support. Support that stopped after Sanders became a threat.

    The headline and conclusion of the article have been rephrased since the initial miscommunication, and a clarification has been posted to the top of the article. The intent was not ti confuse or even appear underhanded. So things have been clarified.


Austin Petersen on KWOS radio 6-9am Mon-Fri

Freedom Report Podcast

Follow TLR on Social Media

Search TLR's Articles

Twitch Stream

Team Liberty’s Twitch Stream!
  • 109