As of this writing there is still a chance that we could convince one of the nominees to step aside, since they've both been exposed with overwhelming evidence of crimes that they should be prosecuted for, disqualifying them both for president.
Unfortunately the media and politics establishment is acting as if the public should choose between these to fanatics and the Justice Department isn't even discussing investigating either one of them for crimes that they've been implicated in.
There's still another chance to elect an alternative candidate if an overwhelming percentage of the public pays attention, gets their heads out of the sand and votes for one of the candidates that the media keeps telling us doesn't have a chance.
If this doesn't happen there is guaranteed to be scandal month after month for four years and even an impeachment trial which will be necessary to remove the next president, if we're foolish enough to accept these two options. These leaks have disclosed additional information about both major candidates that make this a virtual guarantee, although the traditional media is trying to avoid covering the worst of the leaks about Hillary Clinton which means, if we pick one of these clowns it will almost certainly be her. However there are additional details about the Benghazi attack, which the Republican Congress is guaranteed to make a big deal out of, and there are even worse details in other leaks but neither the Congress or the media is as likely to focus on them, since they're the type of things that they routinely ignore.
If they media wanted to have avoided this disaster they could have done so months ago by adequately investigating both candidates and reporting on them.
They didn't.
Which means that there is either a major conspiracy involved or the most epidemic amounts of incompetence, indicating that the entire media and political establishment have lost all credibility, or more likely both.
It should be clear by now, with all the coverage on sex scandals that Trump doesn't take this seriously; and even though Hillary hasn't sexually assaulted anyone she has defended her political allies when it suited her purposes. Some of the claims of her being an enabler may not have been substantiated and may have been exaggerated; however they haven't been disprove as some of her allies often say. More important some of these claims have been confirmed including that she referred to the Gennifer Flowers scandal as "Bimbo eruptions," said that "I mean, I would crucify her," and referred to Monica Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony toon.” She was on tape laughing about her client who raped a twelve year old and laughed after being asked, in NH, if her claim that rape accusers should be believed applied to Bill Clinton when it came to accusation by Kathleen Wiley and Jeanette Broderick, claiming they were discredited, which is false; they weren't discredited at all, although to the best of my knowledge those two didn't have additional corroborating evidence, except for the pattern of behavior by her husband.
On top of that she hired David Brock who lied about smearing Anita Hill to aid Clarence Thomas. He has also been implicated in illegal collusion with the Clinton campaign.
And not to long ago she famously said, "I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get off the reservation in the way they behave and how they speak." Judging by her history, when it comes to sexual assault, and it is an ally she helps cover it up and if necessary even attacks the victim. It's only when it is a political enemy that she pretends to defend women. This comment is also racist as pointed out in Should Saying Someone Is 'Off The Reservation' Be Off-Limits? 04/29/2016 And it's one of at least 4 high profile times Hillary Clinton’s racism showed. She only defends minorities, as well, when it suits her political purposes.
Both major party nominees make lame claims that they respect women and will stand up for their rights but demonstrate with their actions that it applies only when it suits their own political purposes.
The Clinton Campaign claims they're more trustworthy on this issue since she's a women but her record doesn't back this up and if the media was willing to give Jill Stein enough coverage to get her views across it is doubtful that Hillary would come close to addressing the issue as well. Unfortunately the media acts as if collecting bribes thinly disguised as campaign contributions is required to run for office and refuses to cover those that don't collect from corrupt corporations.
Most of the media and political establishment isn't even denying that some of these E-Mails might be accurate, which means that they're exposing a conspiracy of some sort but the political establishment claims they're a victim of a hack, therefore we should ignore this conspiracy. In HRC Paid Speeches 01/25/2016 she says, "But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position." and she confirmed the accuracy of this one during the debate when she said that she was referring to Abraham Lincoln who negotiated behind the scenes to "get the 13th Amendment passed;" however modern negotiating doesn't have much if anything to do with the best interests of the majority of the public. It should be incredibly clear to anyone that sees how campaign donors get overwhelming preferential treatment that this is clearly virtual bribery if not literal bribery, according to the incredibly narrow interpretation for those that don't want to call it bribery.
Fox News has already reported on leaks about Brian Fallon colluding with the Justice Department, and about Hillary Clinton leaking classified information about the raid on Osama bin Laden during one of her paid speeches, virtually guaranteeing additional investigations by the Republicans bringing gridlock for years if we're foolish enough to choose between these two candidates. There has also been the following E-Mail about Sidney Blumenthal admitting that "Benghazi attack was almost certainly preventable," partially justifying the investigations Clinton has claimed were a witch hunt.
The truth... Sidney Blumenthal 10/21/2015 "One important point has been universally acknowledged by the nine previous reports about Benghazi: The attack was almost certainly preventable. Clinton was in charge of the State Department, and it failed to protect U.S. personnel at an American consulate in Libya. If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate."
There are plenty more where that came from, and there is no way I can cover more than a fraction of the; however in many cases the wort ones might be the ones the media might be reluctant to cover nearly as much, if they mention it at all, including the following claim that "Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL" and the US government continues to arm them effectively meaning they're unnecessarily maintaining a permanent state of war.
There is overwhelming evidence to indicate that our troops aren't dying to defend our country; they're dying because of the epidemic incompetence and corruption of traditional politicians and Hillary Clinton is among the worst of them.
By refusing to adequately cover this or any politician that supports an arms embargo to end this insanity like Jill Stein the media is effectively an accomplice to mass murder!
Congrats! From Podesta to Clinton 09/27/201 "While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region."
On top of all the other leaks a Counter Punch article, Elevating Trump 10/11/2016 cites one of the E-Mails that indicates that conspiracy theories about Donald Trump conspiring to help rig the election for Hillary Clinton might not be as far off as most people assume. The article cites a PDF attachment that recommends they encourage Republicans to become extreme so they can portray themselves as the lesser of two evils.
If this was a conspiracy theory before it goes beyond that to proven fact now; and the strongest evidence for this isn't the E-Mail leak which was previously secret, but the public activity of both parties for years which shows this is exactly how they've been controlling the public for decades.
The enormous amounts of preferential treatment disclosed in previous leaks should be enough to prove a quid quo pro, as the lawyers say is required, except that the judges and prosecutors don't want to find any such thing. However if another Hillary Clinton speech introduced by L. Blankfein is accurate even they would have to admit that this is bribery beyond all reasonable doubt. But according to Snopes, After Wikileaks published 'The Podesta Emails,' a hoax claimed Hillary Clinton had called progressive voters a 'bucket of losers;' 10/08/2016 however tehy don't actually prove that it is a hoax for sure, although they're probably right; they just prove it didn't come from Wikileaks. Even though this is probably a satire it more accurately describes the behavior of Hillary Clinton and the financial community than their own propaganda; however they usually learn how to spin it better even in private. This satire is probably very similar to the Iron Mountain Report, in that manner.
Even if that one isn't in Wikileaks in HRC Paid Speeches 01/25/2016 a similar exchange that is almost as close to a quid quo pro when MR. BLANKFEIN says "That’s how you have a small fortune, is you go to Washington." SECRETARY CLINTON: "You go to Washington. Right. But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary.” If this along with other leaks doesn't prove epidemic levels of corruption it is because there is no longer any attempt to even pretend to be sincere.
It's also hard to be sympathetic when they say she hates "everyday Americans," even though apparently what she meant was she hates using the phrase. However there is an enormous amount of evidence to indicate that she really does have contempt for "everyday Americans," when they criticize her like when she took a temper tantrum saying "I'm sick of the Sanders campaign lying about my record," even though neither the Sander's campaign or Greenpeace who she was actually responding to were lying; she was the one that was lying. Or when she yelled at a Black Lives Matter protester telling them to run for office themselves, knowing they wouldn't have a chance with the media rigging coverage against her and numerous other tantrums that have taken place although the media only briefly reports on each separately before forgetting them.
Even though it is probably a satire it is hard to be sympathetic to Hillary Clinton since their is an enormous amount of other evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that bribery is epidemic, or at least there would be if this bribery hadn't corrupted the entire so-called Justice Department.
Even before these leaks there was an enormous amount of evidence, for those who checked alternative media outlets to indicate that Hillary Clinton supported free trade with little or no protection for workers or the environment, despite claims to the contrary, supported the TPP, fracking, Keystone pipeline and many other corporate interests with little or no regard for the interests of the rest of the public. However when she realized that, at least for the duration of the campaign she should oppose it she seriously considered leaking her own position in a way that makes her look good.
Her outrage over illegal leaks is of course limited to when it exposes her corruption, not including when she is doing it.
Re: Email statement from:dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com to Cheryl Mills 08/07/2015 "We are trying to find a good way to leak her opposition to the pipeline without her having to actually say it and give up her principled stand about not second-guessing the President in public."
Most reports of this story claim that she was unable to leak her opposition; however I'm not completely sure that is true. I think there might have been some reports about her possible opposition despite Obama's support, although they weren't reported as widely until she made it official with a campaign promise.
When Obama was running for office he also made similar promises and with his record they seemed far more credible at the time; however once he got into office he started breaking his promises one after another.
Obama usually does a better job pretending to represent the grassroots but anyone that does enough research knows he's just pretending too.
There's much more, of course but I can't possibly get it all into this post. However below are some of the best ones that I found so far.
Perhaps what is more important isn't what's in the E-Mails; but the total lack of any concern about doing the best thing for the public; instead they discuss enormous amount of propaganda to pretend they're doing what's in the public's interests.
Re: Email statement 08/08/2016 "The statement could be read to imply we turned over the thumb drive and server to the State Department—which we didn’t (“There they go again—misleading, devious, non-transparent, tricky etc.”). I would recommend saying “to the Department of Justice.”"
Sanders-related advice from Mark Siegel 03/20/2016 "So if we "give" Bernie this in the Convention's rules committee, his people will think they've "won" something from the Party Establishment. And it functionally doesn't make any difference anyway."
how we just changed an entire Governor's race in 48 hours--without any fingerprints 07/16/2010
Hillary Clinton Paid Speech Transcript Excerpts 10/08/2016
WikiLeaks Emails: Bill & Chelsea Clinton Nearly Drove Woman To Suicide 10/10/2016
Clinton says Saudi Arabia, Qatar provide ‘clandestine’ support to ISIS – WikiLeaks 10/10/2016
RE: Bernie Contrast in Nevada 01/06/2016
Re: Twitterstorm Tuesday - January 5 01/05/2016 Donna Brazile tips off Podesta about Bernie plans including "Suggested tweets"
Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Strained to Hone Her Message, Hacked Emails Show 10/10/2016
Harvey Weinstein Urged Clinton Campaign to Silence Sanders’s Black Lives Matter Message 10/07/2016
Correct The Record Tuesday November 25, 2014 Morning Roundup 11/25/2014
PROOF that #HillaryClinton campaign illegally coordinated with #CorrectTheRecord. 10/07/2016
WIKILEAKS: Bill, Chelsea’s ‘Office Crap’ Drove A Top Clinton Foundation Official Suicidal 10/10/2016
Israeli Ambassador @AmbDermer tells Clinton camp his govt will portray American college students as terrorists: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/272 … 10/08/2016
Wikileaks: Clinton Foundation Chatter with State Dept on Uranium Deal with Russia 10/08/2016
Subject: Re: DRAFT Questions for HRC Media Prepare 03/23/2015 Shouldn't we attack the book or get Brock to attack the book as a Murdoch special. From the folks who brought you Fox News
Leaked Email: Then-CNNer Donna Brazile Gave Clinton Camp Heads-Up on CNN Town Hall Question 10/11/2016
Leaked Speech Excerpts Show a Hillary Clinton at Ease With Wall Street 10/07/2016
New York Times Gave Hillary Veto Power WikiLeaks emails show reporter agreed to let Clinton campaign cut quotes before story ran 10/11/2016
Subject: Re: Josh Berger 10/04/2015
Re: Pushback on immigration 02/15/2016 Discussion of placing op-ed smearing Bernie Sanders for benefit of Clinton campaign.
Guccifer 2.0 Hacked Clinton Foundation 10/04/2016
RE: SEC letters and donations 05/19/2016 Can we set up a time for a very brief call to go over our process for handling donations from donors who have given us pay to play letters? Want to make sure we have a robust process in place to make sure that donations that come in from those donors, in any form, get put into the operating account.
Re: Report: Obamas Pick D.C. Neighborhood 05/24/2016 He is going to get paid (well deserved). I hope he invites Bernie to his Goldman speech.
Of course the best thing to do is to decline to elect either of these lunatics. However that would be extremely difficult with the media obsessively indoctrinating the public to believe these are the only two "viable" chances. However that doesn't mean we shouldn't even try. Even if we can't succeed we can at least get a much higher percentage of the vote convincing more people that alternative candidates like Jill Stein, or for some people Gary Johnson have a chance increasing the chance of breaking the duopoly next time.
If Clinton does get elected anyway then some people might be fed up and not want to see constant gridlock, with some justification; however it will probably be better if they do seek to impeach her, as indicated by the precedent set by Nixon. First of all they might succeed or convince her to resign. Second of all when Nixon was under pressure he sought political cover by implementing some reforms including the creation of the EPA to appease the public. Nixon never gave a damn about protecting the environment but he needed some positive press, which he might not have if he wasn't in trouble, so he created the EPA, which is one of the rare times a politician acts on behalf of the public.
If Clinton thinks she needs to stop betraying all her promises to avoid impeachment then she might actually do something right; however we shouldn't give her brownie points, since we know that she won't do anything right if she has any choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment