PostHeaderIcon Who’d A Thunk It?

Before I get into the main theme of this screed, a random question… How can it be that an American citizen who tells less than the whole truth to an agent of the U.S. Government (say, for instance, Martha Stewart) can be imprisoned while an agent of the U.S. Government (say the head of the FBI) can lie to American citizens with total immunity from prosecution?

So, on with the screed.

Mrs Hillary Rodham Clinton, then acting in the role of Secretary of State in the U.S. Government, finds a compelling need to have an electronic communication system that is totally under her own control rather than that of said U.S. Government – and proceeds accordingly.

Later, some agents of the U.S. Government, pretending to be shocked at such activity, demand an investigation. Said investigation is placed under the FBI and off we go. Surely truth and justice will prevail? Oddly, no sane person in the nation really thinks so.

Now, were I to be leading such an investigation, my first question would be “WHY”. What advantage/benefit/etc. can Mrs Clinton derive from having this “private” system? The obvious answer, as noted above, is “CONTROL”. That is to say, control over what might be seen by whom and under what circumstances.

My next question would then be, what might she need to hide. Oddly, the FBI asked, instead, asked “was there any intentional mishandling of classified information”. Asking such a question is a technique known as dragging a red herring across a trail – with the intent of sending the tracking dogs off on a useless tangent.

So, after months of inspecting even the most trivial aspects of said useless tangent, they come to the conclusion that, yes, there was some mishandling of classified information, yes, our adversaries probably got everything that passed through the system, and, no, there is nothing here that would lead to a conviction in a court of law.

End of investigation, end of case.

It is hardly a national secret that, during Mrs Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, she and her alleged husband were making millions of dollars in speaking fees. Many, many millions. Now, I will grant you that Bill Clinton can be an entertaining speaker. Not one worth millions to hear but, nevertheless entertaining. Hillary, on the other hand, has a speaking style that is, to say the least, unpleasant. So much so that most people would actually pay her more to stay silent than to make a speech.

Yet, make speeches she did. Many of them to officers of major Wall Street banks right here in the good old USA. Speeches, by the way, whose content is kept secret. Does no one have any curiosity about this? For instance, why the need for secrecy when an officer of the U.S. Government speaks to officers of banks chartered by branches of that same government? While I have no idea, might some of the explanation lie in the files of that private communications system? Did anyone (say the FBI) ask their data mining software to look for such things in the Clinton communication system? The likely answer is no.

Then there are those highly entertaining speeches Bill Clinton made to certain foreign interests at the same time the State Department was considering decisions that could benefit those same foreign interests. Such as letting a Russian firm (read the Russian government) buy uranium producing properties in the USA and Canada? Now I can’t prove there was any linkage between the State Department decision and the Bill Clinton speeches (BTW, for fees that simply boggle the rational mind). Did anyone (say the FBI) ask their data mining software to look for such things in the Clinton communication system? The likely answer is no.

One could go on and on with this line of reasoning but to no good purpose because the basic idea has already been established – that being, if you don’t ask the right questions, you will almost never get the right answers. That the right questions were not asked in this “investigation” is beyond obvious.

As an aside, I made reference above to Bill being Hillary’s “alleged husband”. I did not mean that as a joke. The association between these to is entirely criminal in nature. Both are obviously obsessed with power and money and will do most anything in pursuit of same.

At some point, fairly early in their criminal career, they decided that they needed a child to legitimize their alleged “marriage”. It is a fairly well known fact that Bill has a very low sperm count – so low that it is almost impossible for him to father children. (Did you never wonder why, after having literally thousands of sex partners Bill did not have at least hundreds of little Billsterds running about?) At any rate, they evidently had to turn to poor Webb Hubbard to do the dirty job. And, given the stories about Hillary’s poor personal hygiene habits, it may well have been a very “dirty job”. Sadly, the offspring in question is almost a carbon copy of her real father as is obvious to anyone who cares to look. But, enough digression.

Clearly the fix is in. Way in. The remaining question is how the American people will react to this sham. Indeed, whether any entity other than Fox News will even notice and/or report on it. And then there is the Donald. Given the obvious power of the Clinton machine, how can he possibly still be alive? Can it be that they have simply determined that whoever the GOP would select to replace the Donald would be harder to beat in the general election?

Herman Cain said that we are now a banana republic. I think he may be over optimistic. I also think he would have been a good president.

Think about it. Then try not to vomit.

Troy L Robinson

2 Responses to “Who’d A Thunk It?”

  • That all sounds about right. She has gotten away with far more than someone of a lower position could have managed, which I really don’t like to see. It’s really beyond me why Democrats support her, if they really do. It still looks to me like the fix was in on many levels. What better puppet could there be? If she does what they tell her, they give her the election. If not, she can have Martha’s old cell.
    The ethics violations from both her and her husband have been just stunning and only made more so by her squeaky clean opposite in the primaries.

    They have plenty of evidence to convict her, even just with what they say she has done. The deleting of the email alone is worse than anything I ever saw pinned on Martha. They’re right though that no reasonable prosecutor would touch it. They would go down with her, if they could even survive the experience.

    As for democrat’s unwillingness to hold her accountable, I think a Hillary supporter is a person who trusts authority. I’m reminded of an argument I recently witnessed between two people (One feeling the Bern, the other a Trump supporter), both arguing over whose candidate was the more authoritarian. I went out in search of a political chart, and immediately thought of â—„Daveâ–º’s, but it wasn’t well tailored to the argument. What I did find that was both perfect to the task and thought provoking was this one:
    What I like about it is that the triangular shape illustrates very well that there are three places authority can rest: the individual, the tyrant, or the tyranny of the majority. Personally, I was putting Trump near Napoleon and Bernie near Chavez, with similar levels of authoritarianism, but that’s up for debate.

  • Chris says:

    It’s over. It’s done. I’m done. I no longer care. They win. I will live out my remaining days as I please just wishing to be left alone. If that entails an earlier demise from a bullet what is lost?

Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links