It’s interesting, what Bret Baier
revealed or reported on yesterday - that the FBI believes it’s
a virtual certainty that Clinton’s private server was hacked by as many
as five foreign agencies - it’s interesting in that I don’t
remember Comey being that explicit when he testified to the House regarding how
badly national security may have been compromised, which seems odd, not sure
what that’s about - but also interesting in that if five foreign
agencies, which must be ‘enemies’ otherwise
why keep your actions secret, have the contents of the Clinton server before
it was scrubbed of some 30,000 emails Clinton didn’t want seen - then
they very likely have some very damning info based on how damning the emails we
do have are - not just from the Clinton server but from the hacked
Podesta email account as well. If so, why hasn’t this nasty stuff
been leaked?
Three reasons I can think of. One, there’s no nasty stuff.
That’s hard to believe - there’s no way she had
30,000 emails that were about nothing but yoga classes and wedding plans - that’s
just not credible. Two, they don’t wanna see a President Trump - maybe
the thought of such a thing is as scary to them as it is to us. Three, they’re
keeping the nasty stuff back for use against a President Clinton - either
to ‘leverage’ her in a direction they want, or to
damage her presidency at a time that would be quite useful to them. To me,
three is the most likely reason, which certainly doesn’t exclude two as a
secondary cause.
Of course this is all speculation - but is it wild
speculation? Doesn’t seem so. Yes, Comey may have ‘understated’ how
badly Clinton’s private server compromised national security because we
know who the five foreign agencies were and they’re all ‘friends’ of
ours. Certainly possible. Does seem more likely though that China and Russia
were of the five, maybe Iran - and quite possibly Israel. Israel would have ample
reason to keep the hack hidden given how misguided and antagonistic to Israel’s
interests Obama has been - if a President Clinton turned out to be just as
misguided and antagonistic having leverage over her would be quite useful.
Obama has been an awful president - a failure in every respect -
that he still talks about his Syria policy as if it were some brilliant
stratagem is, I dunno, astounding - is that hubris the reflection of an
arrogance so profound that it will brook no reality that doesn’t
confirm it? Or is the guy an idiot? Or is that just him once again with perfect
ease spinning lies? Usually only psychopaths can lie with such equanimity and
aplomb - maybe the guy is just nuts. Regardless - point is, quite possibly the
worst president ever - is it really possible the next one could be worse? Don’t
know how a nation survives a malaise like that.
