Richard Stanley

Administrator
The Mueller Report has now been released today to Attorney General William Barr. The latter who played a hand in mitigating the Iran-Contra scandal for Bush 41. Barr and Trump have publicaly committed to making the Mueller results transparent, and so now we'll have to see whether Mueller has actually been thorough and/or Barr will indeed be transparent.

It was subsequently reported that Mueller's office will not be seeking anymore indictments, so we'll have to see whether more referred indictments may come from permanent federal districts, such as against the President or his kin, all in light of the arbitrary and unconstitutional Justice Department 'regulation' that a sitting president should not be indicted.

Barr has issued a note saying that he might be able to provide Congress, at least, with a summary this weekend. If the Mueller Report or Barr give a clean, or mostly clean, bill of health to Trump then it should be incumbent upon Barr to make the Mueller Report public.

Let's keep in mind that Mueller, as Director of the FBI, did inform the public that Mohammed Atta's infamous passport, found sooo quickly in the 9/11 rubble, did not exist, thank you very much.

I'm guessing no one will be happy going forward, except ....
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I've recently discovered a trove of Trump related documentaries on Amazon Prime. One, Trump, What's The Deal? is a 2017 rerun of a 1991 work, which I think I have referenced before, but didn't have access to the complete thing before. Trump had managed to prevent its original release. The documentary also discusses the participation of the media, during Trump's rise in the 1980's, of quashing negative stories. This practice abated during Trump's descent into multiple bankruptcies and divorce, but at least he kept David Pecker on his side.

It hilariously shows what Trump provided his Trump Tower customers for their kitchens in their 'luxury' condos. No doubt this was the lingering influence of his slumlord father. The original kitchen in my 1950's era suburban tract house was much nicer.

Here's other links:
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/trump-what-deal/
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=trump:+what's+the+deal+documentary&t=ffsb&ia=web

This documentary is really good historical context for understanding Donald Trump, the grifting slumlord, and chameleon. As I have also discussed, this further demonstrates that there are alter egos of Trump, and all of this is before his final celebrity transformation by The Apprentice TV show. Sadly, a goodly percentage of Trump's base have no knowledge of his practices, at least, anything to this scale.

Next there is the following 3 part documentary:

Trump / Russia, Part 1 of 3:

This Australian documentary series has interviews with many Trump associates, including Felix Sater, Roger Stone, and others. Sater's story, which I have discussed on this thread, is quite enigmatic. The claim is that Sater has been an FBI and intel informant for decades, and one clip has Trump admitting that he knows this. Question 1? How can Sater openly live comfortably in a Long Island suburb while supposedly having helped twenty or so organized crime figures get convicted?

The real value of this series, IMHO, is seeing everything, within the known timeline, especially the "trail of breadcrumbs" that have been provided, no matter how you believe they came to be.

Donald's real old man hair?

381

Trump / Russia, Part 2 of 3:

Trump / Russia, Part 3 of 3:
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Well, Attorney General William Barr seems to have proven that he is Trump's Roy Cohn, with his memo summarizing the Mueller Report. Trump and friends are taking victory laps and demanding resignations of such as Adam Schiff from the chairmanship of the House Intel Committee. However, Barr's letter explicitly did not exonerate Trump:

“while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

This is about as vague as it can be, and as I suggested before, this will only lead to the continued festering of the wound, as nobody will be happy. While much of the MSM is acceding to defeat, others are wondering about the timing of the Mueller Report considering that many threads were left open, and not mentioning all the avenues that were handed off to 4 other federal districts to continue to chew on. We've already seen that the NYC DA, Cyrus Vance Jr. seems to have shaded his charges with double jeopardy concerns and a previous failure to have tried Ivanka and Don Jr. before on real estate fraud regarding Trump Soho.

This means that it will be left to Congress to fight over in what can only be more bitter partisanship. The House Dems will have to mull over what is possible to achieve, given their investigative limitations and political concerns for 2020.

Could it be that Barr's inclusion of "it also does not exonerate him" be intended to goad the House Dems to engage in what Trump hopes will be perceived as more of a political witch hunt against him? All of this is immediately followed by former Stormy attorney, Michael Avennati, being charged federally with extortion of Nike.

Trump and friends strategy seems to be to do just enough to allow him to live yet another day, each day loudly proclaiming fake achievements, victory, and unconscionable persecution.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
However, Barr's letter explicitly did not exonerate Trump:
Let's be clear that (according to Barr) the Mueller report does indeed exonerate Trump and his campaign, regarding any conspiracy or coordination with Russian efforts to effect the outcome of the US election.

Barr says that the Mueller report "sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved... 'difficult issues' of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction". Thus, Mueller's ambivalent conclusion that Trump was not exonerated.

But, Barr goes on to say that he and Rosenstein reviewed the "difficult issues" and concluded there wasn't anything to prosecute. So, Trump has indeed been completely exonerated of the obstruction charge as well; if not by Mueller himself, then by Barr and Rosenstein. Basically, the situation is as Paul Craig Roberts explains, "Mueller says there is no crime, so how could Trump obstruct justice in the absence of a crime? What justice was obstructed?"

nobody will be happy.
nobody? I may not exactly be happy, but I do feel "exonerated". This is the way I've seen it all along.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
nobody? I may not exactly be happy, but I do feel "exonerated". This is the way I've seen it all along.
I suspect such as thee are guilty of trying to obstruct an apocalypse. o_O

Just watched commentary by a former federal prosecutor saying that Barr, the Launderer of Iran-Contra, is really saying that Trump's open and brazen actions wont be interpreted as obstruction, because most all obstruction as we know it is done covertly. If you take the same actions in public it is therefore not a crime. We are not talking about any underlying crimes by either Trump or his associates in or out of the official campaign here. Obstruction, legally, includes the interference into an investigation of whether or not there was a crime.
Let's be clear that (according to Barr) the Mueller report does indeed exonerate Trump and his campaign, regarding any conspiracy or coordination with Russian efforts to effect the outcome of the US election.
From the emptywheel:

As I have noted, the William Barr memo everyone is reading to clear Trump and his flunkies of a conspiracy with Russia actually only clears the Trump campaign and those associated with it of conspiring or coordinating with the Russian government in its efforts to hack into computers and disseminate emails for purposes of influencing the election. The exoneration doesn’t even extend to coordinating with WikiLeaks, as Roger Stone is alleged to have done (though that, by itself, is not a crime).
More significantly, it is silent about whether Trump and his flunkies conspired with Russia in a quid pro quo trading election assistance and a real estate deal for policy considerations, the very same kind of election year shenanigans Barr has covered up once before with Iran-Contra.
And that’s important, because it means Barr and Rod Rosenstein haven’t even cleared Trump of what Rosenstein hired Mueller to investigate.

Let's remember, crime or not, Trump said, "Russia find me those emails." It was Roger Stone who said it would soon be Podesta's time in the barrel, and regardless of how they got to where they did, Stone was correct. Trump lied that he had no business in Russia, while he had just signed a business Letter of Intent to move forward on Trump Moscow.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
the William Barr memo ... actually only clears the Trump campaign and those associated with it of conspiring or coordinating with the Russian government in its efforts to hack into computers and disseminate emails for purposes of influencing the election.
That's what I said. That was the Mueller investigation charter, and that's what the vast majority of the "national discourse" has been about for the last two years. Did Trump conspire with the Russians to steal the election?

This outcome has been foreshadowed, by the fact that aside from elusive insider leaks, there's never been a scrap of evidence in the public domain to support this particular charge.

Of course, as an investigator, Mueller himself has had absolutely no credibility. And as far as I'm concerned, this report has no credibility either. I'm not buying that the "Internet Research Agency" was ever anything more than a profit-motivated click bait operation, and I'm not buying that the Russians hacked the DNC servers and gave the data to Wikileaks.

Let's remember, crime or not, Trump said, "Russia find me those emails."
At the time, it came across as a joke. I got a smile out of it, when I first heard it.

Trump lied that he had no business in Russia, while he had just signed a business Letter of Intent to move forward on Trump Moscow.
Yes he did. If it was illegal for politicians to dissemble or make false or misleading statements, they'd all be in jail. Not that Trump hasn't taken Presidential lying to a whole new level. Sigh...
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I'm not sure how to combine your last two sentences Cpl.

The FBI was involved in investigating these things, as far as I know. And they did so being assigned to the 'independent' Special Counsel, Mueller, all of which being employed by the DOJ, as is William Barr.

Rightfully, and constitutionally, the Mueller Report should go to the appropriate House Committees, and it is the House who then makes a decision to turn the president, via impeachment, to the Senate for them to act as a court. William Barr is not supposed to step into the process, other than to react the Mueller Report for wider release to congress of the public. This is generally what happened for Nixon and Clinton, the respective 'independant' investigation reports went to Congress.

I want to know what was being communicated between the servers at Trump Tower and Moscow's Alfa Bank, among other things.
 
Last edited:

CplCam

Member
And you're definitely not supposed to take the meeting at Trump tower with a Russian agent in the hopes of getting dirt on Hillary then act like you've done nothing wrong because it didn't pan out. Thats the point where you call the FBI instead of going on TV to "joke" about Russian hackers digging up those emails...
 

CplCam

Member
Of course I guess you could argue that Trump won and Gore lost regardless of what you're "supposed" to do. Yay America.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The documentary Trumping Democracy details how the Trump campaign worked with the highly secretive Robert Mercer's organizations, Breitbart News (including Steve Bannon) and Cambridge Analytica to micro-target swing voters in the 3 key states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to provide Trump with his Electoral College win in 2016. They contacted these voters using untraceable Facebook "dark posts" which Facebook has not revealed the data on.

Here is the trailer:

It is interesting that the Russians have been accused of doing the same on Facebook, and this raises the question of whether this was a convenient conflation? If so, then people in the Trump operation likely were in cahoots via such as their numerous interactions with the Russians.

Is Robert Mercer a real independent operator, or with a good cover story does he do someone's bidding?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Here is the trailer:
That trailer left me completely cold, starting with the opening comments about "Pizzagate." That pizza parlor may or may not have been an actual den of child cannibals. But the artwork, entertainment, symbolism and architecture exposed by Pizzagate comprise a deeply concerning pattern. The refusal of the media to investigate or take this seriously, is evidence (piled on other evidence, of course) that the mass media are bought & paid for by billionaires. Maybe the worst pedophiles are priests in the Catholic Church, maybe not.

By any number of criteria (and not just Pizzagate), Hillary Clinton was an atrociously bad candidate. In that trailer, I saw absolutely no sign that these Democratic Party hacks were taking any responsibility for what happened.

The contempt for the voters also shines through. A bunch of saps who are easily swayed by anonymous or fake Facebook emails. I admit I'm also often disappointed in the voters, who should know better. But I don't see how you can blame anyone for picking Trump over Hillary.

It is interesting that the Russians have been accused of doing the same on Facebook,
Accused with evidence, or just speculation? Is this referring to the tiny "Internet Research Agency" clickbait op, or something else?

The Russophobic narrative that Russians are trying to destroy our "Democracy" (as if it isn't in trouble enough already) has only one purpose. It's fanning the flames of the Apocalypse (nuclear war) and it's coming from the same place as the Abrahamic apocalypse narrative. I'm saddened and frustrated to see it pop up over and over again on this website.

Is Robert Mercer a real independent operator, or with a good cover story does he do someone's bidding?
Do you have any evidence, or just innuendo? I think he's nothing more than a billionaire with a narrow view of his own self-interest.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
By any number of criteria (and not just Pizzagate), Hillary Clinton was an atrociously bad candidate. In that trailer, I saw absolutely no sign that these Democratic Party hacks were taking any responsibility for what happened.

The contempt for the voters also shines through. A bunch of saps who are easily swayed by anonymous or fake Facebook emails. I admit I'm also often disappointed in the voters, who should know better. But I don't see how you can blame anyone for picking Trump over Hillary.
Jerry, you really have to get over this fixation to misdirect yourself from the central focus of so many important posts. We've known all along that we have to filter through what is presented to get to the critical aspects.

What I care about in the post is whether or not Robert Mercer, Steve Bannon, Cambridge Analytica, SCL Group, Breitbart News, et al. were engaged in a conspiracy, criminal or otherwise, to purposely make every American (and Brit re: Brexit) voter in 47 states irrelevant in the 2016 election is the point.

And yes, I believe, as I have stated several times before, that Hillary and the Podesta brothers are in on the wider tableau.

Why are you denying that SCL Group, and Mercer, and Bannon, and Trump have not 'colluded' to buy all the corporate data on all of us and used their computer skills to target highly specific voters on the NSA's Facebook, using psychometrics. Separate from the docu Trump has expressly admitted that he is president because HE, the Only Responsible 1, targeted those specific area's voters that otherwise made no sense from conventional campaigning practices.

The contempt for the voters also shines through. A bunch of saps who are easily swayed by anonymous or fake Facebook emails. I admit I'm also often disappointed in the voters, who should know better. But I don't see how you can blame anyone for picking Trump over Hillary.
Jerry, wake up!!!!

Due to American Slavery's [sic] Electoral Mother Fucking College, my presidential vote in Cali is worthless. Same for yours. Now, due to some elite grifting assholes, they've narrowed it down to some drunken, jingo driven nitwits in just three fucking states. And you're blaming hapless voters unaware that this is going on? Seriously?!!!!

That some media concern is trying to enlighten you, however imperfectly, should make you somewhat happy, but instead you're inverting things and killing the messenger because you don't like the same kind of pizza. Your being given information that should help empower you and be virally spread to others, but you're killing them, and then blaming others for ignorance. Most of those haven't even had the chance to accept or reject what you'e seen.

Why haven't you, or Joe, made an investigative trip to Comet Ping Pong to find out if they have a secret passageway to a pedo cellar? Just don't take a gun along. If it was discussed by Alex Jones it is most likely agitprop whatever the circumstances.

Of course, making the inclusion of the Pizzagate material was cynically included to act as a psychological analogue to contractual fine print? Now they can say that they gave people a chance to know what's going on with their (always) fucked up democracy, but yall didn't care to get to the real matter, to "read the fine print".

Accused with evidence, or just speculation? Is this referring to the tiny "Internet Research Agency" clickbait op, or something else?

The Russophobic narrative that Russians are trying to destroy our "Democracy" (as if it isn't in trouble enough already) has only one purpose. It's fanning the flames of the Apocalypse (nuclear war) and it's coming from the same place as the Abrahamic apocalypse narrative. I'm saddened and frustrated to see it pop up over and over again on this website.
Again, it doesn't matter. I'm not even trying to trigger you, and you getting triggered over the GD Russians, The (White) Man's nonJewish institutional foils.

I said: "... they have been accused ...". That's all that matters here. There is no need to bring up evidence and muddy the discussion. Whatever the truth, the Russians are "within the narrative", fact or fiction. "Perception is (most peoples') Reality".

And besides, how am I to make an attempt to absolve your damn Russians, showing the means to conflate CA et als. efforts onto the Russians, if I don't mention the GD Russians in the first place?

Problem with my attempt to do so has to ponder how schmarty pants messiah, Vladimir Putin, doesn't know that he is somebodies' Useful Idiot. Or does he? He's letting the 'evil' narrative play out.

OMG, Putin sent 200 crack troops to Venezuela, forcing Trump to demand they get out. Well, geesh, this proves they aren't in cahoots.

NOT!!!
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Do you have any evidence, or just innuendo? I think he's nothing more than a billionaire with a narrow view of his own self-interest.
No. But he's perfectly situated to be a spook with deniability. No one can pin anything on him except being a fucking leach whose never sweated a second of his miserable mercer-enary life to make a dollar. He even leaches money (serious capital) from otherwise decent 'investors'. He is at the bottom of the swamp of slimy scum. He makes ....

No wonder he has one of the most impressive private weapons collections in the world.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
What I care about in the post is whether or not Robert Mercer, Steve Bannon, Cambridge Analytica, SCL Group, Breitbart News, et al. were engaged in a conspiracy, criminal or otherwise, to purposely make every American (and Brit re: Brexit) voter in 47 states irrelevant in the 2016 election is the point.
According to Mirriam-Webster, a conspiracy is a secretly devised plan to accomplish an evil or treacherous end.

Considering who Trump is, I suppose any effort to elect him President is by definition evil and treacherous. Except, that he was trying to defeat Hillary Clinton. Nothing evil or treacherous about that.

Certainly there was nothing secret about Trump's goal, or the fact that Mercer and Bannon and Breitbart were supporting him, or the fact that Trump was spending a lot of money to buy ads, including social media.

From what I understand, Cambridge Analytica wrote an algorithm to harvest publicly available data from Facebook which was readily available to anyone on the open internet. I don't see how there could be any insinuation that there was anything criminal about this.

Cambridge Analytica's contract with the Trump campaign was presumably a trade secret. Is every entity that has any secrets whatsoever, engaged in a "conspiracy"? I think the word deserves more respect than that.

Due to American Slavery's [sic] Electoral Mother Fucking College, my presidential vote in Cali is worthless.
Is this really the point: that the Electoral College system, and for that matter every other form of district gerrymandering, is a blight on democracy? Well yes, that's true. But, Trump didn't invent the system. He exploited it, and frankly it's amazing that Hillary was too stupid to do the same.

The two-party system is also a problem. I figure that my vote for Trump would've been worthless, and my vote for Hillary would have been just as bad or perhaps even worse. So I voted for Jill Stein. I guess I'm like the 1% in the old Soviet system who threw away their opportunity to vote for the Communist Party. My vote at least lets the Democrats know that not all progressives are impressed with their party. But obviously, third parties in the USA are just another idea that doesn't work.

Having said all that: manipulating the Electoral College by focussing on swing states, only works well in very close, hard-fought elections.

And, there wasn't any mention at all in that trailer, about the fact that the Electoral College system is what made CA's shenanigans possible.

That some media concern is trying to enlighten you, however imperfectly, should make you somewhat happy, but instead you're inverting things and killing the messenger because you don't like the same kind of pizza. Your being given information that should help empower you and be virally spread to others, but you're killing them, and then blaming others for ignorance.
No, sorry, I don't think this trailer had enough truth in it to be worth promoting. Even Politifact says that Trump tells the truth 4% of the time. Should we promote Trump and be happy that he's gone viral, because of that 4% of the truth that he embroiders in with all the authoritarian nonsense? No thank you.

I hope there's a better video or written presentation somewhere about the Cambridge Analytica situation.

Why haven't you, or Joe, made an investigative trip to Comet Pizza to find out if they have a secret passageway to a pedo cellar?
Sheesh. We're not investigative journalists, we're bloggers. I can't travel because my helpless cows wouldn't survive three days without me.

And aside from that, I think it's safe to assume that the Comet Pizza enterprise picked up shop and moved elsewhere as soon as the SHTF. Criminals play shell games. Not that somebody with boots on the ground couldn't turn up some facts eventually, but it would be a full time job and I doubt that the dirt would be found at the pizza parlor.

This is why I have such respect for real alternative-media investigative journalists like Vltchek. They are few and far between.

I'm not even trying to trigger you, and you getting triggered over the GD Russians,
If you wanted to avoid triggering me, then instead of writing:

It is interesting that the Russians have been accused of doing the same on Facebook, and this raises the question of whether this was a convenient conflation? If so, then people in the Trump operation likely were in cahoots via such as their numerous interactions with the Russians.
You would've said something like:

"It is outrageous that the Russians have been accused of doing the same on Facebook. Even though there's not the slightest scrap of evidence that this is true, there will be some idiots stupid enough to believe it. Was this a convenient conflation, or just Russophobia? And if it was Russophobia, who benefits, and to what end is this false narrative being promoted?

Now to be sure, the Trump operation had numerous interactions with the Russians, but there is absolutely no reason why Trump would have relied on the Russians for his elections propaganda operation. Why would he, when he had a team Americans at Cambridge Analytica who would have had a far better understanding of American culture and politics, based on their lifelong immersion in the same. And he was able to channel millions of dollars to this American operation without violating any laws.

And it's also been said (by others) that the Trump organization was likely in cahoots with the Russians in their attempt to win the election, but again not a scrap of evidence of this has emerged through any reliable channel. Accordingly, we need to ask, why is this false narrative being promoted by elements in the mass media and the Democratic Party?"

And besides, how am I to make an attempt to absolve your damn Russians, showing the means to conflate CA et als. efforts onto the Russians, if I don't mention the GD Russians in the first place?
Is that what you were trying to do, absolve "my damn Russians"? Because I sure didn't notice.

Problem with my attempt to do so has to ponder how schmarty pants messiah, Vladimir Putin, doesn't know that he is somebodies' Useful Idiot. Or does he? He's letting the 'evil' narrative play out.
So you weren't trying to absolve them, after all? Evil narrative, useful idiot? You mean, Putin is a politician operating within a political & economic context, like every other democratic politician in the history of the planet?

OMG, Putin sent 200 crack troops to Venezuela, forcing Trump to demand they get out. Well, geesh, this proves they aren't in cahoots.
You made a distinction between perception and reality. Well, the 200 crack Russian troops (and more importantly, the S300 missile battalions) are evidence-based reality, and not just perception. Trump's snarl at the Russians was a reality (play-acting or not) and it will shape the perceptions of millions of Russians. You can bet that everybody in Russia saw it, although hardly anyone in America did.

If there's a war in Venezuela, the millions of deaths will be reality not perception. If it triggers a nuclear World War III, the billions of deaths, nuclear winter and radioactive poisoning will be reality, not perception.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Cambridge Analytica's contract with the Trump campaign was presumably a trade secret. Is every entity that has any secrets whatsoever, engaged in a "conspiracy"? I think the word deserves more respect than that.
Wow, you've missed the entire point, again.

The point of the documentary is how certain special interests have used technology, and Hillary's help, to steer susceptible swing voters in just 3 states to garner the presidency. End of story. They made everybody else irrelevant, without their knowledge (their secret).

And no, your understanding of how they got the information is incorrect. They got some information from FB, but only on FB users. As the docu says, they have about 5,000 data points on every citizen in the USA, and more globally. They know when you like to shit and what color it is.

It is Cambridge Analytica that doesn't exist anymore, but you can be sure that their database still does at the likes of SCL Group and Mercer's operations. Comet Ping Pong, on the other hand has been open to the public ever since, when it was even the attempt of an inept white supremecist oxy-moron to burn it down on 1/29/19.

Cambridge Analytica's contract with the Trump campaign was presumably a trade secret. Is every entity that has any secrets whatsoever, engaged in a "conspiracy"? I think the word deserves more respect than that.
No, you just provide the definition, and admitted that they share a secret, and that they were working toward an evil end, i.e. subverting democracy. So stop playing What Aboutism, or is that OK with Caitlin Johnson?

Is this really the point: that the Electoral College system, and for that matter every other form of district gerrymandering, is a blight on democracy? Well yes, that's true. But, Trump didn't invent the system. He exploited it, and frankly it's amazing that Hillary was too stupid to do the same.
Stupid or role playing? Her staff was recorded in a published book that she refused to listen to what they were telling her. She stood down. So you tell me.
You would've said something like:

"It is outrageous that the Russians have been accused of doing the same on Facebook. Even though there's not the slightest scrap of evidence that this is true, there will be some idiots stupid enough to believe it. Was this a convenient conflation, or just Russophobia? And if it was Russophobia, who benefits, and to what end is this false narrative being promoted?
Your doing it again. I don't care. I didn't create the narrative, but its the narrative that is important. and Vlad doesn't seem to give a damn about the narrative's origin either ... as yes, it is benefiting him mightily. Russian populistas are just as stupid and reactionary as American populistas. This answer applies to your Venezuela response as well.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Wow, you've missed the entire point, again.
Why is it that you're the only one who gets to define what the point is? Or, that you get to define the bounds within which I react to your point?

As the docu says, they have about 5,000 data points on every citizen in the USA, and more globally.
Not having watched the documentary, I don't know where else Cambridge Analytica got their data. Does anything else stand out? Any hacked sources, or corporate archives protected by privacy policies? Or just data that's readily available on the Internet?

Google's search records would indeed be a treasure trove. I wonder if there's anyone alive who wouldn't be at least a little embarrassed to have their entire search history leaked.

Stupid or role playing? Her staff was recorded in a published book that she refused to listen to what they were telling her. She stood down. So you tell me.
Given that undecided swing-state voters have an exaggerated importance in the American system (which has been true from the very beginning), perhaps you could regard them as a random cross-section of Americans as a whole. A type of sortition, as imperfect as it might be.

You say that Trump was subverting democracy in an evil and treacherous way by targeting those few voters with ads. I'd say he was simply using modern technology in a more or less obvious way. It wouldn't surprise me if it's been done before, perhaps on a smaller scale.

Was Hillary stupid, or was she role-playing? What difference does that make? Either way, she was a pathetic candidate who couldn't even beat Donald Trump. She subverted democracy in the most conspiratorial, evil and underhanded way, by secretly using the DNC machinery to undermine Bernie Sanders.

Since today's meta-theme is "hilarious three minute videos", I have a couple of them for you. This is the cultural zeitgeist on Russiagate today: it's widely seen as a laughing stock, and a debacle for the Democrats and Trump foes everywhere.

First up, the Corbett report:


And, a great re-interpretation of the "Hitler's Downfall" meme...

 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
John Hankey's documentary Is Trump For Real? closely bolsters and dovetails my thread thesis in many ways, including the recent discussion of Cambridge Analytica.

He looks at the Trump to Hitler parallels, discussing that both were picked for their roles, because they were not seen as part of their respective elites' circle. In the process he examines several events from the JFK assassination on, and shows how the real Deep State was weaponized as a meme tool for Trump. And how Pence is indeed the real DS back-up plan, based upon Pence's historical actions.

 
Top