2017-03-05 05:42:50 UTC
of colluding with the Russian government.
(See for example the latest BBC News article with this url:
Now 4 people are sitting at the same table in the foreground: Mike
Flynn, Putin, Jill Stein, and probably some Russian politician.
The image was deployed whenever the media wants to link Flynn to Putin.
What would they do to Stein had she had greater success in last year's
Since Jill was the candidate herself, would they impeach her now if
she were elected?
Of course, it is easy to explain why Stein was at the event. It was a
banquet RT gave to honor some of the guests on their shows in recent
RT in fact hosted a presidential debate in 2012 for the candidates
like Stein who were not admitted to major debate events hosted by the
MSM. Of course, Stein has also been an outspoken critic of the US's
wars and interventionist foreign policy. And of course, many
distinguished Americans such as Larry King, Ron Paul, and apparently
also Flynn, have been guest speakers on RT.
But there should be nothing wrong with people speaking their minds,
especially about the subject of war and peace, if our country is truly
a strong democracy.
So what happened?
Nobody has shown that the Russians attacked the voting machines. In
fact, the voting machines are not on the internet, so it would not
even be possible for them to be hacked from Moscow. Any tampering
with voting machines would have to be done by the usual suspects ---
i.e., the Deep State right here at home.
And of course, nothing published by Wikileaks (or RT) has been
shown to be false.
What was published was just what HRC and her political associates
wrote or said. The MSM itself should have been digging this stuff
up and publishing it; instead, it now calls it foreign interference.
And did Hillary not do her darnedest to make Russia worry about her
potential political success?
Last year she repeatedly expressed that she was a thorn on Putin's
side, although she didn't make it clear why she was. And why did she
Of course, her actions in Libya and Syria and her dealings with the
vile Saudi princes tell the story - Russia was their common enemy and
Mighty Hillary was committed to slay that Putin dragon when she got a
chance to do so.
You think that Hillary's cackling over Qaddafi's murder did not send
chills up Putin's spine, and make him think that he could be next, if
he didn't take her seriously enough!
Jill Stein Slams Hillary Clinton's `Disturbing' Laughter at Lynching
of African Ruler
Any country who was in Hillary's crosshairs would have considered it
in its own self-interest to do all it could to stop her political
advance, lest that its own existence would be threatened.
This line of reasoning should also explain Julian Assange's attitude
toward Hillary, for good reasons.
I can imagine Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard feared political retribution
from a Clinton presidency.
People who blew the whistle on HRC and her political associates might
have had the same reasons to motivate them.
That's why Israel had Joshua and Caleb - they were the old-fashined
spies who were also heros for the Israelis. So, why it was ok for us
to bug even Angela Merkel's phone and eavesdrop on Hollande's campaign
but not ok for the Russians to reveal Hillary's Achilles' heel?
Obama calls Hollande to promise NSA is no longer spying on French
Vague communique leaves unclear extent of US spying in France
France expresses displeasure by summoning US ambassador
Wikileaks Exposes CIA Involvement In French 2012 Presidential
Election by Tyler Durden Feb 17, 2017 5:28 AM
And why was it ok for us to do what we did to Ukraine, Venezuela, and
you-name-it to suit our foreign policy and in the name of our national
security, but we have to sacrifice our own citizens when the anointed
ones by the powers-that-be failed their expectations?
So, what's the deal? We're so exceptional that we can do anything to
others but they can't reciprocate? Is that a sign of a healthy