That’s the strategic situation right now. Maybe we can pretend that none of our exposed HUMINT (human intelligence) and SIGINT (signals intelligence) assets were not turned or compromised, and maybe we can pretend our hidden nukes are not compromised, and our allies don’t know about the betrayal.
Why would Hillary want war with China or Russia? There are a couple of reasons, but the first would probably be hubris, the second, perhaps, would be for cover and full control of the military industrial complex required to wage such a war. She is surrounded by yes men and sycophantic nobles, and no matter how ill-conceived an action she may contemplate, they will clap in unison and praise her brilliance and leadership for favor. These are the same geniuses that told her she could keep an insecure private server in her basement to act outside the authority of the State Department, and not be subject to FOIA requests. Whatever the case may be, it is a large network of international billionaires ensconced within the Clinton Foundation that don’t fear war with Russia, or China, because they don’t live here, or don’t have to.
One Nuclear Detonation Could Cause a Billion People to Starve Over a Decade
Project Censored: Merchants of Death and Nuclear Weapons
September 30, 2013
The Physicians for Social Responsibility released a study estimating that one billion people—one-seventh of the human race—could starve over the decade following a single nuclear detonation. A key finding was that corn production in the United States would decline by an average of 10 percent for an entire decade, with the most severe decline (20 percent) in the fifth year. Another forecast was that increases in food prices would make food inaccessible to hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest: the 925 million people in the world who are already chronically malnourished (with a baseline consumption of 1,750 calories or less per day) would be put at risk by a 10 percent decline in their food consumption.
Do Russia (or others) have enough info to bring down Clinton if they leaked it? would they be more likely to leak it or use it for blackmail?
They have enough to take her down. I am not sure of the totality of what they have. I can tell you that they 100% hacked her server.[/pullquote]You might consider a football analogy. Say we have a winning playbook that took decades to create. It has many thousands of strategies and counter-strategies. The opposing team now has that playbook, and Hillary is now forced not just to create a playbook from scratch, with a new coach, but without knowing how many enemy teams have that playbook. To make matters worse, in such a scenario the plays won’t be repeated, but they will be studied and modified or improved upon, making it that much harder to defend against. That is the sheer stupidity of waging war against an enemy that knows your secrets, rather than using diplomacy and compromise to settle disputes, like civilized people do.
You might also look at it this way, in this hypothetical: say you are the leader of France, an American ally. There is an American corporate backer of Clinton that doesn’t agree with your nation’s policies as it cuts into their profits. Within this nation are CIA agents that specialize in toppling governments and removing leaders, by force or persuasion. Because of compartmentalization, they are almost always unaware of the true reason for the regime change effort, they just think our national security is at stake.
So imagine these agents, through the SAP email leaks, are now exposed. They tell everything they know, or they disappear, or they’re turned. What are the consequences? Have a look at what happens when a former CIA officer and House member questions FBI Director James Comey on his refusal to indict.
Now this leader knows that Hillary approved an effort to topple him because some corporate donor gave millions to the Clinton Foundation. This leader can play dumb, but suddenly we have a new enemy, a former ally. At best, they form a new, secret political alliance with a major US enemy, at worst, they declare outright war.
If the recent FBI insider leaks are correct, and it’s all the more likely they are if you couple this with FBI Director James Comey’s damning revelation of enemies having access to these SAP secrets when he refused to indict, we need to multiply this scenario. It wasn’t just one country. To quote the earlier article:
[pullquote]Powerful friends of Hillary may cross her in the future, inadvertently or intentionally, and have no legal means of recourse if she retaliates. The threat is to both parties if she remains above the law so some key Democrats are alarmed. When there is no recourse to protect their interests or rights, the last thing any present supporters will be chanting is “I’m With Her.”[/pullquote]Because it is extremely likely Trump does have those documents, it makes sense that the biggest push to force Bernie out of the race was made by Republicans rather than Democrats. The RNC Chair had already stated that he would much rather have to deal with Hillary than Bernie, and now this may be the case. Bernie could beat Trump, people marched for Bernie and filled stadiums, but never for Trump or Hillary.
I will put it to you this way: You have three choices,
A) turn over all of the information to the DOJ, make public a recommendation, the truth comes out, the entire world realizes how much the US is meddling in foreign affairs and we go to war, the civilian population realizes how much foreign money influences our government, and a civil war begins.
B) You cherry-pick the data to implicate the people already in the eye of public opinion, so the chips fall on the heads of a select few and the whole system does not crash.
C) you do nothing and watch the unstable political climate to gauge how you will respond.
Foreign powers are in possession of some of the documents we have analyzed, because they were hacked from the Clinton server. Trump has some files as well, and likely plans to leak them and use them to his advantage soon.
The leaks will have to be made in a non-transparent fashion.
This move to position Hillary for November is already bearing fruit. The New York Times, Hillary’s annoying newsletter and fanzine, claims that now Trump and Hillary are tied, while other pro-Hillary media assets see her falling behind in swing states, or losing, in other words. Even a Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 56% of Americans think she should have been indicted, and 33%of Democrats think so too. In essence, the polls that show a close race are fake, unless we are to believe that more than half of Americans want Hillary indicted but would still vote for a person they think belongs in prison. The fact that Bernie was forced to endorse Hillary early ensured his supporters would be demoralized and outraged, turning against Sanders and Clinton.
In this scenario, it is highly probable that key Democrats recognize the threat Hillary presents as a possible dictator with absolutely no accountability to the FBI or Attorney General or any rule of law, and want to make sure the next president is willing to prosecute her, so they aren’t going to risk someone who will not. That means pushing for Hillary now, and unleashing (or allowing the unleashing) of the hounds later. It is a pragmatic concern, because powerful friends of Hillary may cross her in the future, inadvertently or intentionally, and have no legal means of recourse if she retaliates. The threat crosses both aisles if she remains above the law so some key Democrats are alarmed. If and when that happens, when there is no recourse to protect their interests or rights, the last thing any present supporters will be chanting is “I’m With Her.”
Many insiders do believe Trump will jail the Clintons if he is elected, and that is why they want him to face the weaker candidate. If Hillary steps down before that, she may do so on an agreement with Bernie that he does not prosecute her. That would be the smart move and possible survival for the DNC after the rigged primaries and Clinton Foundation/Private Server Scandals, but nothing in Hillary’s history reveals a capacity for smart as much as a knack for screwing things up and having her underlings like AG Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, Huma Abadeen, et al take the blame. When it comes to that, she is pure brilliance.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch Can’t Say if Speeding, Perjury, or Involuntary Manslaughter is Illegal
FBI Director James Comey Gets Grilled, But Does Better Than Lynch