Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Aberlour10]

The G-7 summit in Italy can be very short summarised . Mr NO came, said to all agendas NO and flew away.

[MrAce]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWlrauHGAbY

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif

[diana_eva]

I don't understand the Kushner - Russia thing at all.

[Winstonm]

I don't understand the Kushner - Russia thing at all.

 

I don't think it can be understood in anything but a nefarious light - the willing attempt to circumvent observation and engage in clandestine discussions with the Kremlin. There is no rational reason to do this for any legitimate reason. I think the most likely scenario involves loans from Russian-controlled FEB bank and Trump/Kushner associates and businesses.

 

I think Brennan pretty much spelled out in his testimony what has happened - in their quest for business profits, Kushner and Trump have been used by the Russians, and in their eagerness to capitalize have inadvertently wandered down the path to espionage, if not outright treason.

[diana_eva]

There were some mentions of Syria too, which is where I got confused. Business talks with the Russians sound like something any of the Trumps would do, but Syria talks, in secret? something doesn't quite add up.

[cherdano]

I don't understand the Kushner - Russia thing at all.

 

Here is one possibility:

FBI investigators are examining whether Russians suggested to Kushner or other Trump aides that relaxing economic sanctions would allow Russian banks to offer financing to people with ties to Trump, said the current U.S. law enforcement official.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fbi-kushner-exclusive-idUSKBN18N018

[Winstonm]

There were some mentions of Syria too, which is where I got confused. Business talks with the Russians sound like something any of the Trumps would do, but Syria talks, in secret? something doesn't quite add up.

 

Two versions of this story came out the same day/evening: one by the Washington Post, and the other by the New York Times. The Washington Post article was based on an unsigned letter sent to its offices in December, but the claims of which were not verified until recently through contacts with intelligent officers. So the Post confirmation of the story came from current and former intelligence officers - their story is the more sinister.

 

The New York Times also reported on this story, but their sources were from the White House - and that's where the Syrian claim came in - supposedly, according to the WH leakers, the reason for the back channel line was to discuss Syria and terrorism directly with Russia.

 

https://www.vox.com/2017/5/26/15703668/kushner-secret-russia-communication

 

As you have noticed, the New York Times story - with WH sources - does not pass the smell test.

[diana_eva]

Thanks. Didn't realize there were different sources and I couldn't understand why some papers would interpret information one way, and others in such a different way.

[Winstonm]

Trump went on to raise concern about reporters’ “sources.” He tweeted that “it is very possible that those sources don’t exist but are made up by fake news writers.”

 

“#FakeNews is the enemy!” he declared.

 

After the Kushner-Russia news bombshell, if this is the best defense Trump can come up with (they're making it up!) he and his administration are in big trouble.

[diana_eva]

After the Kushner-Russia news bombshell, if this is the best defense Trump can come up with (they're making it up!) he and his administration are in big trouble.

 

He kinda has a point if these sources say conflicting things. All this is too messy, even if they were about to do business it's still utterly strange that they'd actually ask the Russians to set up a secret channel. They can't be this naive or stupid.

[Trinidad]

They can't be this naive or stupid.

They can't?!?

 

Rik

[RedSpawn]

There is a reason we keep talking past each other when speaking of Trump. This may be why:

 

 

- Ken Levy, Counterpunch

 

It seems we do not speak the same language.

 

Also, we need to take a very hard look at our Presidential nomination process to the convention on both sides of the aisle. I think part of the disillusionment and frustration stems from the realization of how unfair, unethical, and broken the process appears to be.

 

The Presidential campaign season should be a marketplace where the best ideas, solutions, and leaders win. . .not the best game masterminds.

 

Clinton had the political pedigree to win the nomination but her dynasty and her associates appeared almost always mired in scandal.

 

It took a slew of hacked leaks from The Democratic National Committee (DNC) to reveal how biased chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was and how her committee staffers had deliberately tried to sabotage Bernie Sander's campaign. Please click link http://www.CNN.com/2016/07/24/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-chair-career/index.html

 

Then, with another slew of hacked leaks we learn her replacement, Donna Brazile, funnelled inside information to Hillary Clinton before two debates with Bernie Sanders. At no point did the Clinton campaign blow the whistle on this clearly unethical behavior which signals complicity and reveals a seemingly rigged DNC nomination process. Please click here for link http://thegrio.com/2017/03/20/donna-brazile-emails-dnc-clinton

 

Then on 06/26/16, we have the unseemly, unscheduled 30 minute meeting on a Phoenix tarmac between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. His wife is under investigation by the FBI for the email server scandal which could derail her Presidential political campaign.

 

Who knows what, if any, political favors were exchanged especially since former President Clinton appointed Lynch to serve as United States Attorney General for the Eastern District of New York in 1999. He catapulted her legal career and paved the road for her ascendancy to Attorney General of the United States during Obama's administration. Hmmm.

 

In short order, FBI Director James Comey recommended on 07/06/16 to not file charges against Hillary for the e-mail server scandal. And the Department of Justice followed suit, of course. And the rendez-vous on the tarmac had absolutely nothing to do with these legal outcomes?

 

Christopher Sign the reporter who broke the story stated, "The FBI there on the tarmac said no photos, no pictures, and no cell phones." That means Comey knew or should have known of this clandestine meeting by the time the media broke the story because his men were right there outlining the rules of engagement! See link http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/01/how-was-local-reporter-tipped-clinton-lynch-meeting

 

Comey's integrity was on the line regarding this matter and his subsequent reopening of the email server investigation before Election Day seems to counterbalance any benefits Hillary might have gained from her husband's "obstruction" of the FBI investigation. But it's too little too late.

 

The optics of ALL of these story lines cast a horrible shadow over the integrity of the DNC nomination process for Presidential candidates, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and of course the Clinton dynasty. It doesn't help that the perpetrator of the last story line is Hillary Clinton's husband who had articles of impeachment filed against him for OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and PERJURY regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

 

The irony of it all. Could he be a repeat offender and does the apple fall far from the tree in the Clinton dynasty?

 

The DNC needs to conduct a postmortem on their processes because this last Presidential campaign season was a hot mess. They owe a level of intellectual honesty to Bernie supporters who were dished a very raw deal courtesy of the D.C. political establishment.

 

Supporters don't have a problem if their candidate loses an election. They want to know that the political dice aren't loaded from the start.

 

I will discuss Republican issues soon...

[jogs]

Finally someone from the left speaks out against university campuses mistreatment of conservative speakers.

 

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/05/28/fareed-what-in-the-world-segment-gps.cnn

[Winstonm]

He kinda has a point if these sources say conflicting things. All this is too messy, even if they were about to do business it's still utterly strange that they'd actually ask the Russians to set up a secret channel. They can't be this naive or stupid.

 

The Washington Post Editorial Board nails it concerning Trump's denials:

 

Trump, unlike most politicians and, frankly, most people, will nonchalantly argue two logically inconsistent points at the same time. On the campaign trail, he mastered the art of vague assurance that he stood for whatever his audience stood for, and, in office, that skill doesn’t seem to have faded. If it is best that people think a leak was made up by the media — like The Post’s report that Jared Kushner asked Russia to help set up a secure communication system with the Trump team — then Trump will argue that the media made it up. (We didn’t.) If the leak is incidental to him or if he’d like to put the heat on someone else — if, say, someone in law enforcement leaks photos of a terror attack in the U.K. — he’ll argue that the leakers need to be caught.

 

I think Trump is a sociopath who will say anything to promote himself.

[kenberg]

Finally someone from the left speaks out against university campuses mistreatment of conservative speakers.

 

http://www.cnn.com/v...segment-gps.cnn

 

It has never been clear to me why anyone would invite Ann Coulter to speak on anything, but putting that aside I largely agree with the remarks of Fareed Zakaria.. Perhaps I am insufficiently far to the left to count, but many of us believe in listening to people that we do not agree with.

[Winstonm]

Also, we need to take a very hard look at our Presidential nomination process to the convention on both sides of the aisle. I think part of the disillusionment and frustration stems from the realization of how unfair, unethical, and broken the process appears to be.

 

The Presidential campaign season should be a marketplace where the best ideas, solutions, and leaders win. . .not the best game masterminds.

 

Clinton had the political pedigree to win the nomination but her dynasty and her associates appeared almost always mired in scandal.

 

It took a slew of hacked leaks from The Democratic National Committee (DNC) to reveal how biased chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was and how her committee staffers had deliberately tried to sabotage Bernie Sander's campaign.

 

Then, with another slew of hacked leaks we learn her replacement, Donna Brazile, funnelled inside information to Hillary Clinton to two debates with Bernie Sanders. At no point did the Clinton campaign blow the whistle on this clearly unethical behavior which signals complicity and reveals a seemingly rigged DNC nomination process.

 

Then on 06/26/16, we have the unseemly, unscheduled 30 minute meeting on a Phoenix tarmac between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. His wife is under investigation by the FBI for the email server scandal which could derail her Presidential political campaign.

 

Who knows what, if any, political favors were exchanged especially since former President Clinton appointed Lynch to serve as United States Attorney General for the Eastern District of New York in 1999. He catapulted her legal career and paved the road for her ascendancy to Attorney General of the United States during Obama's administration. Hmmm.

 

In short order, FBI Director James Comey recommended on 07/06/16 to not file charges against Hillary for the e-mail server scandal. And the Department of Justice followed suit, of course. And the rendez-vous on the tarmac had absolutely nothing to do with these legal outcomes?

 

Christopher Sign the reporter who broke the story stated, "The FBI there on the tarmac said no photos, no pictures, and no cell phones." That means Comey knew or should have known of this clandestine meeting by the time the media broke the story because his men were right there outlining the rules of engagement!

 

Comey's integrity was on the line regarding this matter and his subsequent reopening of the email server investigation before Election Day seems to counterbalance any benefits Hillary might have gained from her husband's "obstruction" of the FBI investigation. But it's too little too late.

 

The optics of ALL of these story lines cast a horrible shadow over the integrity of the DNC nomination process for Presidential candidates, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and of course the Clinton dynasty. It doesn't help that the perpetrator of the last story line is Hillary Clinton's husband who had articles of impeachment filed against him for OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and PERJURY regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

 

The irony of it all. Could he be a repeat offender and does the apple fall far from the tree in the Clinton dynasty?

 

The DNC needs to conduct a postmortem on their processes because this last Presidential campaign season was a hot mess. They owe a level of intellectual honesty to Bernie supporters who were dished a very raw deal courtesy of the D.C. political establishment.

 

Supporters don't have a problem if their candidate loses an election. They want to know that the political dice aren't loaded from the start.

 

I will discuss Republican issues soon...

 

You seem prone to easily accept conspiracy theories - you may want to expand the outomes from +/- to include all possibilities.

 

This:

In short order, FBI Director James Comey recommended on 07/06/16 to not file charges against Hillary for the e-mail server scandal. And the Department of Justice followed suit, of course. And the rendez-vous on the tarmac had absolutely nothing to do with these legal outcomes?

 

you ask as a rhetorical question when it is not. You are stating (as a believer) that: A) Bill Clinton is an evil superhero who has the ability, after office, to control the U.S. Justice Department and FBI because of a promotion given to a young attorney 17 years in the past, and B) that to cover up the crime Director Comey had the ability to tell his boss (Justice Department) what to do, or that somehow he went along with an order to violate FBI policy because Lynch told him to do so, and he was willing to commit perjury with his own explanation under oath in front of Congress.

 

And then you rhetorically ask, basically, what other outcome is possible when you are dealing with an evil genius who uses magic?

 

Maybe you want to reconsider.

[diana_eva]

The Washington Post Editorial Board nails it concerning Trump's denials:

 

 

 

I think Trump is a sociopath who will say anything to promote himself.

 

Probably, or he's just delusional and senile. I'm not convinced by his fantastic rhetoric that the sources must be fake :)

 

I'm thinking at the actual action that someone closely associated with a candidate, and then soon to be president would issue such a request to the Russians. I would totally believe it if it was trump himself to do it - he is that dumb to imagine he would convince the Russians to respect a deal since he's the deal maker. But I expected Kushner to be more in touch with reality.

[nige1]

You seem prone to easily accept conspiracy theories - you may want to expand the outomes from +/- to include all possibilities.

IMO it's not "conspiracy theory" to worry about inappropriate contact between representatives of suspects and the judiciary. Monica and Bernie are victims not conspirators. Is it "conspiracy theory" that

• Bill Clinton had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinski but denied it.
• The Democrat committee undermined Bernie Sanders.

Republicans seem no better. Formally investigating plausible "Conspiracy theories" would reduce corruption, in most countries.

[RedSpawn]

You seem prone to easily accept conspiracy theories - you may want to expand the outomes from +/- to include all possibilities.

 

I am on a tablet device and will put in the links regarding Donna Brazile and Debbie Wesserman later. You can click the link http://thegrio.com/2017/03/20/donna-brazile-emails-dnc-clinton to see where Brazile clearly says she acted as a Clinton operative and stepped over the line as vice chairwoman of the DNC and CNN commentator in her zeal to see Hillary as the first woman President. She expressed regret that she leaked topics and potential debate questions to the Hillary campaign before two debates with Bernie Sanders. This is just messy!

 

This is not conjecture. The DNC was fundamentally compromised this year and the hacking of the DNC and the subsequent e-mail leaks clearly show that the DNC had loaded the dice in Hillary's favor.

 

In fact, Debbie Wessermen and her staff e-mails were so scandalous that she could not preside over the DNC convention. She had to recuse herself, step down, and eventually resign from the DNC. The scandal became an unnecessary distraction to an already turbulent campaign season. See link http://www.CNN.com/2016/07/24/politics/debbie-wessermen-schultz-chair-career/index.html

 

The DNC convention gavel was handed over to Donna Brazile but her hands were covered in "conspiratorial" blood too because she aided and abetted the Hillary campaign by supplying it with potential debate questions/topics before debates with Bernie Sanders, but her "heads up" emails hadn't been leaked yet.

 

Note: CNN was clearly disturbed by this revelation/betrayal and asked Brazile to resign as CNN commentator and she complied.

 

With respect to former President Bill Clinton's meeting with Attorney General (AG) Loretta Lynch on the Pheonix tarmac, optics matter in politics. I can't imagine what pressing family matters Clinton needed to discuss with the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S. in person when his wife is under investigation by the FBI and could be indicted.

 

Any lawyer who passed the bar knows this type of behavior during the course of an investigation is unethical and unbecoming of anyone holding office. Why? Because it creates the appearance that justice is being bought or obstructed, regardless of reality.

 

The Attorney General and Former President are held to a higher ethical standard; they should avoid any and all actions that could create even the slightest appearance of impropriety.

 

And they both failed that lithmus test miserably. The meeting on the tarmac should have never occurred or at least should have ended very abruptly if AG Loretta Lynch was blindsided by a "drive-by" visit from her former boss.

 

Former President Bill Clinton is the confidante and husband of a party the AG is investigating. Therefore, the AG should not be engaging in ANY ex-parte communications AT ALL. She should avoid any and all conversations with Former President Bill Clinton that could even create the appearance of an ex-parte communication taking place. Instead they allegedly discussed family and children in person for about 30 minutes and I guess they don't know how to use cell phones, text messages or email for such matters.

 

Sorry, but this is scandalicious and a breach of the public trust and a "facepalm" moment.

[RedSpawn]

IMO it's not "conspiracy theory" to worry about inappropriate contact between representatives of suspects and the judiciary. Monica and Bernie are victims not conspirators. Is it "conspiracy theory" that

• Bill Clinton had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinski but denied it.
• The Democrat committee undermined Bernie Sanders.

Republicans seem no better. Formally investigating plausible "Conspiracy" theories would reduce corruption, in most countries.

 

AMEN! I went on record that I am a forensic political junkie who is not a party loyalist. There is enough "conspiratorial" graft, corruption, and unethical behavior on both sides of the aisle to fill "Law & Order" episodes for the next century.

 

http://blog.rickbreslin.com/extras/doink-doink.mp3

[Winstonm]

IMO it's not "conspiracy theory" to worry about inappropriate contact between representatives of suspects and the judiciary. Monica and Bernie are victims not conspirators. Is it "conspiracy theory" that

• Bill Clinton had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinski but denied it.
• The Democrat committee undermined Bernie Sanders.

Republicans seem no better. Formally investigating plausible "Conspiracy theories" would reduce corruption, in most countries.

 

No, but it is a conspiracy theory to ask rhetorically how A+B+C can fail to equal D.

[Winstonm]

I am on a tablet device and will put in the links regarding Donna Brazile and Debbie Wesserman later. You can go to http://thegrio.com to see where Brazile clearly says she acted as a Clinton operative and stepped over the line as vice chairwoman of the DNC and CNN commentator in her zeal to see Hillary as the first woman President. She expressed regret that she leaked topics and potential debate questions to the Hillary campaign before two debates with Bernie Sanders. This is just messy!

 

This is not conjecture. The DNC was fundamentally compromised this year and the hacking of the DNC and the subsequent e-mail leaks clearly show that the DNC had loaded the dice in Hillary's favor.

 

In fact, Debbie Wessermen and her staff e-mails were so scandalous that she could not preside over the DNC convention. She had to recuse herself, step down, and eventually resign from the DNC. The scandal became an unnecessary distraction to an already turbulent campaign season.

 

The DNC convention gavel was handed over to Donna Brazile but her hands were covered in "conspiratorial" blood too because she aided and abetted the Hillary campaign by supplying it with potential debate questions/topics before debates with Bernie Sanders, but her "heads up" emails hadn't been leaked yet.

 

Note: CNN was clearly disturbed by this revelation/betrayal and asked Brazile to resign as CNN commentator and she complied.

 

With respect to former President Bill Clinton's meeting with Attorney General (AG) Loretta Lynch on the Pheonix tarmac, optics matter in politics. I can't imagine what pressing family matters Clinton needed to discuss with the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S. in person when his wife is under investigation by the FBI and could be indicted.

 

Any lawyer who passed the bar knows this type of behavior during the course of an investigation is unethical and unbecoming of anyone holding office. Why? Because it creates the appearance that justice is being bought or obstructed, regardless of reality.

 

The Attorney General and Former President are held to a higher ethical standard; they should avoid any and all actions that could create even the slightest appearance of impropriety.

 

And they both failed that lithmus test miserably. The meeting on the tarmac should have never occurred or at least should have ended very abruptly if AG Loretta Lynch was blindsided by a "drive-by" visit from her former boss.

 

Former President Bill Clinton is the confidante and husband of a party the AG is investigating. Therefore, the AG should not be engaging in ANY ex-parte communications AT ALL. She should avoid any and all conversations with Former President Bill Clinton that could even create the appearance of an ex-parte communication taking place. Instead they allegedly discussed family and children in person for about 30 minutes and I guess they don't know how to use text messages or email for such matters.

 

Sorry, but this is scandalicious and a breach of the public trust and a "facepalm" moment.

 

No one is claiming that it was fine for Bill Clinton to meet Lynch. But that is an eternity away from claiming some causal relationship to Comey, the Justice Department's decisions, and Hillary Clinton.

 

Beside, neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton is in office.

 

The question is what happened in the past election concerning Russian interference, and what, if any, are the ties between the Trump administration and Russia.

[RedSpawn]

No, but it is a conspiracy theory to ask rhetorically how A+B+C can fail to equal D.

Fair enough. The missing links regarding Brazile, Wasserman Schultz, and the Clinton tarmac scandal are as follows:

 

http://thegrio.com/2017/03/20/donna-brazile-emails-dnc-clinton

http://www.CNN.com/2016/07/24/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-chair-career/index.html

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/01/how-was-local-reporter-tipped-clinton-lynch-meeting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Lynch

 

I think the 1st two links solidly establish that the Democratic National Committee loaded the political dice in Hillary's favor.

 

It sounds like we are focusing on what conclusions, if any, we can draw from the Phoenix tarmac rendezvous. I think we agree that at a minimum an "ex-parte communication" appears to take place while the AG is still investigating Hillary. This action seems both unethical and professionally irresponsible. And as a result, AG Loretta Lynch recused herself from the investigation and agreed to blindly accept the recommendations of the FBI probe of Hillary Clinton's email server scandal.

 

Please click the link to get a better legal explanation of "ex parte communication" http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/what-ex-parte-communication .

 

So we have to look at motive. What motive would a Former President have to arrange an unscheduled rendezvous on a Phoenix tarmac at night with the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S. when his wife is under investigation and could face criminal indictment? What would compel him to do this under the cover of darkness and in a clandestine way with no official record taking place?

 

It creates the appearance that he is about to interfere with, influence, or obstruct judicial matters to protect his wife from pending criminal charges. That is not a quantum leap of supposition, but it is definitely a more plausible explanation than the one AG Lynch provided. Are we to believe that Former President Clinton went through this rigmarole to discuss family matters and children with the AG for 30 minutes? That explanation insults the public's intelligence.

 

And why would other FBI agents on the tarmac clarify that the rules of engagement are "no photos, no pictures, and no cell phones" as reported by Christopher Sign of ABC-15? Was FBI Director James Comey aware of this clandestine meeting and how it casts a shadow over the entire FBI investigation? What did he know and when did he know it? His integrity is on the line now that the AG's integrity and independence seem compromised.

 

There is too much at stake here to let government officials provide weak, Dr. Seuss explanations for unethical behaviors. The scales of justice should not be for sale to the highest bidder or to individuals with significant political clout.

 

By the way, you are right. Neither Bill nor Hillary are in office but yet the AG decides to delay her schedule for 30 minutes to meet with the Former President anyway. The fact that the AG didn't end the meeting abruptly shows the political gravitational pull Bill Clinton has on people and his former subordinates. And I refuse to disassociate Bill from Hillary because both have significant political currency in the D.C. establishment. They have an seemingly unbreakable union that is stronger and deeper than marital ties. It survives and thrives despite family, financial, legal, and political turmoil. They are One.

[kenberg]

What strikes me about Brazile, Bill Clinton, Lynch, and many other items is the invocation of the total moron defense. One can misplay a complex hand and later say "I made a mistake". But sending planned questions to one of the participants in a debate? The head of the Justice Department in a private meeting with an ex-president when the spouse of this ex-president is running for office and is under investigation? "Mistake" does not really cover this. Back in the 1940s there was this song, "I didn't know the gun was loaded, and I'm so sorry my friend. I didn't know the gun was loaded, and I'll never never do it again". Or for another example, in How to Marry a Millionaire, Betty Grable is having dinner with a married man and he says "This is all innocent, isn't it?" and she replies "If it is, this is the first time I have ever encountered it in similar circumstances".

 

Plausible deniability might keep a person out of jail, and even implausible deniability might suffice if you have a good lawyer, but it hardly takes a cynical mind to see through it.

[RedSpawn]

What strikes me about Brazile, Bill Clinton, Lynch, and many other items is the invocation of the total moron defense. One can misplay a complex hand and later say "I made a mistake". But sending planned questions to one of the participants in a debate? The head of the Justice Department in a private meeting with an ex-president when the spouse of this ex-president is running for office and is under investigation? "Mistake" does not really cover this. Back in the 1940s there was this song, "I didn't know the gun was loaded, and I'm so sorry me friend. I didn't know the gun was loaded, and I'll never never do it again". Or for another example, in How to Marry a Millionaire, Betty Grable is having dinner with a married man and he says "This is all innocent, isn't it?" and she replies "If it is, this is the first time I have ever encountered it in similar circumstances".

 

Plausible deniability might keep a person out of jail, and even implausible deniability might suffice if you have a good lawyer, but it hardly takes a cynical mind to see through it.

 

Agreed, but here's the rub and yes it's conjecture. I honestly believe most of the "characters" in this story line use play books that have worked before. So, they believed the same strategy (program) should work this time. However, they have missed a very important paradigm shift.

 

With the advent of technology, we the people, have swift, ubiquitous access to information. We can use that information as a wedge against "power play" moves that masterminds successfully used in the past despite the flowing stream of propaganda. Also, we have stronger and more coordinated networks courtesy of our technology so our ability to gain access to previously "private" information is tremendously larger. All of this helps intelligence gathering services in our journey toward a surveillance state, but it also empowers the populace. This is a double-edged sword.

 

No one was supposed to know about the tarmac meeting (regardless of what was actually discussed between AG Lynch and Former President Bill Clinton). Just because the FBI (agents) controlled the rules of engagement between the two parties under the cover of darkness doesn't mean they can control ALL of the possible outcomes of this unethical meeting. What was supposed to be a "harmless" private rendezvous entered the public domain and consciousness. They tried damage control to stem the tide, but it's too late, the damage was irreparable. And worse yet, their own horribly constructed narrative doesn't even reconcile with the optics!

 

I could choose to believe the misrepresentations I am told from government officials about this matter, but I'd rather believe a much simpler answer. We have just witnessed a sneak preview of how dirty the politics can get in the D.C. establishment!