So Hillary is being investigated again by the FBI?
The FBI just announced the relaunching of its investigation into Hillary’s emails and personal server, apparently after discovering more emails “that appear to be pertinent to the investigation”.
It is hard to tell whether this move really is the serious threat to Hillary’s presidential hopes that many outlets are saying it is; it is also unclear what might be revealed in these emails. It might possibly relate to the 30,000 ‘missing’ or deleted emails that people have been questioning for months.
But this very late announcement by the FBI, which sent ripples of cheers resounding across Trump rally when the Republican candidate announced the news, seems like it could be an obstacle to Hillary’s campaign. It comes just 10 days before the election and at a time when most commentators were already considering Hillary the likely victor on November 8th.
There could be something properly damning in those emails; but the email content that has already been drip-fed to us for months was already pretty damning and it doesn’t appear to have effected Hillary’s prospects (thanks largely to the mainstream media deciding to completely ignore their existence – but this latest announcement isn’t related to WikiLeaks).
One tends to wonder if, just like the sexual assault allegations against Trump in recent weeks, this move – and its timing – might’ve been designed to keep the race alive and balance things back in Trump’s favor. Certainly, this possibility has been raised in some mainstream, mostly pro-Hillary, outlets, who see the FBI announcement as a political move.
I suspected ages ago that Trump might’ve been placed into the race as some kind of gentlemen’s lark to see what would happen. Now I’m also wondering if both candidates are actually being larked about with (and yes, I’ve just rediscovered the word ‘lark’ and intend to use it).
I say this – and this is purely playing Devil’s Advocate – because it has seemed increasingly as if this entire Trump v Clinton contest might in fact be a pantomime.
Maybe I watched too many 80s movies, but I can’t help thinking there might be a couple of billionaire, elite gentlemen in a back-room somewhere, one with all his money on Hillary, the other with all his money on Trump, and they’ve been playing games with American democracy this whole time, each of them pulling all kinds of strings and stunts to ‘keep the game interesting’.
‘Oh, Hillary’s in the lead…? Well, let’s bring this game back to life, shall we?’ says one. ‘Oh, splendid – that sounds like a jolly good lark,’ says the other, ‘what did you have in mind?’ ‘Well, you had a grand old time with all those sexual allegations against my guy, so now let’s throw something more at your girl…’
Actually, looking at Donald Trump’s campaign does very much bring to mind a particular 80s movie.
Brewster’s Millions was a 1985 comedy starring the late, great Richard Pryor and John Candy; and it was in large part a film about running a sham campaign for political office.
In the movie, Pryor’s character ‘Monty Brewster’ is told that his recently deceased uncle has left him his entire fortune – but with several conditions. Brewster is told by the law firm that he can either take $1 million upfront or spend $30 million within 30 days to inherit the full fortune of $300 million. If he chooses the first option, the law firm becomes the executor of the estate and divides the money among charities, after taking its own fee.
If he agrees to the challenge, however, and he fails to spend the entire $30 million, he forfeits and inherits nothing at all. Brewster naturally decides to take the $30 million challenge, and after struggling to efficiently spend the money according to the terms of the challenge, he decides to run for Mayor of New York City and spends most of the money on a protest campaign urging a vote for “None of the Above”; his campaign is even characterised by aggressive, confrontational rhetoric that angers his opponents (sound familiar?).
It isn’t a complete match with the real-life Trump campaign, as Brewster is forced to end his protest campaign when he finds out he is actually winning – which wasn’t his intention.
But the general idea of the huge fortune and the sham campaign for political office keeps making me think of Mr Trump and wondering if this whole thing has been just a bit of a laugh (no, sorry, I meant lark) between some really rich people at the expense of everyone else.
If you’ve never seen Brewster’s Millions and plan to watch it to see what I’m talking about, another 80s movie – Trading Places, starring Eddie Murphy and Dan Ackroyd – might be a good one to catch too, just to get the general spirit of what I’m talking about: two mega-rich elitists with too much time and power on their hands having a bit of fun with obscene amounts of money while pitting two chosen play-things against each other in a contest.
In the Trading Places analogy, I would imagine Dan Ackroyd’s character is Hillary and Eddie Murphy’s is Trump, though admittedly I’m probably stretching the analogy too far.
On a related note of 80’s movies and this election, a reader the other day commented on a previous post that Trump actually bears a lot of similarity to ‘Bif’ in Back to the Future II.
For the record, the ‘None of the Above’ campaign actually wins the mayoral election in Brewster’s Millions.
And, actually, I’m sure there are a great many Americans who would much rather vote ‘None of the Above’ right now than do any service to a Hillary or Trump bid.
As for this latest ‘obstacle’ for Hillary – which may or may not harm her chances, with only 10 days left – it really does feel like some behind-the-scenes puppet masters are playing games with both candidates: and with the American people.
Probably just for the sheer lark of it: because they’re probably so powerful that they can pretty much play whatever games they like. If the FBI wanted to deal with Hillary, they could’ve done it already instead of cutting a deal. Hillary shouldn’t have even been allowed to run, given these issues surrounding her, and we should be seeing a Bernie/Trump contest.
But we’re not – because the FBI decided to find Hillary innocent of wrongdoing and most of the political, corporate and media establishment wanted her as president. So what’s the point of announcing this now, with 10 days to go? Unless, of course, there’s something so big, so incriminating, here that it could invalidate her presidential bid irreparably.
We’ll wait and see, I guess; but, frankly, if this turns out to be just about a sleazebag sending a dick-pic to some unfortunate woman, then the FBI is just wasting everyone’s time.
Lark.
Key for me in this US president choice is being relatively open to a wide range of possible analysis. Not sure I discount a number of somewhat seemingly contradictory for the behind-the-scenes lot scenarios. Wonder if the planners behind the state are spinning a number of plates, covering options – keeping them open, even now. Donald has come across saying many good things, like a wise doctor to a sick patient, but most likely (certainly?) will surround himself with compromisers and hawks if he got in. Done deal, therefore back to the dictate and con we’ve suffered for decades. (When not?) The reaction to Trump is most interesting, reinforcing how asleep the sleeping are. Hillary and crimes, invisible yet in the open. History – a now, fairy story. ‘Lesser of two evils Hillary’ is the common line, when Donald at least sounds – horrible misjudgements aside – up for, a rarely heard, burst for remedies. Decent talk and looking man. More rare. However this next ten days are vulnerable to major contrived upsets and despairing, is that many/most don’t ‘give a…’ whatever’s happening. In many ways, the outcome of this election likely bringing further draining any care-for.
Hope? That Donald in really would be able and/or willing to push back the rot. But what about the handful of things he suggests that are rotten? And will he empower the grass-roots to get-up and do something productive? This the need. To stand and hold account with people persuading sense. Probably in reaction – social, street-based disruption, is what we can expect? The sickening spectacle of the anti-Trump camp might be short-lived but nauseating and dangerous. Giving that façade some blind umph.
As for Hillary in? Maybe early retirement – in comes Kaine? Either way; Puppets without blinking. A sure steal and against a landslide – bring out the guards and riot shields. Or, maybe the T.V.s will dull the temper along with whatever intoxicant suits. Or perhaps, this will be the warned precipitation, for sites like this to be wiped and we all go dark? For the evil we know is lurking and lapping about, to unfold into West world, loud and proud.
Alternatively, don’t see why Trump is by and large the genuine article but how far would he go for the sake of this world? Complete controlled makes little sense but if he is the people’s champ, surely he’ll be stopped from taking the job? Anyhow necessary. There’s a possibility all this latest legal push against Hillary, is some countering from overall resistance – again, want to get my hopes up, but not too quickly. All this wider-spread care-about, is prone to much post-election disappointment, certainly the destructive ones plans.
Blustery comment. Gets my little thinking open and out. Maybe the answer to the question ‘what of this election’? – Is what can I do? This all. Not so, what will they do? The frailty of finance and the controlled demolition appears unstoppable. Wide war could be sooner than later? What to do? Write out in defiance and encouragement. Pray.
I really am not sure about Trump. He could be genuine – to a point. But he’s still a billionaire who’s rubbed shoulders with the Elite, including Hillary and co. He’s been implicated, along with Bill Clinton, in a possible sexual abuse scandal with under-age people, allegedly involving Jeffrey Epstein. And however much he may talk the talk right now, he’s still also met with Kissinger and others.
Also, his Vice President seems like a total psycho.
I can’t shake the feeling that the Trump/Hillary thing might be a sham for the get-go, and something else might be going on behind the scenes.