As I write this, a TV reporter was discussing with a guest asserting that there was a FISA court warrant on two data servers connected to Russian Banks at Trump Tower. I have not yet been able to find evidence of this in internet searches, but things have gotten "Curiouser and Curiouser".
A while back, I was concerned when I read that there was a data connection between Trump's campaign and Russia. We now know that Wikileaks has been feeding one sided information in sync with Trump's campaign, bolstering him when his campaign was flagging. Now, we're finding out that many in Trump's staff have strong ties to Russia - more than I ever thought when I started paying attention to this connection.
Could Trump's now silence on the issue of being bugged be related to violating the law in relation to a FISA court warrant by making things public? Who knows? Only time will tell.
- - - - - -
Strangely enough, even though I do not consider Russia to be a friendly country, I do believe that we can have a rapprochement with them. But this is not because of Donald Trump. Instead it is because I see a way to profitably knit them together with the West, in spite of the regime now in power.
Russia has a more sophisticated set spy masters than we have. America has shifted away from "Boots on the Ground" in many areas, including spying. We have gotten caught up in electronic surveillance, and have forgotten the art of culturing people who will eventually betray their countries' interests. Potentially, with the Trump crew, Russia has scored the ultimate success. Again, only honest news reporting will show this to be true or not.
- - - - - -
I am far from happy with this administration. Virtually all of its civilian department heads are there to preside over the dismantling of those departments. Executive orders are being used to strip away protections given to individuals, and shift protections to the corporate state. Even if we ignore the alarms being sounded by the left, radical change in big government is dangerous. There are good reasons that change in big government come slowly - it gives people and businesses time to adjust to the new reality. The changes being proposed by this administration do not allow for this adjustment, and could turn out to be a great disaster.
Another report that I've read says that Russia's interest is to disrupt developing nations' interest in Western models of democracy and economic development. By making the West (as a Whole) look bad, Russia can look good by comparison. Could Trump's victory be the ultimate victory for Russia? I have no idea, but it's an interesting idea to pursue.
The FBI results are in. And Hillary has been shown to be a total liar regarding her server and emails. She has not been indicted. Yet, the FBI director has hinted that her actions were one step short of being indictable. Is there one law that affects the common people, and another for the elite?
I've never felt any warmth towards Hillary Clinton. Her recklessness in handling her State Department email was inexcusable, and should have resulted in her having charges brought against her. Sadly, this did not happen. It appears that the FBI investigation may have been partially defanged because the political infrastructure is afraid of a President Trump.
Both Trump and Clinton are liars. Neither speaks a truth based on facts. Yet, Trump speaks an emotional truth to people who have been neglected by the political infrastructure supporting Clinton. Trump's language is emotional, and he connects with people on a level that resonates with the more primitive sections of the brain, and not that of the prefrontal cortex. To me, this is much more dangerous, as the last politician this successful who resonated this way came from Central Europe in the 1930's.
I was rooting for the FBI to force the Attorney General to bring charges against Hillary. This would have triggered a series of actions which would have removed Hillary from the position of presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, and would have installed Bernie Sanders in her place. Trump could not win against him. Bernie knows how to speak the truth and gain power from doing so. Hillary does not, and her presence at the top of the ticket will make it a 50/50 chance that Trump will become president.
So the question becomes - who do we vote for? If one leans Republican and hates Trump, vote for the Libertarian party's candidate, Gary Johnson. If one leans Democrat and hates Hillary, vote for the Green party's candidate, Jill Stein. We're getting screwed either way, and the only thing we can do about it is to help a third party get the votes that could disrupt the political system.
I have never been a fan of Hillary Clinton. She is and always will be a Machiavel, but this is not a bad characteristic for someone running for the office of president. Instead, it is a potential risk if she wins the election, because one can't be sure of what will guide her when in office - save for self interest.
Strong leaders tend to be Machiavels to some degree or another. One has to be enough of a psychopath (no moral judgement here) to sacrifice one group of supporters for a "greater good" - and Hillary has proven herself capable of doing that. But she has a habit of snatching defeat out of the claws of victory, by underrating the power of her opposition. When her husband was president, she couldn't get healthcare reform done. Like her husband, she was a lightning rod for the opposition's political lightning strikes. And in the 2008 election cycle, she underrated Barack Obama - to her regret.
She is a very intelligent lady, and is very pragmatic. Yet, she put her foot in her mouth by agitating for a "no fly zone" in Syria. ISIS has no air force. So who does this affect? Russia! Can we afford to antagonize the Russians when we have a common enemy? Why shouldn't we let the Russians look like the bad guys - even if it means that we sacrifice our rebel friends to keep the Syrian government nominally in power?
Much noise has been made by the GOP about her use of private email servers. But government officials from the GOP have done the same thing. Given the data security breaches in Federal Government computer systems, it is likely that her private server may have been more secure than the government servers she was expected to use. (It is also possible that her private servers may have been "Honey Pots" designed to feed false information to people spying on her.) Bernie Sanders is likely right - this is a non issue.
There is something not generally reported in the press - she has a soft, human side that people don't often see on the political trail. She likely hides it because of the double standard imposed on women - if she is soft, she is weak. And if she is hard, she still can't be as imposing as a male. In short, she is not allowed to be herself - no matter how qualified she is for office.
So the big question is: Is Hillary Clinton qualified to be president? She hasn't done anything important enough to disqualify herself. But has she developed enough skills to steer this country? Or, is she the only logical choice left, given the non-logic coming from the opposition? Only time will tell....
