What if Obama dropped Hillary's email bombs?

The phoniest and most irresponsible lie in current politics is Obama's accusation that "the Russians did it!"  Dropped Hillary's email bombs, that is.  This was originally just attributed to the CIA and FBI at secondhand, and later those agencies reluctantly agreed.  But we all know how badly Obama has corrupted those agencies, and their kowtowing to the Big Boss means nothing.  This is sad but true.

If you think about this as a mystery story, you can ask, "Who had the motive, the means, and the opportunity" to leak Hillary's most embarrassing secrets, thereby blowing the election?  The list of suspects is huge, but Obama is never mentioned.  Still, think about it for a second.

Motive: Obama is a major narcissist who always wants to expand his personal power.  Being president has not satisfied his power-hungry ego; nothing ever will.  For months he has been talking about running for a third term, and he's back at it today.

Washington speculation has long focused on Obama's ambition to become SecGen of the U.N., an office he could try to expand into a genuine power center to achieve the utopian fantasy of the left, a world order in which everything is "properly" controlled from a dictatorial center.  This is consistent with the worst kind of Marxism, but it is also the dream of jihad: world conquest.

Obama has shown time and time again that he is a sort of Marxo-jihadophile.  Our good friend Recep Erdoğan, the autocrat of Turkey, has just accused the administration of supporting ISIS, showing that this kind of speculation is going on all around the world.  In fact, Erdoğan himself is reliably accused of selling Iraqi oil stolen by ISIS on the world market.

So Obama's motive for (possibly) dropping Hillary's email bombs?

His quest for power.

If Hillary were president for the next eight years, as the Democrats confidently expected, Obama might be dwarfed by the second Clinton administration.

Hillary and Obama are not friends; it was Obama who accused the Clintons of racism to destroy them at the Democratic Convention eight years ago, which reportedly outraged Bill and Hillary.  Obama won that fight, but he left a lot of anger and resentment. 

So Obama's motive for undermining Hillary would be their hot competition for power.  Obama is the biggest backstabber in U.S. politics, a true genius at the art of gaining trust and then betraying it.  He back-stabbed Israel and the United States…what more evidence do you need?

Today, nobody doubts anymore that Obama shafted Israel with the Iranian nuclear deal, and now at the United Nations.  This is SOP for Obama.  This is how he won all his election runs in Illinois.

The evidence is all over the place that under his administration, the United States has supported jihadist groups in Syria and elsewhere – exactly the same war theology that committed the 9/11 massacre in Manhattan and at the Pentagon. 

There's much more to be said about Obama's motives for sabotaging the Clintons' last chance at power.  His most emotional motivation would be simple envy for Hillary if she won the election. 

That's a little bit about Obama's possible motive. 

How about means?  Does Obama have access to Hillary's ridiculously vulnerable email system? 

Do bears do it in the woods?  Is the pope Catholic?  Does Obama run the CIA and the FBI with an iron hand?  Does he run the DOJ? 

So much for motive and means.

There isn't much to say for the Putin Hypothesis.  For one thing, the Democrats are so deeply steeped in lies today that anything they say is likely to be a fairy tale.  The media will back any fairy tale they make up, which is why so many Americans voted for the truth-teller in this election.

If Putin really wanted a weak U.S. president, he could wish for no one weaker than Hillary, with Bill playing second fiddle.  Hillary is just not a first-rate political talent, as even she admitted during the campaign. 

Obama had the motive and the means.

What about the opportunity to leak Hillary's fantastically irresponsible and plausibly criminal emails to the public?  Obama always works through cutouts, external agents who give him plausible deniability.  He is never directly responsible for any failure, at least according to this White House.

All we know is that WikiLeaks took responsibility for the email dumps. 

But who is WikiLeaks?  Nobody really knows.  It is an anonymous network of hackers who claim to be upset about shady dealings in the government, a perfectly plausible motive.  Julian Assange is the public face of WikiLeaks, and he certainly looks and talks like an honest man.  He has gained a lot of credibility in the world for leaking the real thing to the media. 

But this one is child's play for the truly Machiavellian politicians like Obama.  All he has to do is tell his personal loyalists at the CIA to leak Hillary's email trove, using a neutral cutout, who magically happens to gain access to that awful amateurish server that Hillary, Huma, and a few other privileged inner-circle ladies cooked up and used to trade State Department favors with moneyed power around the world.  Hillary's pathetic email system certainly looks like a set-up by more skilled and devious I.T. operatives, which the CIA has in abundance. 

Nothing is easier than to set up or suborn a WikiLeaks member to "discover" Hillary's grossly incompetent email setup and give that treasure trove to Julian Assange.

WikiLeaks does not seem to be a professional intelligence outfit, though we never really know that, of course.  WikiLeaks could be a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, for all we know.  Or for the Russians.  Or for a dozen competent intelligence agencies around the world.  Or for Obama's CIA.

Black ops and double plays are routine for those outfits.  Every major regime in the world runs them. 

At the beginning of the election campaign, the betting was on Jeb Bush or another establishment Republican versus Hillary.  Obama just told us he could have beaten the whole field of candidates had he been allowed to run, and he has a point there.

First-class demagogues are not all that common in U.S. politics, though Bill and Obama certainly qualify.  And the Democrats are always sure of a big campaign war chest, with backing from establishment corporations, plus the Saudis, the Chinese, and the Muslim Brotherhood – not to mention the fakestream media. 

Had Hillary won the election and made a mess of her administration, Obama could have run against her, as Teddy Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter.  In the worst case, Obama could have run again after Hillary's two terms.

A lot of Democrats have never fallen out of love with the Bamster, because that's the kind of people they are.  Or Obama could have demanded a nomination for U.N. Secretary General from Hillary and turned that job into president of the world. 

Don't think he hasn't dreamed of that all his life.  He has.

And why do you think that in his last days as president, Obama has publicly back-stabbed Israel?

Nothing appeals more to the irredentist primitives in the Muslim world than delegitimizing Israel.  Saner Muslim regimes have tried making peace with Israel (if you follow their actions carefully), and no one has done so more openly than the Egyptians.  President El-Sisi of Egypt has kept the peace with Israel, in spite of his Muslim Brotherhood enemies.

It was the M.B.s who assassinated Anwar Sadat, a true hero of peace with Israel.  That assassination still keeps Arabs from openly signing peace treaties with Israel.

(But the Saudis recently met with Israel to plan a common defense against Iranian aggression.  Arab contacts with Israel occur every day, as simply as picking up the phone, but Obama has made it much more dangerous, because in reality Obama keeps sabotaging the peace process.  Watch his actions, and never believe his words.  Israeli contacts with Arab leaders are an everyday affair.  The leaders of Hamas routinely use Israeli medical facilities, and Israel is happy to help them because they believe in giving bhakshish to their enemies, a routine kind of double-dealing in Muslim politics.)

Mr. Obama has made it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that he will never fade from the political scene as long as he lives.  Retiring is just not in his DNA.  Major narcissists are in it for life.  They do not change.  And messianic narcissists like Obama simply don't have the psychological wherewithal to change.  It is unfortunate but true.  There is no cure for such people.

So: Motive, means, and opportunities galore.

I'll bet on the Obama hypothesis against the Putin foolishness any day.  The biggest case against the Putin charge is that all good Democrats now believe it, because the fakestream media are pushing it.  Lying liars lie, as we have learned over the years of watching the fakestream, the Clintons, and Obama.  These people delight in deception.  They are utterly and completely dishonest, as Trump keeps saying, and so far they are running true to form.

I'll bet on Obama as Hillary's real nemesis. 

The phoniest and most irresponsible lie in current politics is Obama's accusation that "the Russians did it!"  Dropped Hillary's email bombs, that is.  This was originally just attributed to the CIA and FBI at secondhand, and later those agencies reluctantly agreed.  But we all know how badly Obama has corrupted those agencies, and their kowtowing to the Big Boss means nothing.  This is sad but true.

If you think about this as a mystery story, you can ask, "Who had the motive, the means, and the opportunity" to leak Hillary's most embarrassing secrets, thereby blowing the election?  The list of suspects is huge, but Obama is never mentioned.  Still, think about it for a second.

Motive: Obama is a major narcissist who always wants to expand his personal power.  Being president has not satisfied his power-hungry ego; nothing ever will.  For months he has been talking about running for a third term, and he's back at it today.

Washington speculation has long focused on Obama's ambition to become SecGen of the U.N., an office he could try to expand into a genuine power center to achieve the utopian fantasy of the left, a world order in which everything is "properly" controlled from a dictatorial center.  This is consistent with the worst kind of Marxism, but it is also the dream of jihad: world conquest.

Obama has shown time and time again that he is a sort of Marxo-jihadophile.  Our good friend Recep Erdoğan, the autocrat of Turkey, has just accused the administration of supporting ISIS, showing that this kind of speculation is going on all around the world.  In fact, Erdoğan himself is reliably accused of selling Iraqi oil stolen by ISIS on the world market.

So Obama's motive for (possibly) dropping Hillary's email bombs?

His quest for power.

If Hillary were president for the next eight years, as the Democrats confidently expected, Obama might be dwarfed by the second Clinton administration.

Hillary and Obama are not friends; it was Obama who accused the Clintons of racism to destroy them at the Democratic Convention eight years ago, which reportedly outraged Bill and Hillary.  Obama won that fight, but he left a lot of anger and resentment. 

So Obama's motive for undermining Hillary would be their hot competition for power.  Obama is the biggest backstabber in U.S. politics, a true genius at the art of gaining trust and then betraying it.  He back-stabbed Israel and the United States…what more evidence do you need?

Today, nobody doubts anymore that Obama shafted Israel with the Iranian nuclear deal, and now at the United Nations.  This is SOP for Obama.  This is how he won all his election runs in Illinois.

The evidence is all over the place that under his administration, the United States has supported jihadist groups in Syria and elsewhere – exactly the same war theology that committed the 9/11 massacre in Manhattan and at the Pentagon. 

There's much more to be said about Obama's motives for sabotaging the Clintons' last chance at power.  His most emotional motivation would be simple envy for Hillary if she won the election. 

That's a little bit about Obama's possible motive. 

How about means?  Does Obama have access to Hillary's ridiculously vulnerable email system? 

Do bears do it in the woods?  Is the pope Catholic?  Does Obama run the CIA and the FBI with an iron hand?  Does he run the DOJ? 

So much for motive and means.

There isn't much to say for the Putin Hypothesis.  For one thing, the Democrats are so deeply steeped in lies today that anything they say is likely to be a fairy tale.  The media will back any fairy tale they make up, which is why so many Americans voted for the truth-teller in this election.

If Putin really wanted a weak U.S. president, he could wish for no one weaker than Hillary, with Bill playing second fiddle.  Hillary is just not a first-rate political talent, as even she admitted during the campaign. 

Obama had the motive and the means.

What about the opportunity to leak Hillary's fantastically irresponsible and plausibly criminal emails to the public?  Obama always works through cutouts, external agents who give him plausible deniability.  He is never directly responsible for any failure, at least according to this White House.

All we know is that WikiLeaks took responsibility for the email dumps. 

But who is WikiLeaks?  Nobody really knows.  It is an anonymous network of hackers who claim to be upset about shady dealings in the government, a perfectly plausible motive.  Julian Assange is the public face of WikiLeaks, and he certainly looks and talks like an honest man.  He has gained a lot of credibility in the world for leaking the real thing to the media. 

But this one is child's play for the truly Machiavellian politicians like Obama.  All he has to do is tell his personal loyalists at the CIA to leak Hillary's email trove, using a neutral cutout, who magically happens to gain access to that awful amateurish server that Hillary, Huma, and a few other privileged inner-circle ladies cooked up and used to trade State Department favors with moneyed power around the world.  Hillary's pathetic email system certainly looks like a set-up by more skilled and devious I.T. operatives, which the CIA has in abundance. 

Nothing is easier than to set up or suborn a WikiLeaks member to "discover" Hillary's grossly incompetent email setup and give that treasure trove to Julian Assange.

WikiLeaks does not seem to be a professional intelligence outfit, though we never really know that, of course.  WikiLeaks could be a front for the Muslim Brotherhood, for all we know.  Or for the Russians.  Or for a dozen competent intelligence agencies around the world.  Or for Obama's CIA.

Black ops and double plays are routine for those outfits.  Every major regime in the world runs them. 

At the beginning of the election campaign, the betting was on Jeb Bush or another establishment Republican versus Hillary.  Obama just told us he could have beaten the whole field of candidates had he been allowed to run, and he has a point there.

First-class demagogues are not all that common in U.S. politics, though Bill and Obama certainly qualify.  And the Democrats are always sure of a big campaign war chest, with backing from establishment corporations, plus the Saudis, the Chinese, and the Muslim Brotherhood – not to mention the fakestream media. 

Had Hillary won the election and made a mess of her administration, Obama could have run against her, as Teddy Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter.  In the worst case, Obama could have run again after Hillary's two terms.

A lot of Democrats have never fallen out of love with the Bamster, because that's the kind of people they are.  Or Obama could have demanded a nomination for U.N. Secretary General from Hillary and turned that job into president of the world. 

Don't think he hasn't dreamed of that all his life.  He has.

And why do you think that in his last days as president, Obama has publicly back-stabbed Israel?

Nothing appeals more to the irredentist primitives in the Muslim world than delegitimizing Israel.  Saner Muslim regimes have tried making peace with Israel (if you follow their actions carefully), and no one has done so more openly than the Egyptians.  President El-Sisi of Egypt has kept the peace with Israel, in spite of his Muslim Brotherhood enemies.

It was the M.B.s who assassinated Anwar Sadat, a true hero of peace with Israel.  That assassination still keeps Arabs from openly signing peace treaties with Israel.

(But the Saudis recently met with Israel to plan a common defense against Iranian aggression.  Arab contacts with Israel occur every day, as simply as picking up the phone, but Obama has made it much more dangerous, because in reality Obama keeps sabotaging the peace process.  Watch his actions, and never believe his words.  Israeli contacts with Arab leaders are an everyday affair.  The leaders of Hamas routinely use Israeli medical facilities, and Israel is happy to help them because they believe in giving bhakshish to their enemies, a routine kind of double-dealing in Muslim politics.)

Mr. Obama has made it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that he will never fade from the political scene as long as he lives.  Retiring is just not in his DNA.  Major narcissists are in it for life.  They do not change.  And messianic narcissists like Obama simply don't have the psychological wherewithal to change.  It is unfortunate but true.  There is no cure for such people.

So: Motive, means, and opportunities galore.

I'll bet on the Obama hypothesis against the Putin foolishness any day.  The biggest case against the Putin charge is that all good Democrats now believe it, because the fakestream media are pushing it.  Lying liars lie, as we have learned over the years of watching the fakestream, the Clintons, and Obama.  These people delight in deception.  They are utterly and completely dishonest, as Trump keeps saying, and so far they are running true to form.

I'll bet on Obama as Hillary's real nemesis. 

RECENT VIDEOS