Monday, October 31, 2016

Smartest Clinton Cronies Employing Risk Management

Rank and file Democrats are most inclined to see the following as extremely random speculation. But the evidence that has arisen demonstrates how it is a well-considered surmise. Democrats, especially those currently planning to employ all means necessary to elect Hillary on November 8, would be well advised to consider it too.

My thinking that the smartest high placed Democrats have clearly seen the danger to themselves  began here before FBI director James Comey came out with his Friday morning announcement that the Clinton case was being reopened.

Then a few days after me, but before Friday, Fran Porretto published Political Hatred and Its Potential Consequences, which helps sustain the point I was making.

Yesterday, Saturday, Ed Bonderenka asked some questions about the Comey announcement and concluded "I believe Comey has seen something so damning that he IS actively trying to throw the election."


I actually watched the video interview of Julian Assange included in that click bait. Let me be clear. Mr. Assange was careful not to say he thought Hillary's camp had ordered the murder of Seth Rich. Nor did he agree when asked if Rich had been an informant of his. He responded that he protects the identity of his sources. However, in my opinion, he left it to be inferred quite a bit along the lines of that headline when he said with a very slow-paced delivery:
"Our sources face serious risks. That is why they come to us."
"A variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that sort of thing [Seth Rich] happens." 
Indeed, Director Comey may very well know all that Assange does, and as Ed opines, maybe even more and worse and with certainty.

We live after the history of the soviet union has been disclosed. A large number of Stalin's closest associates met a gruesome and untimely end. Even minor apparatchiks wound up there, some believing to the very end that their circumstance was somehow all a mistake: 'If Stalin only knew.' Thank you Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

It is quite possible, given the varied reports that have turned up in the emails, that many of Hillary's closest associates have indeed seen behavior that troubles them. Could any of them have discreetly set things in motion that reduces their risks while not being seen as doing so? Wouldn't some of you?

Anyone who refuses to consider that these are dangerous times is engaging in -- how should I put this? -- "fear management." As one person told me "it's not that I have my head in the sand, it's just that I don't want to know" without displaying a glimmer of realization how contradictory that was.

Indeed, the simplest way to phrase this seems to be
Those close to Hillary who've carefully leaked what we've been provided could be said to be engaging in risk management.

Those who can't bear to consider the far-reaching implications of what Assange said in the link's interview are likely engaging in fear management. 
The fearful ones are laying low because the scheming brain required to protect themselves and not get caught is outside their capabilities. They are the among the latter while the brainier comprise the former. 

Should the clever ones succeed, their actions will wind up protecting the ones who have not realized the danger heading towards them. And they will wind up saving the nation even if that is not the first or even fifth order of interest to them.  

To my way of thinking, Trump is a risk. But Hillary is the greater risk, and that appears to be the opinion of some of those most close to her -- and they are banking their lives on it.  

Here's hoping that before election day enough of the lower echelon apparatchiks of the Democratic Part machine come to understand the risk to themselves too. That goes too for many lame-brains in the GOP who clearly don't know which way is safest and have been backing Hillary.


  1. That's a fearful place to be in.
    "Fear and Loathing".
    Sometimes the paranoids are right.
    Certainly the ones in the Clinton campaign.

    1. For you or I to be fearful of the Clinton's long arm would be paranoid. For those closer to them and knowing what has happened to others in their place, such concerns seem more a matter of hedging their bets. I think you would too.

  2. Interesting times ahead Pascal now that the Trump train will be arriving in Washington in a matter of weeks.


    He has promised to appoint a special prosecutor to oversee the Clinton Crime Family prosecution in his first 100 days. Now that has to lead to other BIG names being drawn in as well, as I doubt that there will be any honor being upheld with these thieves.

    Trump is already a marked man whom many will want killed. Let us hope he can survive his first term in office without that occurring.

  3. Actually, it will be his AG, whomever that may be, that does that. Getting a special prosecutor will be tricky. Probably it will be a Democrat. Do you have any ideas for one that is clean enough?

    For that matter, who would make a good AG? Giuliani is problematic because he's a known gun control advocate while has a history as mayor of ignoring 4th Amendment protections. I've heard Jeff Sessions and Trey Goudy floated. You have much knowledge of them or others over her?

  4. Whoever that prosecutor will, he/she will already have made a name for themselves as being straight down the line as a standout prosecutor. It is all assumption at this time, but my tip would be the FBI prosecutor who is running the investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

    It seems obvious to me that his knowledge concerning this massive fraud of such an unprecedented scale would also be obvious to those looking to appoint that special prosecutor.

    He has an Indian name that eludes me at this time, but a very good reputation for getting justice served.



View My Stats