Thinker101
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2017
- 24,730
- 14,959
- 1,415
Obama was in on the hoax, but don't feel Obama orchestrated the hoax. Don't feel he is high enough on the food chain to put it all together.
If I had to guess, it was a confluence of Hillary, Obama, et al and a suggestion from the Kremlin.
They wanted the crime family that they had a history of bribing, and the dossier was designed to sink a Trump candidacy.
And Hillary knew who to sign up for the plan.
Steele is key. He was a communist agent when he worked as a Brit agent, and the perfect conduit for Putin to Hillary.
1. [Supposed author of the dossier,] Steele was a “confirmed socialist” in college at Oxford when he was hired by MI6, another point of suspicion for someone who would be dispatched to Moscow as a spy and later serve as head of the Russian desk at MI6, all extremely sensitive positions." The Final Truth about the “Trump Dossier”
2.. Christopher Steele, Hillary's employee, got the 'dossier' via
Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch linked to Vladimir Putin, according to a new report.
CHRISTOPHER STEELE REPORTEDLY WORKED FOR SANCTIONED RUSSIAN OLIGARCH
Christopher Steele Reportedly Worked For Sanctioned Russian Oligarch
3. Russia is a dictatorship.
Nothing emanates from Moscow without Putin's imprimatur....
The 'information' in the infamous 'dossier' came from Russia.
Now.....if Putin wanted Trump to win.......would there have ever.......ever.....been a dossier?????
QED......the candidate of Vladimir Putin was Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.
4. If any collusion occurred, it was through Democrats, the only folks for whom we have actual evidence of collusion.
5. Here's the quote that should not be overlooked:
Christopher Steele told [the DoJ] he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”
Here is the question that has never been asked:
Steele is not even an American citizen…..what is behind this hatred of Trump, and his passion to end his chances of becoming President?
Not 100% clear on what the goal(s) are. If the goals are to implement a liberal agenda, it probably wouldn't be left up to a specific president, after all they may be gone in 4-8 years. I can possibly see how Obama wanted to pass the torch to Hillary, but that would allow her to put her own spin on the objective.
The goals are to end America a it was created......power to reverse these three original aims:
Individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
1. FDR, Stalin's BFF engineered a ten year depression as per Rahm Emanuel's infamous 'never let a crisis go to waste,' to end the Constitution.
In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
Letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill on H.R. 8479. | The American Presidency Project
This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.
2. The nation that the Left wants is via this rubric:
The collective, command and control regulation of private industry, and overarching government that can order every aspect of the private citizen's life....right down to control of his thoughts and speech.
Ending America as it was created may be the objective. But it can't be up to a single individual (i.e. Obama or Clinton).
Those are their agents.
These are their agencies: Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism.
All have the same societal endgame in store for humanity.
I would agree, personally I would define those as concepts as opposed to agencies. My question would be who is in charge (person or group) of these agencies.