PS. Just in case you don’t know what the Clinton meme is referring to, the woman who epitomises the Globalist oligarchy has now returned from her walk in the woods to style herself as a champion of “The Resistance”. Go on laugh. Laugh out loud, it’s so absurd.

PPS. Silly me, but I’ve just realised the answer to the riddle. Since Mrs Clinton has been talking a lot about walking in the woods a lot, and since there is a tree lying on the floor having been cut down, Maybe it was Mrs Clinton who hacked it after all 🙂

2 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton in The Resistance … and Other Philosophical Questions

  1. If a tree falls in the forest, and Viktor Medvedchuk is standing there with an axe whistling, I very much want us to take the possibility seriously about Russian hacking… but otherwise I think your points about Hillary and the absurdity are spot on.

    1. Hi Richard,

      On the hacking …

      But what if the Office of Director of National Intelligence put out their evidence of that alleged hacking, and it looked like it was written by a 15-year-old Temp using Google and Twitter whilst manning the shop over Christmas (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf). And what if the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, claimed to have been a go-between in the whole DNC Podesta thing, and categorically denied that it was a hack, stating instead that it was a leak? And what if the FBI, which are apparently investigating alleged Trump/Russia connections, have never even examined the DNC servers, having had their request turned down by that party? And what if they and the other intelligence agencies had instead relied on the claims of an organisation called Crowdstrike, who have been proven to have been wrong on another case of alleged Russian hacking before (http://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html)?

      Well I’d say that all those issues, put together, ought to make anybody extremely suspicious when they hear the phrase “Russia hacked our election”. It’s a meaningless phrase. It’s not remotely proven. The evidence has not been shown. And the dubious circumstances surrounding the whole business, mentioned above, make it highly doubtful that it ever happened.

      I might be wrong, but working on the presumption of innocence, I’d like to see some evidence rather than the sloganeering and insinuations that they come up with as a substitute for proof before believing it.

      Best,

      Rob

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.