ok, i think i need to take a step back.

the intelligence industry is not a leviathan, and "the establishment" is not of a monolithic mind. we tend to get these notions in our heads that the elite operates in lock step. if it did, we wouldn't have wars.

i pointed out several months ago that there appears to be a part of the security establishment, specifically, that wants clinton barred from office. i don't think that this insight has proven wrong so much as that it seems that hillary is actually outflanking them. i understand that the security agencies are blaming things on russia, but these are exactly the same networks that seem like they're in control.

let's try a thought experiment.

suppose that you're deep state and you want to leak documents to julian assange to make hillary clinton look bad. assange doesn't need to know where he's getting the documents from. is there a non-zero probability that you wouldn't blame it on russia? i mean, all the other bad guys are gone, except that dipshit in north korea that nobody is going to believe can even spell his own name.

so, if you're trying to take her down from the inside, that's exactly what you do: you leak the documents and you blame it on russia.

the reason i've been avoiding this topic is not that the scenario is unclear so much as that it hasn't mattered. and, one could easily make the case that re-opening the email case isn't going to matter, either, because it's not an issue of much importance to anybody except the most extreme elements within the republican party - elements she was never going to reach, even if she's at least as good a candidate by their own metrics. i'd accept the argument, still.

however...

i'm a little uncomfortable about the way some of the polling is being manipulated. the abc tracking poll is particularly outrageous to me - this data is obviously being squeezed. why? well, ratings looks like a good reason. but, what if it's designed to provide evidence for a trump come back?

abc has very strong historical links to the security establishment that seems to be active in the election.

they have been accused, repeatedly, of acting as the propaganda arm of the security establishment.

something else that i pointed out at the time was that there may be some legitimate justification for this kind of deep state security interference. educated opinion on the topic does seem to be that there's a high chance that her foreign policy is essentially for sale. the emails and the benghazi thing may be largely frivolous, but that is a legitimate national security issue: the idea that she's for sale. if you're deep state, you likely know the answer with a higher degree of certainty. and, what if the details are bad enough that it's actually tripped us into a war game, a contingency plan?

i know this sounds outlandish. but, you need to adjust your mental goal posts. it really isn't.

what i'm getting at is that the idea of a rigged election to ensure the establishment candidate wins is perhaps not so absurd. it is basically what happened in 2000. but, maybe we should be more careful in determining what the establishment - the real establishment - actually is, and who their preferred candidate is.

however this works, it is absolutely clear that clinton has serious enemies in the deep state and that if the election is allowed to happen fairly then she's going to be spending her entire term fighting them.

clinton can't rig the election by herself. the security establishment can. and, i think it's clear that they're backing trump.

just keep this in mind: if trump ends up as president, it's not some accident. it's not some victory of the unwashed & ignorant. it's what the bastards actually want.

you don't defeat the establishment. especially not if you're donald fucking trump.

and, if you're one of these idiots that thinks otherwise, just remember: he only got there because he made a deal.

"nobody knows more about corruption than me, folks."

you could get donald trump to literally fuck himself in the ass if you dangle a dollar in front of him. you can't even get hillary clinton to drink a glass of water. who's going to be easier to control? the woman that thinks she's the second coming? or the guy that couldn't find benghazi on a map?

i'm not saying this is clear, yet. i'm saying it looks like it. i don't see any evidence that the polling has shifted - i think she's still ahead 9-10 points. in the end, that might not mean anything.