i don't talk about russia. i've explained this.

my hypothesis - and it is only data driven in the sense of pointing out that the data doesn't support the official outcomes - is that the cia rigged the 2016 election, and blamed it on the russians. i will retreat to "voter suppression" if challenged, but i think the fraud was deeper than that. the russians are just being used as a decoy. the real motive was to keep hillary out of power, as she is seen by the security state as a serious threat to national sovereignty. but, the russian narrative has the added utility that it can also be used to take down trump, once hilllary is disposed of.

basically, the idea is that hillary is so off-the-wall corrupt that even the cia was afraid she was too much, and blocked her from winning. the fear was that she would just act in the interests of the highest bidders, which may be incompatible with the country's longterm strategic interests. her completely extralegal destruction of libya at the bidding of the saudi theocracy, and the outsized focus that the shadow government placed on it as a kind of terrible sin, suggests that the influence of oil money may have been a particular fear. my evidence is circumstantial, and largely inferential, and i fully accept that i wouldn't be able to defend it in court, or to get a diploma - but the premise that a smart, independent researcher could gather enough evidence working in their basement to indict the cia is fantastical thinking, on it's face. you couldn't possibly expect something better from me, or anybody like me. but, the idea is that this is the shadow government at work.

so, my hypothesis is that, contrary to the media narrative, it was trump that was the elite's actual preferred candidate, and he was put in power by the american security establishment to block clinton from winning. they then tried to cover it up by blaming it on the russians. so, why waste time getting lost in an obviously manufactured narrative?

but, this same russian narrative then has the added benefit of being useful in taking trump down from the inside, as he was hardly an ideal candidate, himself. what they really wanted was pence, and getting him installed is the end game in this take down of clinton from the inside.

it seems like pence started to be more aggressive in his disagreements with trump, especially around china, on the day after the midterms. while i don't think that trump has the faintest idea of what's happening, it would not surprise me at all if pence were aware of it.

so, it seems like the next phase of this is about to kick in - and i would expect that pence will be sworn in by the time the 2020 election happens.