and, to an answer an obvious question that seems to somehow be disqualifying, if there was a cia plot to install trump then obama would have had to have at least been privy to it. see, just because a department signs off on something doesn't mean it directed it, right. i'd bet a large amount of the president's actual job is signing stuff that magically appears on his desk. i'd guess that the seriousness of the president is determined less by how much time is spent determining policy and more by how much time is spent analyzing it, and in a very serious case even amending it. i don't think we've had a president that serious since clinton, though.

but, would obama have to have signed off on it at some point? sure.

i actually picked up a little bit of apprehension from obama near the end of the campaign. i think that a careful historical reconstruction could probably pinpoint the date to a relatively small window - that information can probably be constructed, if desired.

i know it seems disqualifying, but it isn't. i've outlined national security concerns attached to a clinton presidency, and how a contingency plan could have been operated. and, if a contingency plan were to be operated, it might be pre-authorized to exclude details from the president until a late date in operation. like, i'm not suggesting that you should think of the cia behaving as a rogue actor, i'm suggesting that they were acting within their congressional authority to stop threats to the united states. i want you to think about that and let it sink in.

i actually think that bill knew before obama did, and sided with the secret service.

so, i don't want to hear "it can't be cia, because then obama would have known.". obama would have had to eventually known, but not until the end, and may have decided in the end to sign on to it - sure. don't discount that. at all.