There has been a consistent operation to silence Jones, Roger Stone, and other conservatives, free-speech liberals, or whistlblowers like Assange and Snowden, by forces which mean to profit from globalisation, "free trade," Chinese ascendancy, and so on. This does not mean that Jones, like Trump, does not oppose causes with which I agree, such as action on Climate Change, LGBT, or social welfare. I am reporting what is happening in reality.
So, Jones has been right before. When he reports something, like estrogenic chemicals affecting fish in the gulf, or the existence of 'goat-spider' hybrids, he is widely ridiculed. Later, the facts come out that what he had been talking about had been true, albeit creatively embellished. Rather than creditting him, most people obligingly move on to ridiculing him for some new thing he has said. So, he does not have a lot of credibility for ever being right.
(This is why it is important to listen to ALL sides. Because all sides are wrong, but a little bit right).
Hillary is expected to enter the race again, according to Jones. When you think about it, it makes sense. For one thing, she saves time and money by not involving herself in the early weeding-out process, which is what Bloomberg is also doing. It looks to me like Biden has been a place-holder, ready to be collapsed at any time. And, I have always felt, Biden is a mistake to run against Trump, for many reasons. Sanders or Warren would do better than him. Clinton may feel she is strong enough to pop in, snap up either of these as a running mate, and portray herself as a populist progressive - which will probably lead to Sanders having another heart attack.
It actually doesn't matter so much that Biden is carrying (older) blacks presently. Why? Many blacks seem to realise that it wouldn't fly to run a black candidate, and so they would settle on another white candidate if they had to, and Hillary would be the strongest, after Biden, with her ties to, "the first black president in U.S. history," as well as to Obama.
What makes more sense is the culmination of the impeachment proceedings, upon which Clinton could grossly capitalise - with one big, fat, "I told you so!"
I don't think the more politically astute will disagree that there has been a design to impeach Trump since prior to his taking office in 2017 - even though, back then, the Dems didn't yet have any kind of justification for doing so. They just waited for to him to do something suspicious, and they coerced him into loading up his cabinet with Neoliberals, and anti-Russians like the two women who then testified against him in the recent hearings regarding Ukraine.
I think many Americans are savvy to the constant campaign of maligning and badgering Trump, based on moralistic neo-Puritan smears, from the endless parade of 'rape victims' testifying against Trump and Kavenaugh, (many of whom turned out to have been paid, etc.); to the Russiagate investigations, which resolved nothing, to the Ukraine impeachment hearings which, according to a very respectable democratic legal scholar, Jonathan Turling(sp?), has not enough validity to impeach a president, and so is very dangerous. (Note that another scholar had been on Clinton's short-list for becoming a Supreme court judge; and another had been a long-time enemy of Trump - check out their records).
Well, I don't know about you, but I have always been pretty certain that the Clinton machine, (which is another term for the DNC Dems, which is another term for anti-populist Neoliberal/Neoconservative globalists), is what has been behind this never-ending plan to oust Trump - a coup, if you will.
So, what better time for Hillary Clinton to ride in than during the Senate hearings, where she can brow-beat the Republicans, and public, into attacking Trump? All the time that Pelosi was shifting about, saying she was iffy about impeachment, Alex Jones was there asserting that the Dems planned NO LESS than to impeach. By now, it looks like he was, once again, correct.
But why would the Dems proceed so long, when so many things have been stacked against them, like majority opinion, or the Senate, or a strong case? Why else would they have been pushing this unless Pelosi, and related, had been well-aware of Hillary's intention to get into the race and save it all, presumably with some new shocking, manufactured information or witnesses? We have seen how she and the DNC Dems so deeply conspired to keep Sanders from winning the primaries in 2016. Well, that was done THEN because of powerful, global interests and money - and that is why it is surely being done again NOW, to return the presidency to someone dutiful to, if not advocating, those powers that be.
Having watched U.S. politics for decades, I have seen the Dems return to power not again by supporting the working middle class, but by imitating the Republicans in appealing to the wealthy and war-mongers, while basing their electoral strategies on identity politics, preaching to splintering minority groups. Needless to say, a great hypocrisy has arisen in the Democratic party, between promises and realities, between words and actions.
Always convinced it is serving the disenfranchised, this party has reduced welfare, contributed to urban crime, and proudly paraded in black-face, or supported sexual abusers in Hollywood, etc. But the tactics it has used towards that ideal has been to out-Republican the Republicans, by advancing war, by telling lies, by touting patriotism, by selling out, by supporting the Deep/ National Security State, by sucking up to China, and to become viciously anti-Russian. The last tactic is more than an imitation, or carry-over, of U.S. Cold War IMPERIALISM. It is linked to actual strategies of P.N.A.C.; Neocons; Corporatists; the Deep State, and U.S. Army Plans to assume control of pipelines and agricultural fields in Poland; Ukraine; Syria; Russia, Iran, etc.
This multi-aspect, covert imperialism is in conjunction to the aims of the top donor to the Democratic Party, George Soros. Soros has financed the Western dominance in Ukraine, through his Open Society Foundation, as well as funding Antifa, BLM, and various media and propaganda programmes. It is not merely likely that Hillary Clinton would have sucked up to Soros, or most others of these agencies, in her will to superficial power.
Needless to say, the issue as to whether Russia seriously influenced U.S. elections is a whole nuther topic. I will just say, for now, that there is no evidence that the DNC servers were hacked by Russia. In fact, I have heard good technological evidence that the info was hacked via a device such as a thumb-drive, in which case it looks more like an inside job. And, I have also information from a former Google top executive that Google's deliberate search algorithms were probably responsible for moving 2.5 million people to vote Democrat in 2016. That's far more than some LEGAL Russian Facebook ads could have influenced. But we never hear about this in the media, because Google is pals with the DNC. As it is with the CIA.
One thing Republicans have always been good at, is revenge. You know why they have the elephant as their 'mascot', right? Stubborn. Overweight. And elephants never forget. Which usually means, when it comes to Republicans, they will eventually get back at you. "Don't get angry, get even." To Republicans, getting 'even', means getting even more infinitely powerful and domineering. Well, the Democrats have learnt from this character trait of the Republicans, and they have copied it to a 'T'. The DNC dems, including Hillary, backed by global forces, wants revenge for 2016.
To this end, they have released an endless stream of rumours, charges, juicy tid-bits, hearings, and so on, meaning to manipulate FOUR YEARS OF NEWS-CYCLE, and therefore, your brain. I thought it didn't mean so much to them, whether or not their hearings resulted in convictions, so long as they were manipulating the news cycle, building on an ever-leaning bias against Trump. But, now with my theory that Clinton might arrive, Deus ex Machina, during the Senate Ukraine Hearings - now I am thinking there is an end-game, at least now.
Anyway, persistent, thousand-cuts, gossippy revenge has been the campaign, seeking revenge for 2016, very much in the mean-world attitude of their teachers, the Republicans. So. Now that we have two Republican parties, resorting to nasty, mean-world bullshit, it looks to me like history is repeating itself, and one of the parties is doomed to fall, pretty soon. Of course, neither party wants that, which is why the Dems locked Sanders out, and why the GOP tried to lock Trump out. Dems may forget now, but both Sanders and Trump emerged out of populism, now popularly derided as meaning White Nationalism, which is incorrect.
And, let's not neglect the convenience that this onslaught of niggardliness seems to afford Hillary Clinton. That is: blaming the Republicans for what oneself is guilty. Blaming the other guy for being the true Satan. (Which is a game that never ends well). So, whatever crimes Clinton may have been guilty of in the past - especially those which might have involved selling uranium to Russia, or missile technology to China, etc. - well, they are obfuscated when trump is made to look like the person actually guilty of such crimes.
I am not saying either or neither are or are not guilty - I am talking about the media campaign. Messaging. It has been decided: that is what really counts. But, investigations into Fusion GPS; the Bidens; The Steele Dosier, and so forth, have NOT been prominent in the media, in any way comparable to those focusing on Trump, have they? That is not by accident. The Clinton's have been hiding bodies ever since the days of drug-smuggling via the Mena, Arkansas airport; or the bomming of the OKC Federal Building. Hillary has clearly inclined towards seeing the media as being the ultimate game, as she has signed herself and Chelsea up for a lucrative TV contract. Just a note: The later a person officially declares as a candidate, the more time that person is allowed as a talking head, and the more money is allowed to be acquired without qualifying as political contributions. The Clintons are far from stupid.
Do you need any more evidence that Hillary is probably running? Other than her book tour? How about this: Only a day or two ago, she said that she would consider getting into the race... Oh, I cannot stand these tempting little teases! Please, Hillary, save us now!
Like another new talking point for the day, it is now being argued that charges from the Russiagate investigation now be folded into charges for impeachment. Why not? The Russiagate investigation did nothing but waste a lot of time and oxygen. Why not make use of it now? Well, because it would be just more loading-up on weak arguments, in addition to those regarding Ukraine. As if not learning from past mistakes, including the very-targetted Clinton impeachment, this 'kitchen-sink', anything-goes stragedy will not stick, as far as public opinion goes. Especially when the economy is pretty strong, etc.
However, it looks like some Democrats are becoming drunk on their own rhetoric, and want to throw in everything they can. Blame him for the weather! What Nancy pelosi realises is that such a stragedy will endanger the reelection of Dems in swing states - states in which Trump has significant influence. That could lead to a minority for Dems in the House in 2020 - especially considering the other fact, that much of the public already considers the impeachment to be a farce, or political theatre, which it is.
I know this rubs some of you the wrong way. But, stand by, I have some interesting posts coming up. And, I would say to you, regarding this impeachment. Whether or not Trump is, like everyone else in WDC, corrupt - whether or not he is a nice person a liberal would want at dinner - whether or not he is a criminal: The law is more than a matter of opinion, even in the House. It has a kind of mathematics to it.
Unless the phone call explicitly stated a quid-pro-quo, then this is not solid evidence. And, despite reports in the media, the call did not do as much. And, the charge that Trump only OK'd the aid to Ukraine "after he was caught" - this is not legal evidence, it is circumstantial - opinion. I thin it is entirely possible that trump allowed the aid after/because he was caught. But no evidence cuts the muster here.
And, even if there was a quid-pro-quo, it may have been a nasty thing to do, but it is not so different than the crap past presidents, including both Roosevelts, have pulled in the past. In fact, it may be for the Supreme court to decide if this indeed falls in the purview, like the firing of the ambassador, of the president's power.
We are sliding towards becoming a third world country, with third world presidents, and third world political BS, wasting time away, as the world goes to hell. Our reign on Earth is almost over, relatively speaking. So, it is really time for us to grow up and get on with things. tidy things up so at least we don't go to eternal sleep with a guilty conscience. I don't look to WDC for anything resembling this to happen. It is not up to WDC. So, stop imbibing its craziness.