So Hillary is being investigated again by the FBI?
The FBI just announced the relaunching of its investigation into Hillary’s emails and personal server, apparently after discovering more emails “that appear to be pertinent to the investigation”.
It is hard to tell whether this move really is the serious threat to Hillary’s presidential hopes that many outlets are saying it is; it is also unclear what might be revealed in these emails. It might possibly relate to the 30,000 ‘missing’ or deleted emails that people have been questioning for months.
But this very late announcement by the FBI, which sent ripples of cheers resounding across Trump rally when the Republican candidate announced the news, seems like it could be an obstacle to Hillary’s campaign. It comes just 10 days before the election and at a time when most commentators were already considering Hillary the likely victor on November 8th.
There could be something properly damning in those emails; but the email content that has already been drip-fed to us for months was already pretty damning and it doesn’t appear to have effected Hillary’s prospects (thanks largely to the mainstream media deciding to completely ignore their existence – but this latest announcement isn’t related to WikiLeaks).
One tends to wonder if, just like the sexual assault allegations against Trump in recent weeks, this move – and its timing – might’ve been designed to keep the race alive and balance things back in Trump’s favor. Certainly, this possibility has been raised in some mainstream, mostly pro-Hillary, outlets, who see the FBI announcement as a political move.
I suspected ages ago that Trump might’ve been placed into the race as some kind of gentlemen’s lark to see what would happen. Now I’m also wondering if both candidates are actually being larked about with (and yes, I’ve just rediscovered the word ‘lark’ and intend to use it). I say this – and this is purely playing Devil’s Advocate – because it has seemed increasingly as if this entire Trump v Clinton contest might in fact be a pantomime.
Maybe I watched too many 80s movies, but I can’t help thinking there might be a couple of billionaire, elite gentlemen in a back-room somewhere, one with all his money on Hillary, the other with all his money on Trump, and they’ve been playing games with American democracy this whole time, each of them pulling all kinds of strings and stunts to ‘keep the game interesting’.
‘Oh, Hillary’s in the lead…? Well, let’s bring this game back to life, shall we?’ says one. ‘Oh, splendid – that sounds like a jolly good lark,’ says the other, ‘what did you have in mind?’ ‘Well, you had a grand old time with all those sexual allegations against my guy, so now let’s throw something more at your girl…’
Actually, looking at Donald Trump’s campaign does very much bring to mind a particular 80s movie.
Brewster’s Millions was a 1985 comedy starring the late, great Richard Pryor and John Candy; and it was in large part a film about running a sham campaign for political office.
In the movie, Pryor’s character ‘Monty Brewster’ is told that his recently deceased uncle has left him his entire fortune – but with several conditions. Brewster is told by the law firm that he can either take $1 million upfront or spend $30 million within 30 days to inherit the full fortune of $300 million. If he chooses the first option, the law firm becomes the executor of the estate and divides the money among charities, after taking its own fee. If he agrees to the challenge, however, and he fails to spend the entire $30 million, he forfeits and inherits nothing at all. Brewster naturally decides to take the $30 million challenge, and after struggling to efficiently spend the money according to the terms of the challenge, he decides to run for Mayor of New York City and spends most of the money on a protest campaign urging a vote for “None of the Above”; his campaign is even characterised by aggressive, confrontational rhetoric that angers his opponents (sound familiar?).
It isn’t a complete match with the real-life Trump campaign, as Brewster is forced to end his protest campaign when he finds out he is actually winning – which wasn’t his intention. But the general idea of the huge fortune and the sham campaign for political office keeps making me think of Mr Trump and wondering if this whole thing has been just a bit of a laugh (no, sorry, I meant lark) between some really rich people at the expense of everyone else.
If you’ve never seen Brewster’s Millions and plan to watch it to see what I’m talking about, another 80s movie – Trading Places, starring Eddie Murphy and Dan Ackroyd – might be a good one to catch too, just to get the general spirit of what I’m talking about: two mega-rich elitists with too much time and power on their hands having a bit of fun with obscene amounts of money while pitting two chosen play-things against each other in a contest.
In the Trading Places analogy, I would imagine Dan Ackroyd’s character is Hillary and Eddie Murphy’s is Trump, though admittedly I’m probably stretching the analogy too far. On a related note of 80’s movies and this election, a reader the other day commented on a previous post that Trump actually bears a lot of similarity to ‘Bif’ in Back to the Future II.
For the record, the ‘None of the Above’ campaign actually wins the mayoral election in Brewster’s Millions.
And, actually, I’m sure there are a great many Americans who would much rather vote ‘None of the Above’ right now than do any service to a Hillary or Trump bid. Though I also don’t get why so many voters think they’ll get leprosy if they vote for Jill Stein, Gary Johnson or a Third Party candidate.
As for this latest ‘obstacle’ for Hillary – which may or may not harm her chances, with only 10 days left – it really does feel like some behind-the-scenes puppet masters are playing games with both candidates: and with the American people.
Probably just for the sheer lark of it: because they’re probably so powerful that they can pretty much play whatever games they like. If the FBI wanted to deal with Hillary, they could’ve done it already instead of cutting a deal. Hillary shouldn’t have even been allowed to run, given these issues surrounding her, and we should be seeing a Bernie/Trump contest.
But we’re not – because the FBI decided to find Hillary innocent of wrongdoing and most of the political, corporate and media establishment wanted her as president. So what’s the point of announcing this now, with 10 days to go? Unless, of course, there’s something so big, so incriminating, here that it could invalidate her presidential bid irreparably.
We’ll wait and see, I guess; but, frankly, if this turns out to be just about a sleazebag sending a dick-pic to some unfortunate woman, then the FBI is just wasting everyone’s time.