Are "They" Out to Get Hillary?

There is something very curious about the recent news coverage on Hillary Clinton.

It appears to me to be a very concerted effort by mainstream media to take Hillary down.

I am no supporter of Hillary Clinton policies, but for strategic reasons I see her, from a hate the state perspective, as being the best candidate, amongst a crowd of criminals and wannabe totalitarians that are looked upon more favorably by the masses.

There would be so much hate against Hillary, if she were in the White House, that crony deal makers would have extreme difficulty getting much done. A just below the surface, simmering, hate the state attitude might develop. Do "they" get this and are, thus, concerned about a Hillary presidency?

It sure looks like it. Consider this brouhaha over Hillary's emails and her private server. This looks to me like a cooked up firestorm, if there ever was one. Headline after headline shouts out: Top Secret Emails were on Hillary's private computer. AP has this headline: Top secret Clinton emails include drone talk.

But let's take a look at what really has gone down. According to the same AP story with the blaring headline (my bold)

The officials who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity work in intelligence and other agencies. They wouldn't detail the contents of the emails because of ongoing questions about classification level. Clinton did not transmit the sensitive information herself, they said, and nothing in the emails she received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing.
  

Got that? Hillary had nothing to do with the confidential emails. But further, what exactly were the emails, themselves, about that were sent by someone else that is causing the media uproar? Here's AP again (my bold):

The drone exchange, the officials said, begins with a copy of a news article that discusses the CIA drone program that targets terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. While a secret program, it is well-known and often reported on. The copy makes reference to classified information, and a Clinton adviser follows up by dancing around a top secret in a way that could possibly be inferred as confirmation, they said. Several officials, however, described this claim as tenuous.

Is this really what the uproar is about? A Clinton aide, not Hillary, discussing something  that is regularly reported in the media! But wait, there is a second concerning email. Here's what AP has to say about that email (my bold):

But a second email reviewed by Charles McCullough, the intelligence community inspector general, appears more suspect. Nothing in the message is "lifted" from classified documents, the officials said, though they differed on where the information in it was sourced. Some said it improperly points back to highly classified material, while others countered that it was a classic case of what the government calls "parallel reporting" — different people knowing the same thing through different means.

Got that? Again, not a Hillary email, but that of a Hillary aide, who may have gotten the information from a non-classified source.

This sure looks like a professional take out of Hillary. Mainstream media would never run such a flimsy story, one step away from Hillary, unless "they" wanted it out to take Hillary down?

Who are "they"? Like the Kennedy assassination it's probably a group of conspirators with differing reasons wanting to take Hillary down, The Observer, which is calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary's email handling, may be providing us with clues. In the article.calling for the special prosecutor, there is a curious mention of General Petraeus:

It’s high time for a special prosecutor to be named to conduct a full investigation into Ms. Clinton’s likely commission of multiple felonies, including a conspiracy with Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and possibly others, to violate multiple laws. While the FBI and Department of Justice have willfully ignored Hillary Clinton’s outrageous conduct, they didn’t hesitate a minute to investigate and prosecute former CIA Director and national hero, General Petraeus. He was just tarred, feathered and ridden out of the CIA on a rail for sharing some information (his own notebook) with his biographer who was both in the military and had a top secret clearance. Yet, Petraeus did not have a secret server set up to house his classified and top secret information or digital satellite imagery; he destroyed nothing; and, there was no “leak.” But that’s not all.

It seems an incredible stretch to compare Petraeus activities, including  knowingly providing mounds of classified information to a female that he had a sexual relationship with, to the Hillary brouhaha, where an aide of Hillary, not Hillary, discussed in an email information that was in newspaper reports. But it is noteworthy, the article supports the former military man and former head of the CIA and brings it out in this attack piece on Hillary.

But that is not the only reference in The Observer article to a military man. This was also written:

 As Lt. Col. Ralph Peters had the guts to say last night on FoxNews, “Hillary Clinton is a criminal.” 

Peters is retired from the military, is now a Fox commentator. His last military assignment was with the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. It is somewhat mysterious as to what he did in that position,

To describe Peter's as a war hawk, is understating things. Via Wikipedia, we know that he is a strong supporter of the 2003 invasion and the ongoing war in Iraq. He has claimed that being anti-Israeli was the equivalent of being anti-Semitic..

In a 1997 article "Constant Conflict", he stated: "There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing."

Yup, this is the guy that is at the front of the assault on Hillary, because one of her aide's discussed newspaper articles that may have been classified information somewhere else.

Like I said, there are clues as to who "they," the takedown artists, are.

-RW