by Sam Di Gangi
Conservative Daily Post
Assange has seemed to warn about dark IC plans that see Pence and Clinton talking about Pence as president.
Many are certain that JFK was murdered by those within the Intelligence Community (IC). Some say that they did it themselves, while others say that the IC knew of it, but could not stop it. Lee Harvey Oswald hardly seemed to be the lone gunman and tactical genius that was necessary to do what is credited to him, but it is possible.
For those that find it a bit too unlikely to have happened like that, be prepared. There was news today about Donald Trump and a possible connection between the Intelligence Community and Hillary Clinton that has potential implications too dark to suggest. We’ve covered how Julian Assange, the founder of the (so far) virtually flawless Wikileaks, has warned before that the IC may be out to get Trump.
Now Assange has authored two very cryptic tweets, one saying: “Clinton stated privately this month that she is quietly pushing for a Pence takeover. She stated that Pence is predictable hence defeatable” and the other, nine minutes later, saying, “Two IC officials close to Pence stated privately this month that they are planning on a Pence takeover. Did not state if Pence agrees.”
Clinton stated privately this month that she is quietly pushing for a Pence takeover. She stated that Pence is predictable hence defeatable.
— Defend Assange Campaign (@DefendAssange) March 14, 2017
Before any serious discussion can be had, it needs to be known that “Assange says that Clinton and the IC are planning to murder Trump” is the kind of broad brush painting that we want to avoid. However, it should still be active in our minds. That is the how logic and reason meet a healthy dose of paranoia. It is more than likely that Clinton or members within the IC mean that Trump is going to be impeached or thrown out of office.
All that can be said regarding that is that if Assange, who is living on what some think is borrowed time, thought that such was the case, would he have bothered with the tweet? While he accused no one of anything, it seems reasonable to at least suggest that it is a heads up. A “maybe this is true, Mr. President,” and nothing more, to paraphrase.
Clinton a long list of people who have crossed her or her family and wound up dead.
What is true is that, according to Assange, Clinton said it in “private.” With only 140 characters in a tweet, he chooses each word wisely. As we dissect this, would Clinton say it in private if she meant legal impeachment or the like? That is something that would be shouted loudly at a rally with great vigor if that is what was meant, not something said in private or in hushed tones.
Two IC officials close to Pence stated privately this month that they are planning on a Pence takeover. Did not state if Pence agrees.
— Defend Assange Campaign (@DefendAssange) March 14, 2017
Moving on, she is doing so “quietly.” It is rather difficult to impeach a leader quietly, to say the least. Is she pushing for an overthrow, perhaps some kind of coup de’ tat, Republican or otherwise? History remembers the Munich Putsch that saw Hitler try and take over the government before he was elected legally. He was even sent to prison for the deed. Again, we can only say such things about a woman as speculation until facts come to be, but so far it is not looking good. Clinton has a history as ominous as any in D.C. Removing Trump legally simply would not be done quietly, though nefarious planning may be.
She says that Pence is “predictable and defeatable.” This nugget can be taken in every direction from the reasonable to the tin foil hat club chairman. Is she meaning that Pence can be defeated legally on issues better than Trump can because Pence lacks the kind of support among the people? If so, that is both reasonable and correct. However, how would that happen? Could she mean “defeatable” in another presidential run in 2020, God forbid? For that matter, how has Trump not been predictable when he spoke of what he was going to do for hours each day and so far has done every item on the well read list? Does she mean “pliable?”
Signs from Wikileaks suggest that Trump is wise to question those behind the scenes. His overthrow, or worse, could be in the works from them.
The next tweet is where, to keep the analogy, the tin hat chairman lifts the gavel because depending on how this is seen, Pence could be viewed a possible threat. To this very day, there exists talk about Johnson and JFK, whispers that Johnson knew what was going to unfold. Some even say that Johnson didn’t want it to happen, but knew that if he dared utter a peep it could just as easily be him. Many of the most factual outlines about JFK suggest, hauntingly, that Johnson approved. Now all of this is not even close to saying anything like that about Mr. Pence, who has done nothing to warrant it other than to be VP to a man who many elites want dead.
Still, history keeps us on our toes. It makes us ask questions, like when Judge Scalia dies, for instance, with first reports of a pillow over his face, then of not. We MUST ask such questions when his wife rushes to hush the whole issue. We even ask if the answer is mundane with no conspiracy to be found. No one can cast doubt on Mrs. Scalia, either, but it is still why we ask. Our founders warned us to stay ever vigilant and astute, and as good stewards of the U.S, we must do so.
Wikileaks has a track record showing that Trump is right to worry about who he talks to about what.
If Clinton is talking about this and people close to Pence are also talking about this, then things are not good on Pennsylvania avenue for Mr. Trump. This is true no matter how it was meant or said. Why would people close to the Vice President be talking about this? Clinton perhaps would be due to impeachment prayers, but Pence and his people? If they suspected an impeachment, wouldn’t their duty be to alert Trump, not just give odd looks by the water cooler?
Any talk of “Pence taking over” needs to be talk that is questioned, even more so if it is emanating from the GOP side. JFK, had he lived, was going to expose the banks and the hidden hand that controls us all. The danger was already in place and setting up shop when he took office and was loved for warning the common American about his masters. Perhaps it is just a conspiratorial question, but does that sound the least bit familiar to anyone?