Tuesday 23rd of April 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

imagine a convention of village idiots...

thanks

Quelle surprise. After more than two years looking for a non-existent needle in an ever-expanding haystack, Chief Hunter of the Needle, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, has finally declared that he hasn’t been able to find it. This ought to come as no surprise, because as we know non-existent needles don’t exist. Except, of course, in the minds of hundreds of foolish Democrat politicians and their dutiful stenographers in the mainstream media, or Global Pravda as it is known on this blog.

The fascinating thing about it all is that it wasn’t hard to grasp that the needle didn’t exist. It was obvious from the start. Here’s what I wrote back in November 2017, almost 18 months before Robert Mueller finally gave up his pointless hunt:

 

Imagine a Convention of Village Idiots holding a never-ending hunt for a non-existent needle in an ever-expanding haystack. Every once in a while one of them finds a twig, or an old sock, or a marble, and with a look of sheer delight on their face they look up and squawk, ‘I’ve found it’. And all the other VIs gather round to marvel at the needle, and the news is published in the press across the country that they’ve got it, and there is much rejoicing. Until that is, someone points out that what they’ve found is not a needle at all, but a twig or an old sock or a marble, and before you know it they’ve quietly put it to one side, and resumed the hunt.

The Convention, which sometimes goes by the name Russiagate, has been going on for more than a year now, and despite its participants claiming on multiple occasions to have found the needle, sadly for them they’ve still to locate it. You might think that after still not finding it after this long, they’d be discouraged enough to give up, go home, and tend to their gardens, or some other such useful endeavour. But not a bit of it. The fact that they keep finding things in the haystack that aren’t needles only convinces them that there must be a needle in there somewhere. And so with a squawk of excitement and a cry of “On with the hunt”, off they go again looking for it with more enthusiasm than ever, ready to unearth yet more non-needles.

What have they actually found? Well, there was the indictment of Paul Manafort. Surely that was a needle, wasn’t it? Well, only in the same way that a needle resembles a brick, the charges against him being utterly unrelated to Russia, but instead about dealings he had in Ukraine years before Donald Trump ever announced he was standing for election. How about the indictment of George Papadopolous by the Mueller inquiry? Well, given that the charge against him is again nothing to do with collusion with Russia, but rather about lying to the FBI, that’s not very needle-like either, is it?

 

Somehow though, supposedly serious and powerful people have believed in the non-existent needle with a zeal that might be commendable if it were ever used to do some actual good. As it is, their evidence-free fanaticism has simply shown them to be on the Dark Side of the Moon, many sandwiches short of a picnic, and certainly an indictment short of collusion. The question is why? Chiefly a couple of reasons:

Firstly, although I have zero time for the present incumbent of the White House, who I consider to be a man-child possessing stratospheric levels of folly, egotism and petty vindictiveness, the one commendable thing about him was that in his campaign, he seemed to be fairly keen on not starting a war with Russia. That seems to me be to be a Good Thing! True, his plan was never any more detailed than repeating the phrase,“I think we can get along” over and over, but for anyone who isn’t keen on nuclear war, it was still preferable to the sentiments of his opponent, Mrs Warmonger. Although she didn’t openly campaign on a promise to start a war with Russia, she might just as well have done so given some of the ideas she was espousing.

But apparently some folks got spooked by what Mr Trump was saying because — well because American exceptionalism and all that. And the only explanation they could come up with for his strange sounding words about dialling down tensions with a nuclear-armed country was that he must be in cahoots with the Kremlin. Obvs! Of course, some of them knew this to be baloney, but said it anyway because they foresaw Mr Trump as a huge threat to their neo-globalist project. Others were just “Useful Idiots”, probably truly believing it and being more than happy to peddle it night after night in the TV studios of Global Pravda. I do wonder that it never seems to occur to such people that if tensions with another nuclear-armed power are not dialled down, they stand as much chance of ending up in a cloud of radioactive ash as “the Deplorables” they seem to despise.

Secondly, those who have zealously hunted in the haystack have done so because they could never reconcile themselves to the fact that their beloved candidate did not attain to what she, and they, assumed to be her birthright. Like Gollum, her precious had been stolen from her, but unlike Gollum — a solitary and friendless creature — the Creature Clinton had a multitude of supporters ready to try to move heaven and earth to get back what was apparently rightfully hers. And so rather than facing up to the fact that she lost because she is perhaps the most odious politician in modern America, they instead justified her loss by concocting the most fantastical tale about how the ring was stolen from her by conniving thieves.

However, not only was the tale not true, but its murky origins actually begin with Mrs Clinton’s attempts to deprive her opponent of the Presidency. In other words, Russiagate is really Clintongate, as I now hope to explain.

It was abundantly clear very early on that the whole collusion claim started with a dossier put together by the (former?) MI6 agent Christopher Steele. Not only this, but it was also clear that the dossier itself was not impartial intelligence, but had been commissioned by the Clinton campaign, which paid Fusion GPS for dirt on Mr Trump. Fusion GPS then farmed it out to a private British intelligence company — Orbis Business Intelligence — which is owned by Christopher Steele. As an aside, Christopher is friends with Pablo, who was friends with Sergei, both of whom lived in Salisbury — but that’s another story for another time!

But it gets even murkier. Not only was the dossier put together at the behest of the Clinton gang, but when it was handed over to US Intelligence, its contents were never even verified by the FBI. Yet that didn’t stop its salacious contents being peddled around Washington to various reporters and politicians, prior to the 2016 election. And it was this that formed the beginnings of the whole idea that Mr Trump was in cahoots with Mr Putin.

The dossier itself, which was released into the public domain in January 2017 by Buzzfeed, is full of unverified gossip. And just recently we found out more about why that was. In one of those inconvenient moments when the truth seeps out — although unfortunately the entire Global Pravda press corps seem to have been out at the time — deposition transcripts from a federal court case, in which Mr Steele and Buzzfeed are being sued by Aleksej Gubarev, who is named in the dossier, reveal that Mr Steele took at least some of the information in the dossier straight from CNN iReports. Furthermore, it was also revealed in those transcripts that Mr Steele didn’t even know that the site he was taking the info from was not in any way verified, but rather included postings by members of the public. CNN themselves called it:

 

a user-generated site. That means the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked, or screened before they post.”

 

When asked in court if he understood that CNN iReports were nothing more than any random individuals’ assertions on the Internet, Steele replied:

 

No, I obviously presume that if it is on a CNN site that it has some kind of CNN status. Albeit that it may be an independent person posting on the site.”

 

The astonishing nature of this needs to be digested slowly, but let me try to summarise it for you.

 

  1. The Hillary Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS for dirt on Donald Trump.
  2. Fusion GPS farmed this out to a private British Intelligence organisation, run by Christopher Steele, who used to lead the Russia desk for MI6.
  3. Mr Steele based at least some of his dossier on “intelligence” taken from a website where anyone can post information.
  4. This dossier then became the basis for the entire two years of absurd accusations against the President of the United States, that he and his campaign actively colluded with a foreign power to steal the presidency.

 

Seems unbelievable, doesn’t it? And yet it’s absolutely true.

There is of course another element of all this, which is the claim that the Russian State hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta. Whilst these were not claims that Robert Mueller was specifically investigating, they do of course play a part in the general theory of Russian meddling and collusion with the Trump campaign to rob Mrs Clinton of her birthright. Yet there is no more truth in these claims than in the collusion claims. As I noted here:

 

“The claims of Russian state involvement in the hacking of the DNC’s and John Podesta’s computers originated from the DNC itself, and from the company they themselves paid to investigate, making the alleged victim — the DNC — the counsel for the prosecution for its own claims. There is the fact that the firm the DNC paid to undertake the investigation — Crowdstrike — is owned by one Dmitri Alperovitch, a Senior Fellow at the rabidly anti-Russian think tank, Atlantic Council, which makes them not exactly what you would call “impartial”. There is the fact that the FBI have never even examined the DNC’s or Mr Podesta’s computers to verify the claims they have made, but have instead relied wholly on the findings of Crowdstrike — the company paid for by the DNC. There is the fact that the FBI has never interviewed the two key witnesses in the whole affair, Britain’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, and Wikileaks’ Julian Assange — both of whom have stated that they know the identity of the individual(s) who leaked (not hacked) the emails.”

 

But what about the “fact” that all 17 US intelligence agencies signed off on the January 6th document claiming that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta computers? Problem with this claim is that it’s not true (I wrote about this here at the time). Quite apart from the fact that that report contained no evidence to back up the claim of hacking (most if it bizarrely focuses on RT), it was signed off by four, not 17 agencies, with the NSA — the all-seeing eye that can track all incoming or outgoing server activity — only being willing to express “moderate confidence” in the claims being made. The disclaimer to that document in Annex B is unintentionally hilarious, stating without a trace of irony:

 

Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”

 

In other words, they don’t have the proof, which of course the NSA would have if there had actually been a hack and not a leak. Draw your own conclusions.

And so the Mueller Inquiry has now followed the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee in being unable to find evidence of collusion. There’s a reason for that. Just as you’re never going to find a non-existent needle in a haystack, no matter how hard you look and no matter how many searches you launch, you’re not going to find non-existent collusion either.

What has shown up, however, is this: A junk dossier, cobbled together by a British spy at the behest of the Clinton Gang who wanted dirt to discredit her opponent, was circulated to journalists prior to the 2016 election, even though its contents were unverified by the FBI, and it was this that then kickstarted a frenzy of folly and lies that have poisoned the atmosphere in the US for over two years, polluted the airwaves, led to impeachment calls based on falsehoods, and made the international situation far more dangerous than it has been than at anytime since 1962.

Heads ought to roll. Those involved in creating these lies (including in the FBI and Department of Justice) ought to face investigation. Prosecutions should follow. But of course none of these things will happen. Instead, the non-existent needle hunters will do one of two things: They’ll either move on, pretend it never happened and continue to be feted as experts on Global Pravda. Or they’ll double down on their claims, perhaps saying that Mueller has been compromised (maybe Putin has videos of him as well?). Perhaps they’ll even find another haystack in which to hunt their non-existent needle.

 

 

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2019/03/29/mueller-finally-gives-up-his-two-yea...

meanwhile, a sham in syria...

The secret services of France and Belgium are plotting to stage a false flag chemical attack in Syria to frame Moscow, the Russian Defense Ministry said. Agents of the two countries are cooperating with terrorist leaders in Idlib.

Militants, occupying large parts of the Syrian province of Idlib are readying a false flag attack involving chemical weaponry, the head of the Russian Centre for Reconciliation in Syria, Major General Viktor Kupchishin said on Friday.

The attack is being prepared in close cooperation between operatives of Belgian and French secret services and terrorist groups, including the rebranded Syrian Al-Qaeda offshoot – Hayyat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS, previously known as Al-Nusra Front). Apart from them, the “pseudo humanitarian,” as the General put it, White Helmets group is also taking part in preparations.

A batch of poisonous gas, believed to be chlorine-based, has been already delivered to a number of villages in the Idlib province. The poison is packed in canisters disguised as oxygen and natural gas tanks, according to the Russian military.

The plotters have discussed the filming of the upcoming false flag attack and are expected to repurpose footage of a recent Russian strike on a drone warehouse in Idlib to “prove” Moscow’s involvement.

While the “actors” are offered some $100 for playing the roles of chemical attack victims, there’s a distinct possibility that the militants will poison people for real to make the video more “lifelike,” the official warned.

It’s not the first time Russia has warned about a false flag attack involving chemical weapons, revealing details about it to the general public. Last September, the Russian military issued a string of warnings of an imminent false flag attack in Idlib, accusing the notorious White Helmets group of being behind it. The attack would be used by the West to launch – again – airstrikes on Syrian government troops, according to Moscow. The incident, however, never happened – probably since it was exposed beforehand.

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/455104-syria-france-belgium-chemical-weapon/

 

On this one as before, one has to trust the Russian intelligence ahead of the French (remember the Rainbow Warrior) and the Belgian (remember the Congo), all working under the CIA umbrella...

recruiting spies who can't spell...

An apparent CIA poster appealing to Russian speakers to join US intelligence has been derided for failing to reconcile Russian and English grammar and mismatching fonts. The poster allegedly popped up in Washington, DC.

The poster was spotted by Reuters' David Brunnstrom at Foggy Bottom station in Washington, which is home to many government agencies, including the US State Department, the Department of Interior, as well as the George Washington University.

⁦@CIA⁩ recruitment poster in the Metro at Foggy Bottom, home of the State Department and GWU. Headhunting? ⁦@StateDept⁩ pic.twitter.com/MDRg1p3KJq

— David Brunnstrom (@davidbrunnstrom) March 29, 2019

 

The poster bears the CIA emblem and a link to its official website in the right bottom corner and appears to be a recruitment ad aimed at Russian-speaking Americans that comes with a twist: if you don't know Russian, you'll be unable to read it since it is written in a mix of the two languages.

Judging by the ad's contents, the CIA is indeed in dire need of capable Russian speakers, as a glaring mistake has crept into it. Unless, of course, it was intentional and was meant as a trial – it is a spy agency ad, after all. Russian netizens, however, denied the US spooks the benefit of the doubt, and flocked to the comment section to rub in the CIA's blunder.

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/usa/455117-cia-recruitment-poster-error/

 

putin did nothing...

Cartoons from back in early 2016...

 

the mmmm is scared...

 

pumpkins and witches

 

bananas

 

emergency

 


headwinds from ukraine...

While the 2016 presidential race was raging in America, Ukrainian prosecutors ran into some unexpectedly strong headwinds as they pursued an investigation into the activities of a nonprofit in their homeland known as the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC).

The focus on AntAC — whose youthful street activists famously wore “Ukraine F*&k Corruption” T-shirts — was part of a larger probe by Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office into whether $4.4 million in U.S. funds to fight corruption inside the former Soviet republic had been improperly diverted.

The prosecutors soon would learn the resistance they faced was blowing directly from the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, where the Obama administration took the rare step of trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its investigation of both the U.S. aid and the group.

“The investigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center (sic), based on the assistance they have received from us, is similarly misplaced,” then-embassy Charge d’ Affaires George Kent wrote the prosecutor’s office in April 2016 in a letter that also argued U.S. officials had no concerns about how the U.S. aid had been spent.

At the time, the nation’s prosecutor general had just been fired, under pressure from the United States, and a permanent replacement had not been named.

A few months later, Yuri Lutsenko, widely regarded as a hero in the West for spending two years in prison after fighting Russian aggression in his country, was named prosecutor general and invited to meet new U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

Lutsenko told me he was stunned when the ambassador “gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute.” The list included a founder of the AntAC group and two members of Parliament who vocally supported the group’s anti-corruption reform agenda, according to a source directly familiar with the meeting.

It turns out the group that Ukrainian law enforcement was probing was co-funded by the Obama administration and liberal mega-donor George Soros. And it was collaborating with the FBI agents investigating then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s business activities with pro-Russian figures in Ukraine.

The implied message to Ukraine’s prosecutors was clear: Don’t target AntAC in the middle of an America presidential election in which Soros was backing Hillary Clinton to succeed another Soros favorite, Barack Obama, Ukrainian officials said.

“We ran right into a buzzsaw and we got bloodied,” a senior Ukrainian official told me.

Lutsenko suggested the embassy applied pressure because it did not want Americans to see who was being funded with its tax dollars. “At the time, Ms. Ambassador thought our interviews of the Ukrainian citizens, of the Ukrainian civil servants who were frequent visitors in the U.S. Embassy, could cast a shadow on that anti-corruption policy,” he said.

State officials told me privately they wanted Ukraine prosecutors to back off AntAC because they feared the investigation was simply retribution for the group’s high-profile efforts to force anti-corruption reforms inside Ukraine, some of which took authorities and prestige from the Prosecutor General’s Office.

But it was an unusual intervention, the officials acknowledged. “We’re not normally in the business of telling a country’s police force who they can and can’t pursue, unless it involves an American citizen we think is wrongly accused,” one official said.

In the end, no action was taken against AntAC and it remains thriving today. Nonetheless, the anecdote is taking on new significance.

First, it conflicts with the State Department’s official statement last week after Lutsenko first mentioned the do-not-prosecute list. The embassy responded that the claim was a fabrication and a sign that corruption is alive and well inside Ukraine.

But Kent’s letter unequivocally shows the embassy did press Ukrainian prosecutors to back off what normally would be considered an internal law enforcement matter inside a sovereign country. And more than a half-dozen U.S. and Ukrainian sources confirmed to me the AntAC case wasn’t the only one in which American officials exerted pressure on Ukrainian investigators in 2016.

When I asked State to explain the letter and inclusion of the Soros-connected names during the meeting, it demurred. “As a general rule, we don’t read out private diplomatic meetings,” it responded. “Ambassador Yovanovitch represents the President of the United States in Ukraine, and America stands behind her and her statements.”

Second, the AntAC anecdote highlights a little-known fact that the pursuit of foreign corruption has resulted in an unusual alliance between the U.S. government and a political mega-donor.

After the Obama Justice Department launched its Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative a decade ago to prosecute corruption in other countries, the State Department, Justice Department and FBI outsourced some of its work in Ukraine to groups funded by Soros.

The Hungarian-American businessman is one of the largest donors to American liberal causes, a champion of the U.S. kleptocracy crackdown and a man with extensive business interests in Ukraine.

One key U.S. partner was AntAC, which received 59 percent (or $1 million) of its nearly $1.7 million budget since 2012 from U.S. budgets tied to State and Justice, and nearly $290,000 from Soros’s International Renaissance Foundation, according to the group’s donor disclosure records.  

The U.S.-Soros collaboration was visible in Kiev. Several senior Department of Justice (DOJ) officials and FBI agents appeared in pictures as participants or attendees at Soros-sponsored events and conferences.

One attendee was Karen Greenaway, then the FBI supervisor in charge of international fraud cases and one of the lead agents in the Manafort investigation in Ukraine. She attended multiple such events and won glowing praise in a social media post from AntAC’s executive director.

In one event during 2016, Greenaway and Ambassador Yovanovitch participated alongside AntAC’s executive director, Daria Kaleniuk, and Lutsenko was present. The message was clear: The embassy supported AntAC.

The FBI confirmed Greenaway’s contacts with the Soros group, saying they were part of her investigative work: “In furtherance of the FBI’s mission and in the course of their duties, FBI employees routinely travel and participated in public forums in an official capacity. At a minimum, all such travel and speaking engagements are authorized by the employee’s direct supervisor and can receive further authorization all the way up to the relevant division head, along with an ethics official determination.”   

Greenaway recently retired, and Soros’s AntAC soon after announced she was joining its supervisory board.

Internal memos from Soros’s umbrella charity organization, Open Society Foundations, describe a concerted strategy of creating friendships inside key government agencies such as State, DOJ and the FBI that can be leveraged inside the countries Soros was targeting for anti-corruption activism.

“We have broadly recognized the importance of developing supportive constituencies in order to make headway in tightening the global web of anti-corruption accountability,” a Feb. 21, 2014, memo states. “We first conceived of this in terms of fostering and helping to build a political environment favorable to high-level anti-corruption cases.”

That same memo shows Soros’s organization wanted to make Ukraine a top priority, starting in 2014, and planned to use the Anti-Corruption Action Centre as its lead.

“Ukraine: Behind the scenes advice and support to Ukrainian partner Anti-Corruption Action Centre’s efforts to generate corruption litigation in Europe and the U.S. respecting state assets stolen by senior Ukrainian leaders,” the memo states.

The memo included a chart of Ukrainians the Soros team wanted to have pursued, including some with ties to Manafort.

Senior U.S. law enforcement officials confirmed to me that the early kleptocracy collaborations inside Ukraine led to highly visible U.S. actions against the oligarch Dmitri Firtash, a major target of the Soros group, and Manafort. Firtash is now represented by former Hillary Clinton lawyer Lanny Davis and former U.S. Attorney Dan Webb.

Documents posted online by Open Society Foundations show that after U.S. officials scored some early successes in corruption cases in Ukraine, such as asset forfeitures, AntAC requested to receive some of the seized money.

“Ukrainian NGO Anticorruption Action Centre (AntAC) petitioned the United States Justice Department on behalf of Ukrainian civil society to dedicate the nearly $3 million in forfeited and seized assets allegedly laundered by former Ukrainian Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko, to creating an anti-corruption training facility,” a 2015 foundation document stated.

Spokespersons for AntAC and Open Society Foundations did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

 

Read more:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435906-us-embassy-pressed-ukraine-t...

meanwhile, stoking the ashes of a dead fire...

WASHINGTON — Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.

At stake in the dispute — the first evidence of tension between Mr. Barr and the special counsel’s office — is who shapes the public’s initial understanding of one of the most consequential government investigations in American history. Some members of Mr. Mueller’s team are concerned that, because Mr. Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel’s findings, Americans’ views will have hardened before the investigation’s conclusions become public.

Mr. Barr has said he will move quickly to release the nearly 400-page report but needs time to scrub out confidential information. The special counsel’s investigators had already written multiple summaries of the report, and some team members believe that Mr. Barr should have included more of their material in the four-page letter he wrote on March 24 laying out their main conclusions, according to government officials familiar with the investigation. Mr. Barr only briefly cited the special counsel’s work in his letter.

However, the special counsel’s office never asked Mr. Barr to release the summaries soon after he received the report, a person familiar with the investigation said. And the Justice Department quickly determined that the summaries contain sensitive information, like classified material, secret grand-jury testimony and information related to current federal investigations that must remain confidential, according to two government officials.



Mr. Barr was also wary of departing from Justice Department practice not to disclose derogatory details in closing an investigation, according to two government officials familiar with Mr. Barr’s thinking. They pointed to the decision by James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, to harshly criticize Hillary Clinton in 2016 while announcing that he was recommending no charges in the inquiry into her email practices.



The officials and others interviewed declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel’s investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging for the president than Mr. Barr explained, although the report is believed to examine Mr. Trump’s efforts to thwart the investigation. It was unclear how much discussion Mr. Mueller and his investigators had with senior Justice Department officials about how their findings would be made public. It was also unclear how widespread the vexation is among the special counsel team, which included 19 lawyers, about 40 F.B.I. agents and other personnel.


At the same time, Mr. Barr and his advisers have expressed their own frustrations about Mr. Mueller and his team. Mr. Barr and other Justice Department officials believe the special counsel’s investigators fell short of their task by declining to decide whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed the inquiry, according to the two government officials. After Mr. Mueller made no judgment on the obstruction matter, Mr. Barr stepped in to declare that he himself had cleared Mr. Trump of wrongdoing.

Representatives for the Justice Department and the special counsel declined to comment on Wednesday on views inside both Mr. Mueller’s office and the Justice Department. They pointed to departmental regulations requiring Mr. Mueller to file a confidential report to the attorney general detailing prosecution decisions and to Mr. Barr’s separate vow to send a redacted version of that report to Congress. Under the regulations, Mr. Barr can publicly release as much of the document as he deems appropriate.

 

Read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/william-barr-mueller-report.html?

 

 

Note: the special counsel team, which "included 19 lawyers, about 40 F.B.I. agents and other personnel", were so unbiased that they wanted Trump's balls for breakfast. 

 

Please also note that no Russian, no Putin interfered with the demise of Hillary Clinton, who, according to some astute pundits, shot herself in the foot while she "was leading the race".

 

The choice of President for the Americans was a wicked one in 2016. The Dumbdumb got ahead. The first woman President got cooked. Get a life.

 

Actually, choosing a President for the USA has always been a wicked choice and the worse candidate usually wins. Howzat? Simple, the candidates all are as bad as the others and elections depends on the numbers of inflated balloons at the "conventions" and on how many people are tossing a coin before voting. Soon, the contest will be a beauty pageant: the best looking arse, the dumbest answer to serious questions, and projecting boobs will become essential.

 

 

This is democracy... or dumbocracy, whatever you think of it.

 

 

Read from top.