In popular literature dating back to the 1930's and possizbly before, the notion of international intrigue has almost always involved elaborate conspiratorially-driven plans conceived and implemented by governments, agencies, or even rogue elements within governments. The list of novels, short stories, plays, and films is too long to mention here.

One in particular comes to mind however: in Ian Fleming's From Russia With Love, the chess master Kronsteen conceives an elaborate plot to shame the British Secret Service and the Government. Later fiction has given us even more intricate plots and the audiences cannot get enough of the machinations of our enemies, our friends, and ourselves. Sales of books and box office of films relevant to this type of material has been in the billions upon billions, but that being said, why does the American Public accept the rather offhand rejection of any plot proffered as a "Nutty Conspiracy Theory" as though it is impossible for such a notion to exist?

Does it seem radical to suggest that elements of Group A, in order to defeat Group B, might pool the resources of all types available to them and go after each other? Really?

There is no question in my mind that there exist many "someones" who are orchestrating many many plots and machinations and we will never know the origins of many issues which have come to pass here in America and elsewhere around the world. This latest move by the Russians is only the one that we are aware of publically at the present time: they are probably 14 steps ahead of us now and may be 17 steps by the time I finish writing this post. Why is it therefore, that Americans often outright refuse the notion that anyone could possibly plot against the government in groups, and regurgitate the lone-nut theories of the Kennedy era?

Some reporter or Paper is gonna break this story because...

The Watergate scandal was pursued by only two mainstream papers at the time: The Post and the Times. Of course the Post was the Vanguard with Woodward (became rich, famous, and prolific as an author and TV guest) and Bernstein (became rich, famous, influential, AND is involved in this story about the guy who wast "inaugurated", as well as having married and divorced Nora Ephron(!))..

The story MADE these men and their careers. By all accounts this is a BIGGER story and will allow whoever breaks and follows it to become the most famous journalist(s) possibly ever. I can't wait...

(The Times' Sy Hersh (among others) investigated and published many remarkable Watergate articles)

Oh yes and one more thing: Mr and Mrs Carl Bernstein:

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQk27qmbz8DM60p6q3T2qIM6yXVNOQmCktHbz4tqzu6gwIFfY68jg

i was told personally by Fmr. Ambassador Joseph Wilson that they lied like this just to "keep in shape".

From the film Con Air:



The poignant line at the end describes my feeling st least three times a day since Election Day.

Carrying Trump's Water on MSNBC right now.

The first is the group of women getting ready to make their way down to DC for the Grand affair: they are at hotels and early morning restaurants and had stopped here rather than stay overnight in the Capitol. I spoke to a group from New England while passing by a hotel who were loaded for bear and ready to make their voices heard.

The second group is that of the women and some men who are already walking around the streets, looking for coffee and breakfast, and getting ready for the march here.

Looks like a nice day...a great day I hope and pray.

not one drop of conciliation or concession.

I'm doing to them what they did to us and President and Mrs. Obama for eight years...

I am uncivil, abusive, and obnoxious: I never fail to point out his hair, his weight, his lies, his failures, her past, her immigration status, her porno shoots, his infidelities, his lack of transparency, his connections to COMMIES, PINKOS, and REDS, his PUSSY GRABBING.

Not for a moment, not for a millisecond do I allow that he may be competent, truth-telling, knowlegeable, moral, ethical, religious, or tolerant and accepting of all races, creeds, and colors.

I am at Defcon 1 and that is for the duration. Two can play this game. Michelle was wrong about one thing: when they go low we need to go lower. This is what the situation warrants.

He gets that lecturing, sanctimonious tone. Starts talking about and denigrating liberal positions and causes.

Make no mistake: the war is on.