Crazy Conspiracy

This week, the hit Netflix series, House of Cards, premiers for its fifth season. The critically acclaimed series studies a Washington in which every politician is consumed by a quest for power. Corruption is the rule, not the exception. Scandals occur only when they serve the narrative of the most powerful or the whims of the media. Whistle blowers and leakers are eliminated in a variety of different ways, including everything from threats and character assassination to murder. The power of the series is fine acting, writing, and direction coupled with a frightening reality—in House of Cards, art imitates life.

Were a scandal to break that might destroy a well-crafted narrative created by the lead House of Cards character, Frank Underwood (note his initials), his reaction would be immediate and effective: (1) get his lackies in his party and the media to call the rumor a crazy conspiracy; (2) use power and influence with senior management in the media to call off any media people who want to investigate; (3) threaten the leakers using personal information that could destroy them; (4) be sure that any hard evidence validating the scandal is destroyed and irrecoverable; (5) use hidden pressure to get the family of the people harmed by the scandal to disavow the rumors and suggest that 'common decency' should be applied to stop any further comment on the scandal; (6) ensure that the "crazy conspiracy" meme is used whenever anyone, anywhere brings up the subject ... and (7) eliminate anyone who might be able to confirm the rumors and validate the scandal.

Yeah ... but that's all fiction, right?

Now for a real life narrative—The DNC was hacked by the Russians who distributed embarrassing emails via Wikileaks to the general public.

That Russian hack, the Dems claim, contributed to Hillary Clinton's upset loss and became the core argument for the 'Russian Collusion' meme that has occupied the trained hamsters in the main stream media for many months. That led to a series of anonymous leaks reported with a mixture of mild hysteria and outright glee by the NYT and WaPo. The evidence-free leaks implied purposeful top secret disclosures to the Russians (collusion!!) and after the firing of James Comey‚ "obstruction of justice" on the part of Donald Trump. They continue with allegations that a senior Trump aid colluded with the Russian by established back-channel communications. The hamsters at the NYT and WaPo give great credence to the anonymous, unsubstantiated leaks, report them without hesitation, and then draw broad and totally unsubstantiated conclusions as a result. When that fails, they are perfectly comfortable to allow innuendo to take down Trump and his administration.

One May 17th, I posted on a story that calls the Dem's real-life narrative into question.  The May 17th story implied that DNC staffer Seth Rich leaked the DNC emails. Not a single word on the subject has been printed by NYT or WaPo. Not one. Oh, BTW, it looks like Seth Rich was murdered shortly thereafter. There's no story there ... nah. Nothing worthy of an investigation by the journalistic icons, nada. Of course, that's because the whole thing is a nutty conspiracy theory!! Subsequent stories provided additional information, but were rapidly attacked and discredited using Frank Underwood's seven step strategy.

The Seth Rich story is now labelled a "crazy conspiracy" theory but somehow, the Russian collusion story a solid, rational, well-documented narrative worthy of hours and hours and hours of coverage and commentary? Both rely solely on anonymous leaks, both draw broad conclusions from limited information, both use known events as a precursor to develop unsubstantiated conclusions. Yet one is worthy of media attention and the other is not. Hmmm.

The idea that Seth Rich, a DNC staffer, leaked embarrassing emails to Wikileaks and was then murdered by persons unknown is not nearly as crazy and the contention that the now President of the United States was and is colluding with the Russians. Besides,

1. The DNC leak is certainly relevant to the Russian investigation.
2. A Democrat staffer was murdered for no apparent reason—following the Democrats' unhinged conspiracy theories, maybe it was the Russians under the direction of Trump!!!
3. It has a strong bearing on just who was colluding with whom.
4. It implies a cover-up and the NYT and WaPo just love cover-ups.
5. It comes from anonymous sources, but anonymous sources now seem to be the unimpeachable origin for most NYT and WaPo investigative "journalism."

Yet, crickets and more crickets relative to the Seth Rich story, except when the trained hamsters call it a crazy conspiracy. Yes, it's a crazy conspiracy theory that threatens the crazy conspiracy Russian collusion narrative, so silence is the operative strategy.

Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, decided that the Seth Rich story was within his investigative purview and went after it? I doubt it'll happen—too many elite Democrats might become ensnared in the investigation, but it would be popcorn-worthy if it did.

The entire unhinged Russian collusion narrative uses the DNC hack a prima facie evidence of Russian involvement in the election. It was manufactured by Dems to help explain Clinton's loss. But what if it truly wasn't a Russian hack? What if it was a Democratic staffer who did the leaking and was killed as payback?

Damn, this really is starting to sound a lot like a Washington story that you might see on House of Cards. Heh, Frank Underwood (a Democrat, BTW) would be proud.