For Conspiracy Theorists Only – Could Dallas be…?

I was discussing the Clinton email travesty with my colleague Thursday afternoon and told him, feeling perfectly assured “The Clinton’s have a way of manipulating the press, so I’ll bet you a dollar a major incident of somekind will occur either tonight or tomorrow to take the focus off of Hillary’s investigation.”

The next day the headlines were horrendous – 5 police murdered in Dallas.

According to conspiracy theorists, way too many people have ‘conveniently’ died around the Clintons, from accidents, suicide or mysterious circumstances. From Vince Foster in 1993 to Suzanne Coleman who committed “suicide” in 1977 by shooting herself in the back of the head (claimed to be 7 months pregant with Bill Clinton’s child), to the death of John Ashe three weeks ago the day before he is set to testify. All of this has been outlined by Conspiracy website What Really Happened a total off 46 suspicious deaths have occurred related to the Clinton’s over the past three decades.

Normally I would not soil the pages of the Punching Bag Post with conspiracy theory material, no matter how compelling. By definition conspiracy theories are unprovable, despite any obvious patterns one might see.

But let’s just look at the most recent events.

Former U.N. President of the General Assembly John Ashe was all set to testify in an FBI investigation (the next day!) for accepting and facilitating bribery involving Ng Lap Seng, a close friend to the Clinton’s and major Clinton Foundation donor. He died. Apparently he was lifting weights and the barbell fell on his throat and strangled him. Sound a bit fishy? Quite fortunate for Mrs. Clinton and her major donor.

And of course, as played out in the press, FBI Director Comey proceeded to describe crimes that fit exactly with certain statues and should have gotten Hillary ten years in jail. And yet he recommended no prosecution because he said there was no “intent.” The statute covering this doesn’t require intent, gross negligence gets you jail time.

The week before the speech, before Mrs. Clinton’s final FBI questioning and supposedly before the investigation was released to the Justice Department, some very strange events occurred. In the media, Hillary praises Attorney General Lynch and says she will likely continue as Attorney General in a Clinton Administration. Then a mysterious meeting occurs between Lynch and Bill Clinton where they exchange “pleasantries” for 30 minutes. Then Lynch announces she will abide by the FBI’s recommendations. Then Director Comey announces, to everyone’s shock, no charges will be filed. Perfecty executed in my opinion.

Is the press “in the tank” for Hillary?

The press seems to miss that in the Benghazi report, Hillary lied about the cause of the attack to cover up the fact that Obama’s terrorist policies were failing. Two months before Obama’s re-election in a close race (decided by less than 4%).

The press seems to not want to cover all of the lies Hillary told during the investigation. It seems to accept Comey’s “double think” statements that describe a crime but state there is no crime.

I’m not saying the press has been bought off. But their love and tolerance for the Obama’s and the Clinton’s allows them to get away with almost anything.

How did the Dallas killings come about?

So in light of the recent and long term history of suspicious events, and in light of the obvious corruption and media bias. Is it out of the realm of possibility the Dallas event was not the work of a “lone gunman”? Something as massively tragic as Dallas, perfectly timed to interrupt an unfavorable news cycle? What happend to the “two shooters” initially reported by the Dallas police?

How would a large and modern Dallas police department mistake one shooter for two? Apparently shots were observed coming from multiple angles and officers on the ground made the judgement there were two shooters (other reports speculated three).

And now there is only a “lone gunman.”

And now peope are focused on this new major tragedy and less focused on Hillary’s crimes and corruptions.

Could it be that was the goal??

A conspiracy theorist might think a call could have been placed to a friendly BLM leader, who just happened to know some bitter, jaded radicals who were looking for an excuse to get into a fight with their own special skills. Perhaps a “rah rah” speech described a sense off history and the beginnings of a revolution, something worth dying for. Perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars trading hands might have greased the skids a bit.

Of course, no sane person would believe this. Would they?