Is the System Rigged? Depends on Who You Ask


chicagotj.orj rigged system


Late Apple founder Steve Jobs used to employ what his biographer Walter Isaacson called, “a Reality Distortion Field.” Whether or not it was an actual phenomena of physics must wait for another conversation. Issacson said that Steve Jobs had such a profound way of speaking and expressing presence on stage, that people were mesmerized, almost hypnotized.

He described this field as the ability of Jobs to,” Spin his own version of reality, and make you believe it; the ‘reality distortion field’ of lies and delusions; the veering between manipulative charm and cold betrayal; the bullying rages, profanity and weeping”.

Steve Jobs wasn’t alone in this regard or this effect.

It appears that as we near 2017, many individuals and groups operate from a radically different set of rules regarding reality. Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has a different phrase for this effect. He’s taken to saying what we’ve all sometimes thought: the system is rigged, fixed towards the benefit of those who own the most and fear the least (though by definition, that also includes Trump).

The idea that our lives and what we experience may not be random and anecdotal,  but may actually be deliberately orchestrated by other people, and that we are in the dark regarding these machinations, is hard for the mind to accept. We resist this notion by writing off those who say such things, categorizing them as paranoid and prone to conspiracism.

We are hammered with the ‘truth’ that the official narrative of any given event has happened exactly as it was reported, and if you don’t believe the official report, then you ought not be listened to. Nobody likes the person who, waving their arms madly in the street, screeches that the sky is falling.

Yet what if this person isn’t crazy after all, merely informed?

Dominating the news is the recent announcement by FBI Director James Comey that his Bureau is not going to recommend charges towards Democratic Presumptive nominee Hilary Clinton, in regards to the use of a personal email system while she was Secretary of State. Is this a good thing, a bad thing, or merely a thing that has been rigged?

Comey stated during his remarks regarding the investigation into Clinton’s emails that:

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way,or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

He later goes on:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.

There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s  position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.


That phrase “any reasonable person” is very important from a legal point of view. The legal dictionary located at Law.com defines the legal term negligence as:

  1. failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence is accidental as distinguished from “intentional torts” (assault or trespass, for example) or from crimes, but a crime can also constitute negligence, such as reckless driving. Negligence can result in all types of accidents causing physical and/or property damage, but can also include business errors and miscalculations, such as a sloppy land survey.

Comey is very clear and consistent when he says repeatedly that Hilary Clinton, along with her staff at the time she was secretary of state, was extremely careless and negligent. That is exactly what the law defines as negligence: failure to exercise the care towards others (careless) which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances.

Comey again:

Even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. 

To add the finishing touch on the case of legal negligence, Comey adds:

“…we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account”.

The case seems fairly cut and dry. By the very legal definition, and by the director of the FBI’s personal account, Hilary broke the law. Hilary Clinton is a lawyer, is married to a former US President, and was Secretary of State for four years. If she is anything, she is able to be both reasonable and prudent. She chose to act in neither of those ways in this case. Guess we’ll be seeing Hilary Clinton sitting next to Rod Blagojevich one day soon, and certainly not in the Oval office come January 2017.

Only not at all. We are now entering the Clinton Reality Distortion Field. 

Negligence is not an affirmative defense, unless you are a Clinton.

Read the next lines, direct quotes from James Comey, very carefully:

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.

But that is not what we are deciding now.”
No reasonable prosecutor? This is a strategy to subtly suggest that the very thought of indicting or prosecuting Hilary Clinton is unreasonable and political suicide. If anything, the evidence is utterly plain and damning for Clinton. Yet Comey states that no attorney worth his or her salt would even bother.
See how the second statement regarding prior cases paints a picture in your mind? And which case do these “reasonable, logical and fair” descriptions remind you of?
That’s right, it’s Edward Snowden. The whistle blower who blew the lid on the illegal monitoring of American citizens by the NSA. This is what he tweeted when he heard the news:

Distortion field: DETECTED

This second statement by Comey is designed to preemptively strike down the arguments and protests of  “reasonable” people, who will at once realize that this is a double standard. It’s meant for us to think, “Yes Hilary broke the law, but not like that one guy did.”  Involuntary manslaughter exists as a crime because the law recognizes that accidents due to negligence do occur. Guess what–it’s still murder and still punishable. Negligence is not an affirmative defense, unless you are a Clinton.

Snowden quote
The third statement says it all. While other people have been and will be prosecuted for breaking the law as Clinton has, they can’t touch Hilary. Comey is quietly speaking to us in code, silently mouthing as a hostage would, “I’d like to help out and do what’s right here, but my hands have been tied for a long time now”.
Clinton is already stumping with President Barack Obama, and although the FBI Director will be reporting to Congress on this investigation later this week, Hilary Clinton will be recognized as the DNC candidate, she will debate Donald Trump, and it has already been decided if she will be President or not. While I am certain that Trump will remind us again and again about the email scandal, and Clinton will reiterate over and over that she was cleared of that, the American people will forget any law was broken. The Bubble blocks out free thought, rationality and volition. It is so powerful, the deception so brazen, that no attempt is made to even hide it. Want to see evidence that we are being lied to and deceived every day? Consider:

  • After 7 years and 2.6 million words, it has now been determined via inquiry that Britain’s decision to invade Iraq was based on flawed intelligence and had been launched before diplomatic options were exhausted.
  • Hacked adult website Ashley Madison admitted on the July 4th that many of its female members are actually chat-bots masquerading as real women.

 ….ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

The year draws to a close. The Chicago Thinkers Journal implores you to think differently, with opened eyes and solidarity to truth.

What do you think about all of this malarkey that we are shovel-fed every day? Join the conversation in the comments.