RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Parry writes: "Hillary Clinton's campaign is engaging in over-the-top Russia-bashing and guilt-by-association tying Donald Trump to the Kremlin, a McCarthyism that previously has been used on Democrats, including Bill Clinton."

Hillary Clinton. (photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Andrew Harnik/AP)


Hillary Clinton's Turn to McCarthyism

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

10 August 16

 

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is engaging in over-the-top Russia-bashing and guilt-by-association tying Donald Trump to the Kremlin, a McCarthyism that previously has been used on Democrats, including Bill Clinton, writes Robert Parry.

he irony of Hillary Clinton’s campaign impugning the patriotism of Donald Trump and others who object to a new Cold War with Russia is that President George H.W. Bush employed similar smear tactics against Bill Clinton in 1992 by suggesting that the Arkansas governor was a Kremlin mole.

Back then, Bill Clinton countered that smear by accusing the elder President Bush of stooping to tactics reminiscent of Sen. Joe McCarthy, the infamous Red-baiter from the 1950s. But today’s Democrats apparently feel little shame in whipping up an anti-Russian hysteria and then using it to discredit Trump and other Americans who won’t join this latest “group think.”

As the 1992 campaign entered its final weeks, Bush – a much more ruthless political operative than his elder-statesman image of today would suggest – unleashed his subordinates to dig up whatever dirt they could to impugn Bill Clinton’s loyalty to his country.

Some of Bush’s political appointees rifled through Clinton’s passport file looking for an apocryphal letter from his student days in which Clinton supposedly sought to renounce his citizenship. They also looked for derogatory information about his student trips to the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia.

The assault on Clinton’s patriotism moved into high gear on the night of Sept. 30, 1992, when Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Tamposi – under pressure from the White House – ordered three aides to pore through Clinton’s passport files at the National Archives in Suitland, Maryland.

Though no letter renouncing his citizenship was found, Tamposi still injected the suspicions into the campaign by citing a small tear in the corner of Clinton’s passport application as evidence that someone might have tampered with the file, presumably to remove the supposed letter. She fashioned that speculation into a criminal referral to the FBI.

Within hours, someone from the Bush camp leaked word about the confidential FBI investigation to reporters at Newsweek magazine. The Newsweek story about the tampering investigation hit the newsstands on Oct. 4, 1992. The article suggested that a Clinton backer might have removed incriminating material from Clinton’s passport file, precisely the spin that the Bush people wanted.

Immediately, President George H.W. Bush took to the offensive, using the press frenzy over the criminal referral to attack Clinton’s patriotism on a variety of fronts, including his student trip to the Soviet Union in 1970.

Bush allies put out another suspicion, that Clinton might have been a KGB “agent of influence.” Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times headlined that allegation on Oct. 5, 1992, a story that attracted President Bush’s personal interest.

“Now there are stories that Clinton … may have gone to Moscow as [a] guest of the KGB,” Bush wrote in his diary that day.

Democratic Suspicions

With his patriotism challenged, Clinton saw his once-formidable lead shrink. Panic spread through the Clinton campaign. Indeed, the suspicions about Bill Clinton’s patriotism might have doomed his election, except that Spencer Oliver, then chief counsel on the Democratic-controlled House International Affairs Committee, suspected a dirty trick.

“I said you can’t go into someone’s passport file,” Oliver told me in a later interview. “That’s a violation of the law, only in pursuit of a criminal indictment or something. But without his permission, you can’t examine his passport file. It’s a violation of the Privacy Act.”

After consulting with House committee chairman Dante Fascell, D-Florida, and a colleague on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Oliver dispatched a couple of investigators to the Archives warehouse in Suitland. The brief congressional check discovered that State Department political appointees had gone to the Archives at night to search through Clinton’s records and those of his mother.

Oliver’s assistants also found that the administration’s tampering allegation rested on a very weak premise, the slight tear in the passport application. The circumstances of the late-night search soon found their way into an article in The Washington Post, causing embarrassment to the Bush campaign.

Yet still sensing that the loyalty theme could hurt Clinton, President Bush kept stoking the fire. On CNN’s “Larry King Live” on Oct. 7, 1992, Bush suggested anew that there was something sinister about a possible Clinton friend allegedly tampering with Clinton’s passport file.

“Why in the world would anybody want to tamper with his files, you know, to support the man?” Bush wondered before a national TV audience. “I mean, I don’t understand that. What would exonerate him – put it that way – in the files?” The next day, in his diary, Bush ruminated suspiciously about Clinton’s Moscow trip: “All kinds of rumors as to who his hosts were in Russia, something he can’t remember anything about.”

But the GOP attack on Clinton’s loyalty prompted some Democrats to liken Bush to Sen. Joe McCarthy, who built a political career in the early days of the Cold War challenging people’s loyalties without offering proof.

On Oct. 9, the FBI further complicated Bush’s strategy by rejecting the criminal referral. The FBI concluded that there was no evidence that anyone had removed anything from Clinton’s passport file.

At that point, Bush began backpedaling: “If he’s told all there is to tell on Moscow, fine,” Bush said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I’m not suggesting that there’s anything unpatriotic about that. A lot of people went to Moscow, and so that’s the end of that one.”

Not Really

But documents that I obtained years later at the Archives revealed that privately Bush was not so ready to surrender the disloyalty theme. The day before the first presidential debate on Oct. 11, 1992, Bush prepped himself with one-liners designed to spotlight doubts about Clinton’s loyalty if an opening presented itself.

“It’s hard to visit foreign countries with a torn-up passport,” read one of the scripted lines. Another zinger read: “Contrary to what the Governor’s been saying, most young men his age did not try to duck the draft. … A few did go to Canada. A couple went to England. Only one I know went to Russia.”

If Clinton had criticized Bush’s use of a Houston hotel room as a legal residence, Bush was ready to hit back with another Russian reference: “Where is your legal residence, Little Rock or Leningrad?”

But the Oct. 11 presidential debate – which also involved Reform Party candidate Ross Perot – did not go as Bush had hoped. Bush did raise the loyalty issue in response to an early question about character, but the incumbent’s message was lost in a cascade of inarticulate sentence fragments.

“I said something the other day where I was accused of being like Joe McCarthy because I question – I’ll put it this way, I think it’s wrong to demonstrate against your own country or organize demonstrations against your own country in foreign soil,” Bush said.

“I just think it’s wrong. I – that – maybe – they say, ‘well, it was a youthful indiscretion.’ I was 19 or 20 flying off an aircraft carrier and that shaped me to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and – I’m sorry but demonstrating – it’s not a question of patriotism, it’s a question of character and judgment.”

Clinton countered by challenging Bush directly. “You have questioned my patriotism,” the Democrat shot back.

Clinton then unloaded his own zinger: “When Joe McCarthy went around this country attacking people’s patriotism, he was wrong. He was wrong, and a senator from Connecticut stood up to him, named Prescott Bush. Your father was right to stand up to Joe McCarthy. You were wrong to attack my patriotism.”

Many observers rated Clinton’s negative comparison of Bush to his father as Bush’s worst moment in the debate. An unsettled Bush didn’t regain the initiative for the remainder of the evening.

Czech-ing on Bill

Still, the Republicans didn’t give up on the idea of smearing Clinton by highlighting his association with college friends in the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, both communist countries in 1970.

Another GOP pre-election ploy was to have Czech newspapers run stories about the communist affiliations of Clinton’s hosts – and then try to blow back those stories to the U.S. news media. Three Czech papers carried such stories on Oct. 24, 1992. The headline in the Cesky Denik newspaper read: “Bill Was With Communists.”

However, without today’s Internet to spread the word and with the right-wing U.S. news media not nearly as large as it is today – Fox News didn’t launch until 1996 – the Czech stories didn’t get the attention that some in the Bush campaign had hoped.

More than a year into Clinton’s presidency, in January 1994, the Czech news media reported that the Czech secret police, the Federal Security and Information Service (FBIS), had collaborated with the Bush reelection campaign to dig up dirt on Clinton’s student trip to Prague. The centrist newspaper Mlada Fronta Dnes reported that during the 1992 campaign, FBIS gave the Republicans internal data about Clinton’s Moscow-Prague trips and supplied background material about Clinton’s “connections” inside Czechoslovakia.

In fall 1992, the Bush administration’s nighttime search of Clinton’s passport file had other repercussions. The State Department’s inspector general sought a special prosecutor investigation for a scandal that became known as Passportgate, which wasn’t resolved until after Bush lost to Clinton.

In the end, George H.W. Bush escaped any legal consequences from the passport gambit in large part because a Republican attorney, Joseph diGenova, was named to serve as special prosecutor. DiGenova’s investigation cleared Bush and his administration of any wrongdoing, saying the probe “found no evidence that President Bush was involved in this matter.”

FBI documents that I reviewed at the Archives, however, presented a more complicated picture. Speaking to diGenova and his investigators in fall 1993, former President George H.W. Bush said he had encouraged then-White House chief of staff James Baker and other aides to investigate Clinton and to make sure the information got out.

“Although he [Bush] did not recall tasking Baker to research any particular matter, he may have asked why the campaign did not know more about Clinton’s demonstrating,” said the FBI interview report, dated Oct. 23, 1993.

“The President [Bush] advised that … he probably would have said, ‘Hooray, somebody’s going to finally do something about this.’ If he had learned that the Washington Times was planning to publish an article, he would have said, ‘That’s good, it’s about time.’ …

“Based on his ‘depth of feeling’ on this issue, President Bush responded to a hypothetical question that he would have recommended getting the truth out if it were legal,” the FBI wrote in summarizing Bush’s statements. “The President added that he would not have been concerned over the legality of the issue but just the facts and what was in the files.”

Bush also said he understood how his impassioned comments about Clinton’s loyalty might have led some members of his staff to conclude that he had “a one-track mind” on the issue. He also expressed disappointment that the Clinton passport search uncovered so little.

“The President described himself as being indignant over the fact that the campaign did not find out what Clinton was doing” as a student studying abroad, the FBI report said.

Bush’s comments seem to suggest that he had pushed his subordinates into a violation of Clinton’s privacy rights. But diGenova, who had worked for the Reagan-Bush Justice Department, already had signaled to Bush that the probe was going nowhere.

At the start of the Oct. 23, 1993, interview, which took place at Bush’s office in Houston, diGenova assured Bush that the investigation’s staff lawyers were “all seasoned prof[essional] prosecutors who know what a real crime looks like,” according to FBI notes of the meeting. “[This is] not a gen[eral] probe of pol[itics] in Amer[ica] or dirty tricks, etc., or a general license to rummage in people’s personal lives.”

As the interview ended, two of diGenova’s assistants – Lisa Rich and Laura Laughlin – asked Bush for autographs, according to the FBI’s notes on the meeting. [For the fullest account of the 1992 Passportgate case, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

Red-baiting Tactics

But the ugly history of Red-baiting American citizens, including Bill Clinton, has not deterred Hillary Clinton and her Democratic backers from using similar tactics. In the hard-fought 2008 campaign against Barack Obama, then-Sen. Clinton sought to discredit Obama with McCarthy-style guilt by association.

In an April 16, 2008, debate, Hillary Clinton pounced when her husband’s former adviser, George Stephanopoulos, asked one of her campaign’s long-plotted attack lines – raising a tenuous association between Obama and an aging Vietnam-era radical William Ayers.

In his role as an ABC News debate moderator, Stephanopoulos — and Clinton — also injected a false suggestion that Ayers had either hailed the 9/11 attacks or had used the occasion as a grotesque opportunity to call for more bombings.

(In reality, an earlier interview about Ayers’s memoir was coincidently published by the New York Times in its Sept. 11, 2001, edition, which went to press on Sept. 10, before the attacks. But Stephanopoulos and Clinton left the impression with the public that Ayers’s comments represented a ghoulish reaction to the 9/11 attacks.)

In another guilt-by-association moment, Hillary Clinton linked Obama, via his former church pastor Jeremiah Wright, to Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan and a Hamas representative who had been allowed to publish an essay in the church’s newsletter.

“You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people’s minds,” Clinton said. “And so this is a legitimate area, as everything is when we run for office, for people to be exploring and trying to find answers.”

Now, Clinton’s 2016 campaign is back wallowing in similar muck, both hyping animosity toward Russia and President Vladimir Putin – and portraying Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump as some kind of Manchurian candidate secretly under the control of the Kremlin.

While lacking any verifiable proof, Clinton’s campaign and its allied mainstream media have blamed Russian intelligence for hacking into the Democratic National Committee’s emails and then publicizing them through Wikileaks. This conspiracy theory holds that Putin is trying to influence the U.S. election to put his secret agent, Donald Trump, into the White House.

The parallels to George H.W. Bush’s 1992 smear of Bill Clinton are striking. In both cases, fairly innocuous activities – whether Clinton’s student trip to Moscow in 1970 or Trump’s hosting a beauty pageant there in 2013 – are given a nasty twist with the suggestion that something sinister occurred behind the scenes.

In neither case is any actual evidence presented, just innuendo and suspicion. The burden presumably falls on the victim of the smear to somehow prove his innocence, which, of course, can’t really be done because it’s impossible to prove a negative. It’s like the old tactic of calling someone a child molester and watching the accused flail around trying to remove the stain.

Similar accusations of “Moscow stooge” and “Putin apologist” have been leveled at others of us who have questioned the anti-Russian “group think” pervading Official Washington’s neoconservative-dominated foreign policy establishment and the mainstream news media. But it is noteworthy that the Democrats, who have often been the victim of this sort of smear tactic, are now relishing in its use against a Republican.

The Hillary Clinton campaign might recall the calumnies hurled at Bill Clinton as well as how things ended for Sen. Joe McCarthy after he questioned the loyalty of a young Army lawyer. The bullying senator was famously rebuked by Joseph Welch, the Army’s chief legal representative: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” (McCarthy was ultimately censured by the Senate and died in disgrace.)

As her campaign sinks into its own anti-Russian mud pile of guilt-by-association, Hillary Clinton and her supporters may ask themselves how far are they prepared to go – and whether their ambitions have overwhelmed any “sense of decency.”



Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+75 # RMDC 2016-08-10 14:44
Thanks Robert. The Clintons always learn from their enemies and adopt their strategies. Both the Bushes and Clintons are ruthless politicians, who will stop at nothing in order to win. After all, they are working for investment banks and the weapons industry.

But this is not just about a campaign tactic. There's a real "new" cold war brewing and Clinton and the neo-cons are behind it.
 
 
+58 # guomashi 2016-08-10 20:36
The worst thing of it all is that Yeltsin asked to join NATO in December of 1991.

Bush pere it seems wanted a boogeyman to bludgeon people with.

Russia is not our enemy.
Russia has tried repeatedly in the past 25 years to be our friend.
US has viciously rejected their overtures.

We have no interests in Russia.
We have no interest in the impoverishment of Russia or Russians.

Don't provoke the bear. It won't take kindly to irresponsible behavior in its vicinity.
 
 
+25 # harleysch 2016-08-11 00:48
This is the real issue in the Clinton campaign's McCarthyism against Trump and Putin. While the initial intent of the attack was to change the subject from the DNC's Nixonian dirty tricks campaign against Bernie, it is totally coherent with Hillary's obsessive and dangerous attacks on Putin. Trump's stupid "joke" aside, there is no evidence that Russia and Putin are interfering with the U.S. election campaign.

But there is ample evidence that Hillary is following in Obama's footsteps in consistent provocation against Putin and Russia. As Parry has repeatedly pointed out, the role of Hillary's assistant Secretary of State Nuland, in support of the neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine -- and the subsequent endorsement of Hillary by Nuland's neo-con husband Kagan -- makes clear that Hillary is fully in support of the war party's efforts, which could provoke a nuclear confrontation.

In doing this, she is going far beyond the nasty Red Scare campaign of Joe McCarthy.
 
 
+16 # jdd 2016-08-11 05:50
The depths to which the Obama-Hillary team will sink is reflected in their unabashed support for an Al-Queda takeover of Aleppo, decrying the Syrian-Russian "siege" to liberate that city.
 
 
-28 # lights 2016-08-10 23:12
Parry: This has potential as a non-fiction thriller! Guess since contra story is old you are now getting drama lessons from Mr. Boardman and his dubious history in theatrics! The cold war part - not so believable. Or that one of your main characters - an invader himself is now suddenly being made into a patriarchal hero. The witch and the hero..of course....centu ries long OLD, OLD, even boring theme.
 
 
+10 # Patriot 2016-08-11 00:29
You are dangerously ignorant, little girl. Be sure to engage (whatever) brain (you may have) before operating mouth.
 
 
-15 # lights 2016-08-11 00:51
Oh, sure - okay little girl or boy. I should know better - anyone branding themselves as a so called patriot would be a seriously threatening curmudgeon or maybe even intense dominatrix?

P.S. Being a dominatrix is not sexist. It's okay but only when you get paid for it.
 
 
-14 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-08-11 01:15
Little shit
 
 
-10 # lights 2016-08-11 01:16
:-)
 
 
+15 # economagic 2016-08-11 06:24
Subject: PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS

I am rebooting my campaign to urge people not to reply to trolls. They respond to every message, one of their identifying marks. They distract honest discussants from the topic, and they clutter the thread with vitriol and nonsense, making whatever sense may exist difficult to find for those of us who are trying to learn by exchanging information with honest and reasonable peers.

I see this thread is already absurdly long. I have a life outside of RSN. The trolls are not going away. If people stop encouraging them I WILL go away, and if it continues I will withhold my monetary support.
 
 
+11 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 06:41
":-)"

Disrupting the discussion and provoking anger is exactly what they want.

I don't care if people vote (though I think it would be nice to leave these w@nkers sitting at a big fat ZERO), but engaging them is fruitless and distracting.

Has anyone EVER enlightened lights or rocback? Is there EVER any substantive content? They are not here to contribute or to learn, only to disrupt us.

Please do us all a favor and IGNORE them.
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 14:31
Just noticed rocback has posted a few things. PLEASE ignore him. Let's make him think he's invisible. That would be SO FUN.
 
 
+1 # kundrol 2016-08-12 14:11
Thanks Lib!
 
 
+1 # Billsy 2016-08-13 12:47
Well said "librarian". I would also advocate that the act of ignoring the trolls extends to not even giving them a thumbs down response. Their neurotic little minds take those down votes as a badge of courage. As they've never swayed popular opinion in this forum there is no further need to even bother to read what they post.
 
 
-9 # lights 2016-08-11 11:37
Stop trying to "control" the world economagic. you'll feel better.
 
 
+2 # kundrol 2016-08-12 14:10
Thank you econ. I think you meant 'if people DON"T stop encouraging them' I do have to just give up reading these comments quite often because of the troll infestation. Please stop feeding them! Don't argue, don't even read their posts, and don't bother to red them, as they probably get an extra bonus on their paycheck for extra reds. They are trying to shut down RSN and will succeed if we don't stop feeding them.
 
 
+1 # librarian1984 2016-08-12 16:14
It is so much more pleasant to read through the comments without even reading them.

I am looking through some new articles and noticing a decided drop in responses. I LOVE IT! Good job!

Life is too short to waste on trolls :-D
 
 
-5 # Robbee 2016-08-11 08:00
Quoting Patriot:
You are dangerously ignorant, little girl. Be sure to engage (whatever) brain (you may have) before operating mouth.

- "little girl"? - is that the best you got? - ad hominem attack on little girls? - in this country women do not grow up to be as tall - on average - as men

patriotism is the last refuge of scounderls
 
 
-10 # revhen 2016-08-11 08:10
These attacks remind me so much of how "progressives" some 70+ years ago just loved old Uncle Joe (Stalin) who was at the time engaged in killing off a substantial portion of his country's population. How much our "progressives" today love dear Brother Vladimir (Putin).
 
 
+14 # guomashi 2016-08-11 08:29
Quoting revhen:
These attacks remind me so much of how "progressives" some 70+ years ago just loved old Uncle Joe (Stalin) who was at the time engaged in killing off a substantial portion of his country's population. How much our "progressives" today love dear Brother Vladimir (Putin).


I'll reply with the same question I asked my friends in Russia last year.
"Do you think Yeltsin could have defeated Hitler?"
Even though the 'reevaluation' of Stalin began immediately upon his death in Russia, to the last person everyone agreed that at that time Stalin was what was necessary to save the country.

The US tendency to demonize comes from very very simple minds. Reality is much more complex.

There is no comparison between Putin and Stalin.
 
 
+13 # polfrosch 2016-08-11 10:27
Stalin was not called "Uncle Joe" by "progressives", but a US government who badly needed an ally to effectively fight the nazis on the ground in Europe.

It was not only the progressives who turned a blind eye towards the killing, but the US government as well.

US governments were never reluctant to work with or install murderers as dictators if it fit their interests.

You are definitely throwing stones at the wrong scapegoat.

Putin on the other hand is just another politician tagged as villain by US interests. He might be old school realpolitik, but not worse than that.

Hillary "we came, we saw, he died" Clinton is a different caliber of villain, sold by her pr-machine as first women in office and grandmother. I can´t see much female soft power and wisdom in her record, rather traces of a cold razor blade. Smart and cruel.

Trump is a loose cannon and a disaster waiting to happen. Sanders is not going to happen.

Nothing good will come for planet earth from the USA in the next years.

If you are looking for the current Nr.1 villain on earth you don´t need a telescope or satellite. Reading glasses are sufficient.

http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-biggest-threat-world-peace-america-1525008
 
 
+5 # markovchhaney 2016-08-12 10:24
Stalin was increasingly paranoid and was a monster when it came to dealing with his internal enemies, real and imagined.

He also led the Soviet Union in its valiant resistance to the German war machine, at a cost of about 26,000,000 soldiers and citizens. Without their sacrifice, the Allies would likely have lost the war in Europe. Attack Stalin all you like, but as has been pointed out, a weaker or more incompetent leader likely could not have gotten the country through the war. And that was with all the attacks on USSR by the West during and after WWI and after WWII.
 
 
+2 # polfrosch 2016-08-12 14:08
Correct.

And it shouldn´t be forgotton the nazi-german war against the USSR and other slavic countries was genocidal. The intent was to kill as many as possible (27 million were killed, as you point out) and enslave the rest.

Don´t get me wrong. The collaboration with Stalin was the only way to proceed at that time.

Depicting Stalin as Baloo type nice russian grandpa was propaganda.

And the other collaborations with dictators were definitely not without alternative, like the one with Stalin, but from the "devils chessboard".

So I don´t believe necessity, a good heart and no choice left to be at the bottom of these decisions, but ruthlessness when it comes to national interests.
 
 
+7 # MsAnnaNOLA 2016-08-11 10:28
Which is why I will never vote for Hillary.
 
 
-1 # Caliban 2016-08-13 18:53
You mean that "the Bushes" work for the petroleum interests and the Clintons for the American people, right?
 
 
+6 # Activista 2016-08-10 14:52
" patriotism of Donald Trump and others who object to a new Cold War with Russia "
nationalism/populism of Trump reminds of rhetoric of other dictators in the past.
 
 
-12 # Activista 2016-08-10 14:54
Trump: Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick — if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day. If, if Hillary gets to put her judges — right now we’re tied. You see what’s going on. We’re tied, ’cause Scalia, this was not supposed to happen. Justice Scalia was supposed to be around for ten more years at least, and this is what happens. That was a horrible thing. So now look at it. So Hillary essentially wants to abolish the Second Amendment.
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/08/10/trumps-latest-outrageous-statement-wasnt-a-gaffe-it-was-something-much-worse/?utm_term=.a9c84b01ce41
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 06:49
Yesterday the NYT had a story about HRC's emails. Among staff communications there are those indicating favors from the State Dept. for donations to the Clinton Fdn -- but this second amendment distraction -- which has run its legal course already -- meaning Trump got his 'talking to' -- distracts from the much more important story.

Well at least Trump hasn't used this diversionary tactic before ... oh .. wait ..
 
 
+29 # indian weaver 2016-08-10 15:45
Go ahead, vote for Mrs. Dubya Jr., vote for Joe McCarthy Jr. into the White House, go ahead and vote for Hillary for the White House. This is what you get and what you deserve - the continuing horror show in the most evil house on the planet.
 
 
-18 # lights 2016-08-10 23:22
Of which planet do you live and speak, indian weaver! ?
 
 
+34 # CL38 2016-08-10 16:04
Clinton: “You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people’s minds. And so this is a legitimate area, as everything is when we run for office, for people to be exploring and trying to find answers.”

She certainly doesn't mean election rigging and fraud. Or releasing her Wall Street speeches. Or the incessant policy changes (TPP, fracking, fossil fuels). Or the Clinton Foundation scandal. Or......

Or perhaps, a suspicious death of the lawyer who served warrants on DWS and the DNC for election rigging?
 
 
+10 # grandlakeguy 2016-08-10 17:24
Get ready to look back fondly on the George W Bush years as:
…the good old days.
 
 
-18 # lights 2016-08-10 23:25
grandlake.....O nly you, a callous Republican could imagine a fondness for the man who set this entire planet on fire. And see the humor in it, too. Grand, just grand old man!
 
 
+12 # CL38 2016-08-10 23:48
not familiar with use of irony to mock or convey contempt??
 
 
+9 # Patriot 2016-08-11 00:33
Your persistent ageism is much more revolting than your constant accusations of sexism by all of us who would not have your repugnant, pugnacious Clinton on a platter.

If you cannot be polite to your elders, then be silent.

If you make one more reference to anyone's age but your own, I will ask to have you banned for unpardonable rudness. I am NOT kidding.
 
 
-16 # lights 2016-08-11 01:19
you really are a dominatrix, eh?

And I'm their elder, little girl/boy! And just for the record. Bullies don't scare me and I'm not kidding either!!!
 
 
+16 # CL38 2016-08-11 01:36
I'm witness to the fact that YOU are one of the few bullies on this site, not Patriot.

If you're an elder, you demonstrate virtually no social awareness by referring to someone else as 'old man' or 'little boy/girl'--all meant to put-down and discredit him/her for calling you out on rude, disrespectful behavior--somet hing you do often here.
 
 
-7 # lights 2016-08-11 09:49
CL38 - if you READ and you've often said you do NOT you would see that PATRIOT initially called me the "little girl" with a questionable brain! The He/she PATRIOT then thought she/he could threaten my annihilation in yet another post.

PATRIOT: "You are dangerously ignorant, little girl. Be sure to engage (whatever) brain (you may have) before operating mouth."

PATRIOT: "If you cannot be polite to your elders, then be silent. If you make one more reference to anyone's age but your own, I will ask to have you banned for unpardonable rudness. I am NOT kidding."
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-08-11 16:57
He advised you to stop YOUR disrespectful behavior or he would report you. Given that this is your non-stop modus operendi here for many many months, I would say this is MORE than fair.
 
 
+1 # Billsy 2016-08-13 12:50
Friendly reminder to ignore the trolls. Responses only encourage their continued posts and temperate minded folks are exiting these forums as a result.
 
 
-4 # Robbee 2016-08-11 08:17
Quoting Patriot:
If you cannot be polite to your elders, then be silent.

If you make one more reference to anyone's age but your own, I will ask to have you banned for unpardonable rudness. I am NOT kidding.

- who else sees the irony of bullying during comments on mccarthyism?

patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel
 
 
+2 # kundrol 2016-08-12 14:17
Please don't feed trolls, especially the most virulent of them.
 
 
+16 # CL38 2016-08-10 23:17
Just came across this:

Investigative Team Featuring Award-winning Journalist and Top Statistician Finds Evidence of Machine Tampering in Dem Primaries in TWENTY ONE (21) Primary States they analyzed

ELECTION JUSTICE USA·WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2016

A team headed by award-winning journalist Lulu Fries’dat, statistician Anselmo Sampietro, and professor Fritz Scheuren (100th President of the American Statistical Association) has found irregularities in the overwhelming majority of the twenty-one presidential primary states that they analyzed. Their data indicates, in particular, that the totals reported on the Democratic side in the race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders may not be correct. In state after state, independent examination by two separate analysts found suspect statistical patterns giving Clinton inflated percentages that, in all likelihood, are not fully based on actual votes, and showing Sanders with what appear to be artificially depressed totals.

Their current estimate of the overall difference between the reported totals and the expected statistical pattern is 12.82% of the primary votes. That estimate is based on 11 states where they had 2 analysts independently examine the results with identical findings. The estimate was reported in politico.com. It is a significant difference that could have changed the outcome of the 2016 Democratic presidential primary.

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=934481483345212
 
 
-20 # lights 2016-08-11 00:00
"may not be correct" the key words here Cl38 but you will, of course continue obsessing....ca use that's just what self-destructiv e Republicans do....
 
 
+16 # CL38 2016-08-11 01:13
if by obsessing, you mean remaining observant and researching to find the truth....

What will YOU do if 'may not be correct' proves to be accurate?

Instead of cherry-picking three words to deflect the significance of the article, why not quote the entire section to be accurate? I can help:

"Their data indicates, in particular, that the totals reported on the Democratic side in the race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders may not be correct. In state after state, independent examination by two separate analysts found suspect statistical patterns giving Clinton inflated percentages that, in all likelihood, are not fully based on actual votes, and showing Sanders with what appear to be artificially depressed totals."
 
 
-17 # lights 2016-08-11 01:21
It isn't going to happen CL38! And by the way...does it upset you that Bernie Sanders and Jane just bought a big, grand house? Are you going to accuse him of syphoning money from the campaign coffers?
 
 
+13 # CL38 2016-08-11 01:49
just because you say so? resorting to wishful thinking? i repeatedly caution you: be patient. watch to see what develops. Justice sometimes prevails over corruption and dishonesty.

why are you so invested in avoiding that she may finally be held accountable for election fraud? if evidence showed that Bernie had stolen this election, I would no longer support him. You don't seem to care that she -- as most progressives have long been aware -- probably committed fraud to 'win'.
 
 
-11 # ericlipps 2016-08-11 04:26
Quoting CL38:
just because you say so? resorting to wishful thinking? i repeatedly caution you: be patient. watch to see what develops. Justice sometimes prevails over corruption and dishonesty.

why are you so invested in avoiding that she may finally be held accountable for election fraud? if evidence showed that Bernie had stolen this election, I would no longer support him. You don't seem to care that she -- as most progressives have long been aware -- probably committed fraud to 'win'.

Saying so doesn't make it so. And I'm actually surprised that you said
"probably." What kind of progressive are you if you don't say "certainly"?

As for what you claim you'd have done if Bernie had committed fraud to win--since that's a pure hypothetical, no one can know whether you'd actually have done in such a case.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:00
so no one here has credibility but you, lights and the few other HC defenders??
 
 
-9 # lights 2016-08-11 09:58
Maybe this will help you understand, CL38?

After over 3 DECADES of Republican propaganda and doing their absolute political best to pin something on "The Clinton's" on Hillary Rodham Clinton - AFTER relentless investigations and MILLIONS and MILLIONS of our tax payer dollars wasted - NOTHING HAS EVER COME OF ANY of IT! NOTHING!

AND SO FAR THERE IS NO PROOF THAT SHE COMMITTED VOTER FRAUD!!! But YOU, YOU just have a really big hunch that she did. Or maybe it is no hunch at all - maybe it is just more and more of the Republican propaganda that is relentlessly and intentionally falsely spread to take the DEMS and HRC down!

Is that clear? Does that help everyone put it all in perspective? YOU just WANT IT TO BE TRUE so you spread it around like dung hoping to grow crops. CREDIBILITY after DECADES of it? NONE!

And a LOT of people are SICK of it!
 
 
+5 # CL38 2016-08-11 19:46
This research was carried out independently of EJUSA, but we provided support. Note that this study, conducted by an independent team, corroborates the evidence for machine tampering reported in our own Democracy Lost report.

http://www.electoralsystemincrisis.org/2016-democratic-primary-graphs
 
 
-11 # Caliban 2016-08-11 15:29
"Probably" doesn't cut it, CL38. If there is actual hard evidence of criminal activity (which election tampering is), then there is something to talk about.

Without this (as is the case in the Sanders - Clinton race; ask Bernie), there are only sour grapes and political lies.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-08-13 22:38
Did you watch the videos of ballots with votes for Sanders whited out?

Did you watch the video of a voter's ballot with only Sanders marked being not recognized by several machines, and even after he was given a fresh ballot?

If you care about the truth, please go look at the sites we've provided.

If you don't care, that's fine. But please stop denying such evidence exists.
 
 
# Guest 2016-08-11 01:59
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+14 # CL38 2016-08-11 02:39
Yes, Bernie recently spent $600,000 on a house on the water. Shocking!

Let's look at your favorite 'feminist progressive': Clinton owns a $1.7 million mansion in Chappaqua, NY and a
$5 million mansion on Embassy Row in Washington D.C.
"appointed like an ambassador’s mansion. Mahogany antiques, vibrant paintings and Oriental rugs fill the rooms. French doors open onto an expertly manicured garden and a turquoise swimming pool." The home has 5 bedrooms and 6 baths.
 
 
-9 # lights 2016-08-11 10:05
See, it doesn't bother me that Bernie Sanders bought the house. The man has worked hard in the last 25 years and especially lately. I asked YOU if it bothered YOU because it seems to me there are a whole lot of people here who resent individuals who make money (NO I am NOT talking about Wall Street)

Yes, you also resent Hillary for making money, or living well. She has worked hard all of her life - devoted her life to being of social service! On top of it, she is always so busy being of service to OTHERS that she likely hardly ever gets to enjoy her success or respectable earnings!

But knowing you and others here, your deep seated resentments about people who might make more MONEY - I'm sure you DO NOT WANT Hillary to have even a moment of pleasure with that or ANYTHING!
 
 
+9 # Bryan 2016-08-11 16:13
Every dime the Clintons made has been from selling their political status or selling the influence of their political offices--every singe dime.

I would prefer a candidate who has lived in the real world and made his or her money succeeding in the real world.

We elect politicians to represent the people---they are suppose to be "public servants"---and pubic service to the pubic is not suppose to be a ''money making career'' by using their office to enrich themselves.
 
 
+6 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:02
If Bernie buying a home on the water didn't bother you, why did you bring it up as a criticism??
 
 
-13 # ericlipps 2016-08-11 04:22
Quoting CL38:
if by obsessing, you mean remaining observant and researching to find the truth....

What will YOU do if 'may not be correct' proves to be accurate?

What will YOU do if it doesn't?

Scream "Cover-up!" at the top of your lungs, I suppose.
 
 
-15 # Caliban 2016-08-11 00:46
Empty (i.e. without evidence) accusations of mass election fraud -- the first refuge of poor losers. And I don't mean Senator Bernie Sanders.
 
 
+11 # CL38 2016-08-11 01:32
The evidence is there, according to the article. Did you read it??

It will be interesting to watch hoards of 'poor losers' throwing hissy fits and temper tantrums if the lawsuits prevail, backed by Bernie and the progressive movement.
 
 
-11 # ericlipps 2016-08-11 04:30
Quoting CL38:
The evidence is there, according to the article. Did you read it??

It will be interesting to watch hoards of 'poor losers' throwing hissy fits and temper tantrums if the lawsuits prevail, backed by Bernie and the progressive movement.

So what you're really saying is that Bernie Sanders really won overwhelmingly but somehow, by some corrupt wizardry, no one in a position to do anything about it noticed? But I suppose they're all in on the plot, right?
 
 
-5 # lights 2016-08-11 10:15
Right.....3.7 million MORE votes! And Hillary manipulated them all.

AND votes that people like lib, CL38 and some others here would like to rob "we the people" of.....
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-08-11 16:53
Actually, NY Mayor de Blasio did observe that the voter roll scrubbing in King County NY had been targeted.

But no one in a position to "do anything about" the many examples of different methods of election fraud DID ANYTHING about it.

That's different from no one "noticed."
 
 
+6 # CL38 2016-08-11 18:05
Progressives noticed.

People like you (in the minority here) deny that the MSM, DNC and Clinton conspired to steal the election from Sanders. Why? To maintain the status quo of economic and justice inequality --and international policies reflecting insanity of middle east wars, passage of TPP, continued fracking and fossil fuels..
 
 
+5 # CL38 2016-08-11 18:22
From the BBC:

"Clinton Denies Foundation Ties to State Department"
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37036849
 
 
+5 # CL38 2016-08-11 19:44
"Hillary Clinton's well-heeled backers have opened a new frontier in digital campaigning, one that seems to have been inspired by some of the Internet's worst instincts. Correct the Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton's campaign, is spending some $1 million to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic front-runner."

In effect, the effort aims to spend a large sum of money to increase the amount of trolling that already exists online.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html
 
 
+7 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 06:54
CL, greetings!

I'm sure that's not true. I'm sure all of Hillary's supporters will show decorum and take pride in our judicial system not showing favoritism, and within minutes they'll be ready to .. how do they put it .. get over it and move on.

Hahahahahahalololololhahaha

Not really.
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:05
love it. exposing rampant hypocrisy wherever it exists! thanks, Librarian
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-08-11 18:06
i'm looking forward to the show they'll put on in her 'defense'.
 
 
+8 # CL38 2016-08-11 02:14
and this: if you were a Bernie delegate, please upload videos from inside the Democratic National Convention to:

tiny.cc/WeAreTh eMedia

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cpj2-fZVUAAdeca.jpg
 
 
-6 # lights 2016-08-11 10:18
I don't even check out your links anymore CL38. I reached my personal limit when you tried to make everyone believe that recent FBI RAID in Philadelphia was about Clinton.

The journalist, Spencer said right in the video 'If any of you viewing are JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS that this has anything to do with the election (or Clinton) you would be WRONG in jumping to conclusions and doing so."

But like you usually say 'she is PROBABLY guilty'

Wonder why I and others have resorted to laughing about it? I don't call that bullying. I call it reaching a limit with your wishful thinking, your distortions and dishonesty.
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-08-11 18:01
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, I made no claims about the link. Simply posted it for people to see.
 
 
# Guest 2016-08-11 10:18
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-08-11 10:18
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 11:23
@ CL38

This is fantastic. I hope EJUSA is going to keep pushing this story. Thanks for the update.
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:59
It looks like they will.
 
 
-13 # lights 2016-08-10 23:41
Oh, Cl38 and don't forget those terrible Clintons are personally responsible for the biblical flood, the rise of Hitler, the terrible slaughters carried out by the god of the old testament, the death of John Lennon and surely even your pain medication and numbing shut down, too. I'm serious. Opioid addiction often happens after surgery, sneaks up on the person in the grips of it and severely distorts the opioid addicted sufferers point of view.

But I'm sure you FEEL clear that Hillary Rodham Clinton will go down in history, at least in your personal tell all book, as being responsible for it ALL!"
 
 
+12 # CL38 2016-08-10 23:51
These things take time. My hope is that we uncover more and more of the illegal chicanery she and the DNC so obviously engaged in.

what will you do if this busts wide open??
 
 
-13 # lights 2016-08-11 00:03
What is this - the 99th or 100th Republican accusation that NEVER, absolutely NEVER pans out?? ...but I know Cl38 .....you are a hoping and a prayin' cause you want your revenge... let's just hope the destructive negative emotion doesn't take you down....cause I do so want to love you.
 
 
+19 # Patriot 2016-08-11 00:39
Lights, it isn't Republicans who are accusing the Democrats of election fraud--but DEMOCRATS who were defrauded of their votes.
 
 
+12 # CL38 2016-08-11 01:20
that point deserves a ton of votes up!
 
 
-10 # lights 2016-08-11 01:26
proof?

Hey I even gave you a thumbs up when you asked for "proof?" yourself on another article. But you were in a pretty bad mood then.

The bulk of it was primarily Independents who were either ignorant or not motivated to make a call and find out about the RULES!
 
 
-9 # ericlipps 2016-08-11 04:33
Quoting Patriot:
Lights, it isn't Republicans who are accusing the Democrats of election fraud--but DEMOCRATS who were defrauded of their votes.

No, it's DEMOCRATS whose hero (who only joined the Democratic Party to give himself a credible vehicle for a presidential run)lost, which means there just MUST have been fraud.
 
 
+8 # CL38 2016-08-11 00:51
Read the report before you comment.

Looking for Justice, lights. "We've all come to look for America" ....
 
 
+10 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 06:57
You're wasting your time. Despite your heroic efforts no minds are being changed. They're not even listening to you, only trying to make you angry.
 
 
-6 # lights 2016-08-11 10:28
of course, you lib would think CL38's efforts heroic. Bullying, lies, distortions. Posting links all the time from Republican sources or trying to make people believe some story, like that recent FBI raid in Philadelphia had SOMETHING to do with Clinton when the journalist who posted it said right in the video, 'We have absolutely no evidence that this is about the election (or Clinton) so you would be jumping to conclusions as a viewer if you think this is true.'
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:16
building evidence takes time. if you're unbiased and want justice to prevail, why not show a bit of patience and wait to see what develops??
 
 
-7 # Caliban 2016-08-11 18:24
If you are unbiased you do not assume that the HRC campaign "stole" an election from Bernie Sanders without him noticing.
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:14
Librarian, you're right.

I'm trying a new tactic...for a very limited time only...no more responding with anger,
1. posting info I come across the MSM refuses to publish
2. challenging the hate and fear our McCarthyite friends promote.
3. reverting back to 'ignoring the beast' when I've had enough.
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 18:54
I learned the hard way :-)
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-08-11 21:18
don't we all! I so much appreciate your exhortations not to respond. I'm just about there, again in one, two, three....
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-08-12 16:23
haha

I'm noticing people are really doing it, not responding at all. It's fantastic, really shortens the bad threads.

You can post info to friends and ignore those who will never read or believe it anyway:-)

Wow .. organized progressives! Will wonders never cease lol
 
 
-8 # lights 2016-08-11 10:57
CL38 said: "These things take time. My hope is that we uncover more and more of the illegal chicanery she and the DNC so obviously engaged in."

Like so far it has been 3 DECADES of "time," with one tax payer investigation after the other of Hillary and NOTHING has come of ANY of it! GIVE IT UP! I know you hope for her destruction. Just like the Republican obstructionists who continue to ruthlessly waste this country's time and MONEY!
 
 
+17 # Patriot 2016-08-11 00:38
Odd, but the same exit polls that were as much as 10% at variance from the reported Democratic primary vote, all in Clinton's favor, of course...were dead on regarding the reported Republican vote. It is astonishing, but rather gratifying, that the Republicans, with far greater cause to fudge, let their electorate choose the party's candidate, reougnant though he is to most of the country, while the Democrats, who had a chance to sweep the general election--White House, House & Senate, and many state offices--instea d defrauded their party's electorate of its choice, and stuck us instead with the dishonest, vainglorious, corrupt, idiotic Clinton. Nauseating!
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 06:58
We really are in Bizarro World!
 
 
# Guest 2016-08-11 10:32
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
# Guest 2016-08-11 10:32
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
-7 # lights 2016-08-11 10:32
Not any more odd that so many people here who do their best to influence readers to believe that Bill Clinton negotiated with Donald Trump to run for the Presidency so that Hillary Clinton could win?? All the while TRUMP is calling and accusing Hillary of every lying, nasty thing in the book - much like you PATRIOT above?

Right! That's the way for Trump and Bill to collude and help Hillary win!

By the way, in your own words above - it would be a Republican "fudge" on voting but "corruption" for "idiotic" Hillary and Dems?

Talk about TROLLS! Or LACK of credibility?
 
 
+2 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:17
In today's political environment and corruption, ANYTHING is possible.
 
 
+36 # librarian1984 2016-08-10 19:09
Another worrisome development: an ex-CIA chief (Morrel?) on Charlie Rose has said, quite enthusiasticall y, that we should covertly bomb and kill Iranians and Russians in Syria to "make them pay a price". We should destroy everything around Assad, his plane, helicopters, etc to let him know we can take away the things he values. No regard for innocent life. Very creepy to watch. Totally without conscience.

This is yet another signal that Clinton intends to attack Russia. Most Americans will not pay attention to this. But you can bet Putin knows about it.
 
 
+21 # Radscal 2016-08-10 23:13
Thanks for pointing that out, librarian.

Morrell, who has endorsed HRC and is fishing for a high-level position in the Clinton II Administration seems to have forgotten that Russia and Iran are fighting on OUR SIDE against the terrorists.

Or, most likely, he knows the terrorists ARE our side, and like HRC sees Russians and Iranians as enemies to kill.

After several years, President Obama and HRC-replacement Secretary Kerry finally started acknowledging that NOBODY except the Syrian people should decide whom is their President.

But HRC got "regime changing" Assad put into the Democratic Party Platform.

How often are International War Crimes put into a party platform?

Because HRC's team got a couple more International Crimes placed in regarding Iran.
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 11:30
A 'high level position'. Can you imagine? I wouldn't let this psycho watch my dog.
 
 
-15 # lights 2016-08-11 00:16
Actually I think Morrel is now on Trumps advisory staff because Putin became enraged when Trump filed bankruptcy recently, affecting big losses for Russian banks. Trump had borrowed billions from the Russian banks prior to his run for the Presidency knowing his bank account must look good if he was going to have that much visibility while REALLY building his TRUMP BRAND.

Just off the press. You won't be able to find this news anywhere else but here tonight. :-)
 
 
+7 # eduardoben 2016-08-11 01:42
Lights sez:
"You won't be able to find this news anywhere else but here tonight."

Eduardo sez: Yeah! Like much of what you post on this site.
 
 
-6 # lights 2016-08-11 11:23
Well, eduardoben. I could have just said it and let it go by as truth like so many others on this forum. Instead, I let you know - "you won't find this anywhere else."

But who cares about honesty, right?
 
 
+3 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:23
you sure as hell don't. HC propaganda and misinformation is all you post.
 
 
-3 # Caliban 2016-08-11 18:34
Hey, If Charlie R is putting this level of intelligence out to his adoring public, I expect Vladimir watches the show in person.
 
 
+15 # Logic 2016-08-10 19:45
More of the same from Glen Greenwald

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dems-tactic-of-accusing-adversaries-of-kremlin-ties-and-russia-sympathies-has-long-history-in-us/
 
 
+17 # markovchhaney 2016-08-10 22:51
Hey, Hillary learns from all the slime-bag politicians she's met: her husband, his opponents, Kissinger, ad nauseam. And we're supposed to elect her because TRUMP!!!! Screw that nonsense.
 
 
-14 # jsucke3 2016-08-10 22:54
McCarthyism? Really?! There is a HUGE difference between ruining people's lives by alleging they had similar political beliefs to those of our country's enemies and questioning a Presidential candidate's political stances. One is contrary to the First Amendment and the other is running for office. Who did Paul Manafort work for before Trump?
 
 
+12 # Radscal 2016-08-10 23:19
Manafort worked for the democratically- elected President of a (formerly) sovereign country.

Who does HRC's "money man" organization, the Podesta Group work for? Oh, that's right, Russia's largest bank, which controls 80% of Russian money.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/08/with_saudi_and_russian_ties_clinton_machines_tentacles_are_far_reaching_according_to_panama_papers/
 
 
+13 # eduardoben 2016-08-11 00:55
Please Radscal, don't fall into the trap of over-simplifica tion. John Podesta and his brother Tony who formed the Podesta Group worked for anyone who could afford them including major defense contractors, big oil, gas and coal companies, and big pharmaceutical and health care corporations. All the big special interests that Hillary claims she is going to "take on."

John Podesta, who left his lucrative lobbying partnership for a while to become Bill Clinton's White House Chief of Staff, coordinated an international campaign, on behalf of Big Pharma, to block South Africa from using international trade law provisions to force patent holding drug companies into allowing them to manufacture their own HIV drugs in South Africa at a tiny fraction of the cost of buying them from the patent holding companies represented by The Podesta Group.

That campaign -- on behalf of big drug companies that donated to Clinton and Gore's political campaigns -- left THREE MILLION HIV infected South Africans to die of AIDS. Gore and Clinton did that.

And Hillary's current campaign manager, John Podesta, was identified in an expose in The Guardian newspaper from London as a linchpin in that criminal conspiracy against Nelson Mandela and the people of South Africa.

This racist, evil international crime was largely unreported in this country but its a matter of historical record.

The Clintons are EVIL. Truly, truly EVIL. Wake up Democrats and open your eyes before its too late.
 
 
-9 # ericlipps 2016-08-11 04:39
Yes, of course they're EVIL. And haven't you noticed how they stay away from crosses and holy water?
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-08-11 14:58
And how is that different from the cartoonish over-simplifica tion the HRC-supporters are doing with Manafort working for the legitimate President of a formerly sovereign country?
 
 
-8 # Caliban 2016-08-11 01:01
Paul Manafort's job specialty is repairing (by whatever means necessary) the tarnished images of corrupt politicians and political operatives.

His new job with Trump is, therefore, completely consistent with his resume.
 
 
+20 # Radscal 2016-08-10 23:26
George HW Bush quote:

“All kinds of rumors as to who his hosts were in Russia, something he can’t remember anything about.”

This is a fascinating comment from the man who couldn't remember where he was on November 22, 1963.

If any young'uns don't know, everyone above age 6 on the day JFK was murdered in Dallas TX has that moment frozen into their memories.

After Bush I told reporters he couldn't recall, it turned out that he was in a Dallas Hotel the night before the murder. Then it turned out that he called FBI a few hours after the murder from a short distance away, claiming to have overheard someone threatening the President.

And later still, his lovely wife wrote yet another excuse in her memoirs. In it, she claimed she and Poppy flew on a private plane from Dallas shortly before the murder.
 
 
+11 # eduardoben 2016-08-11 01:04
Its true. I was in a tenth grade class when the news came and the school was immediately closed for the rest of the day.

Everyone was in a state of shock, sorrow and disbelief.

I think I got home in time to see Lee Harvey Oswald murdered by Jack Ruby.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-08-11 15:01
Ruby murdered LHO on Sunday, the 24th. The first live nationally-broa dcast murder.

I remember that one because it was my birthday!
 
 
+3 # Anonymot 2016-08-11 01:55
And for anyone who hasn't seen it this is a MUST:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM
 
 
+6 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 11:43
This is a 3-1/2 hour documentary about the JFK assassination, Everything is a Rich Man's Trick.

I am just starting it but it's fascinating. Thank you.

Hollywood broached this plot with the movie Executive Action (1973) with Burt Lancaster. It is still chilling to watch these men plot the assassination.

***

OMG I'm only half an hour in and my head has exploded 5 times! Every once in a while there are things I know, so it's really connecting the dots.

I'm going to be on here 5 hours -- I'm taking notes. I guess the kids are getting pizza tonight ....
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-08-11 15:04
I should have taken notes when I watched that a while back.

Mostly, the info checks out, but I do remember noticing just a couple of oopses. But I don't remember what they were. Aaarrrggghhhhh. ...

But overall, it's WELL worth the time. The overall point is spot on!
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-08-11 15:17
Very enlightening. There aren't that many of TPTB and they really ARE psychos.

No wonder they're letting the planet burn.

I think the people are paralyzed because very few are willing to believe that our rulers are insane and they are enabled by our spineless 'leaders'. It is a frightening realization.

But they ARE human beings, mortal and fallible. They have many advantages but we have a few of our own.
 
 
+5 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:32
"No wonder they're letting the planet burn."

"I think the people are paralyzed because very few are willing to believe that our rulers are insane and they are enabled by our spineless 'leaders'. It is a frightening realization."

it is startling, jaw-dropping to realize the extremes so many in power resort to, for MORE personal wealth and power -- they're destroying the planet and as much of humanity as possible.

P.S. Tried to up vote your comments. It said that "I already upvoted you" but no up votes are posted yet...
 
 
+12 # davehaze 2016-08-10 23:37
Sorry, folks, but "No sense of decency!" is the battle cry of both candidates.
 
 
-2 # tigerlillie 2016-08-11 00:55
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Clinton is so eager to bait Russia into another war that it is obscene.

Yes, the Clinton's have a history of doing dirty tricks.

But that doesn't mean that concern about Trump' s financial ties to Russia are a moot point.

Yes, it would serve Clinton's best interests to dig up or implicate Trump in dirty dealings with Russia. But I think that there are grounds for legitimate concern about Trump' s business dealings and possible political highjinks with Russia, which is quite separate from Clinton's smear campaign.

Likewise, just because the Empire is trying to set Russia up for another variation on their endless war theme, I would n't stoop to pretending that Putin is some kind of hero.

Leave the fan clubbing for authoritarian political leaders to Trump.
 
 
+18 # eduardoben 2016-08-11 01:35
Tigerlillie,

Its not an unimportant footnote that the Clintons' dealing with Russian interests left 20% of America's Uranium supply under Russian control.

I wouldn't argue that Trump is any kind of hero. But someone who has repeated his willingness to sit down and talk things out with Putin and the Russian Government versus someone who seems to be compelled to push Russia's back against the wall - whether by pitting US pilots vs Russian pilots in Syria in "No-Fly Zones" or pushing NATO forces and missile systems up to the Russian border or overthrowing a democratically elected government in Ukraine -- this is the difference between world peace and the greatest threat of nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Trump is a self-absorbed ego-maniac. But Hillary Clinton is so obsessed with militarism, power and US global dominance that she is much more dangerous than Trump. Smell the coffee folks.
 
 
-5 # lights 2016-08-11 11:27
mmmm. The real, not imagined coffee smells deeply rich and good!
 
 
+8 # CL38 2016-08-11 17:47
One of numerous reasons Kennedy was supposedly assassinated was due to his attempt to stop the nuclear race madness by reaching out to Khrushchev through back-channel negotiations.
 
 
+15 # lorenbliss 2016-08-11 01:17
The malicious glee with which Hillary the Horrible and her team of trolls have shifted into Joe McCarthy mode proves beyond an iota of doubt she remains a Goldwater Girl:

"(Goldwater) immediately became a loyal supporter of Joe McCarthy and was one of only 22 senators who voted against his censure in December, 1954."

And as we already know, Hillary the Horrible's foreign policy is the quintessence of Goldwaterite nuke-the-world warmongering:

"In one television interview Goldwater explained that he would be willing to use nuclear weapons against communist forces in Vietnam."

For more see http://spartacus-educational.com/USAgoldwater.htm or Google Barry Goldwater on Joe Mc Carthy.
 
 
+14 # Anonymot 2016-08-11 01:50
The animosity between Clinton and Russia goes beyond Joe McCarthy's. I was a close friend of Fred Woltman who won a Pulitzer for his exposures of McCarthy who was pathologically afraid of Russia.

Hillary is not only not afraid of them, she pathologically wants to start a US/Russo war.

That in no way diminishes this article. Parry is always excellent. However, I wish he would turn his ability to dig to the harder, deeper question: What is the tie between Hillary (and also Bill and their laundering channel, the phony Foundation) and the CIA?

Deep State wants a real war. It is not McCarthy's fear nor Shine & Cohen's sexual complexities, it is a tentacular agency that dictates to DC. They own Hillary or Hillary owns them and they are dedicated to initiating 3 more regime changes: Iran, Russia, and China. We are talking about a global Genghis Khan with Hillary in the stirrups!

This ugly amazon dominatrix is no Mongol and the CIA has lost every war since Korea. Why are they such losers and what is the relation between the woman and the agency? When we say Deep State it is too amorphous who do we mean? No one knows or dares admit it, but Hillary & Huma know.

We need a few more fearless insiders like Snowden and Assange to speak up and a few more Greenwalds and Parrys to listen.
 
 
+6 # Bryan 2016-08-11 18:24
Hillary, her uranium investors,the Clinton Foundation and Russia.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
By JO BECKER and MIKE McINTIRE

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
 
 
+6 # Bryan 2016-08-11 18:28
continued..

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.
 
 
+6 # Bryan 2016-08-11 18:28
continued...

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.
Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
 
 
+6 # Bryan 2016-08-11 18:33
Why do you think the Clintons opened a Clinton Foundation in Canada?...becau se that is where these mining investors donated to them....and the Clintons mistakenly thought the donors could not be revealed in Canada. Some still haven't been revealed.

Canadian affiliate charity of Clinton Foundation defends expenses ...
www.theglobeandmail.com › News › National
The Globe and Mail
Jul 10, 2016 - A Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation that has raised millions from mining executives has spent far more on salaries and administrative ...
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-08-11 20:21
Great job citing that article, and analyzing it.

You know all those advertisements for and investment programs about buying gold?

Well, yesterday I stumbled across an advisor telling people NOT to buy gold. He said they should buy uranium instead!

Frankly, I didn't even know uranium was in the commodities market, and find it quite disturbing (though I guess inevitable) that it is.
 
 
-14 # ericlane 2016-08-11 02:17
This article is, well, a bunch of crap. It sounds more like a hate Hillary diatribe than anything informative. If you really believe that we would be safer in our relationship with Russia with Donald Trump as president, you have to be a walking moron. Sorry, you don't have to like Hillary but this is a piece of writing that was taken out of thin air for one purpose, to bash Hillary.
 
 
-8 # sdraymond 2016-08-11 03:23
I'm not particularly fond of Hillary either, and I suggested that Bernie run for president a year before he ran, but this site has many Hillary haters on it that are as outrageous as Trump. The article that I just posted has a lot of truth to it.
 
 
+3 # Anonymot 2016-08-11 05:13
Eric, you forgot your troll name today.
 
 
-8 # sdraymond 2016-08-11 03:19
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen
 
 
+9 # economagic 2016-08-11 06:38
I suspect that most of the regulars here have stopped reading Daily Kos at all, since (1) Kos sold the site for a handsome sum, and (2) it dropped all pretense of being an honest arbiter in political debates, publishing little besides pro-Clinton puff pieces. RSN continues to publish a great many articles favoring Clinton. Go count 'em.
 
 
-8 # ericlane 2016-08-11 12:21
econonut, most of the regulars here seem to have come unhinged and joined the ranks of the wacko birds. Other than that everything is fine.
 
 
+1 # kundrol 2016-08-12 14:23
And I'm going to stop reading RSN. This thread is mostly troll wars, which is a total waste of time.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-08-11 15:25
That article is not even just a typical puff-piece. It’s straight-up double-shot bullshit.

The author (who calls Sanders a “sexist”):

1. Defends HRC’s lying because “everybody does it.”

2. Denies HRC’s many scandalous actions because some other ones were overrated.

3. Defends HRC’s enormous wealth accumulation as Senator and Secretary of State because “celebrities make money.” And besides, men get paid more, so it’s a feminist issue (she should have gotten even RICHER through her "public service").

4. And of course, if HRC had been a man, none of this would have been an issue.

There is literally not a single valid reason to support HRC in that entire piece, but it avoids even mentioning the MANY reasons she never should have been granted the Nomination.
 
 
+9 # Texas Aggie 2016-08-11 05:49
HRC is channeling her guru, Henry Kissinger. It's the kind of behavior so typical of him. She is looking for another chance to start a war. Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, etc. aren't enough. She wants a real one with Russia so that she can satisfy her cravings.
 
 
-3 # ericlane 2016-08-11 12:19
A&M, are you still dreaming of the good old days with George W. the idiot child?
 
 
-1 # pupdude 2016-08-11 07:04
RSN ... acronym for the comment section should be SOT

Can I get some serious red numbers please??
 
 
+3 # Anonymot 2016-08-11 07:22
We don't give red numbers for generalized stupidity. Please get specific.
 
 
-6 # lights 2016-08-11 11:31
I tried. I tried hard pupdude. I just couldn't give you a serious red thumbs down. :-)
 
 
+2 # John Escher 2016-08-11 07:32
I always thought that Prescott was more interesting than George H.W. just as George H.W. was more interesting than George W.-- there may have been a steady downward incline in character, don't you know.

Everybody always tries to make Prescott out to be a Nazi, of course, but Ralph Nader of all people told a wonderful story about Prescott helping Nader's mother bring about the crucial dam in Winsted, Connecticut.

Second point: Hillary shouldn't do what is outlined in the article. And somebody-- don't you think, reader-- ought to ask Robert Parry which candidate he will vote for. I don't know. Do you?

Trump, the airbrain, is strongest when he talks about Putin. Is he smart enough, though, to realize it? Can he fully develop any subject? Could he talk about Victoria Nuland and Samantha Power and their joint role in overthrowing the Ukraine? I'm sorry, reader, for giving such good ammunition to the Trump campaign. Chances are good however that they are too stupid to follow up. They'd rather talk about crap like email or any other distraction. I would never vote for Donald Trump, even if I liked him, because of his short attention span.
 
 
+6 # Anonymot 2016-08-11 10:16
I agree with you, but Hillary has an exceptionally long attention span, if not a fixation, on revenge. If in doubt, ask Assange or Snowden.
 
 
+4 # CL38 2016-08-11 21:41
Prescott Bush was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany. Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s.

Bush was also on the board of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world.

Bush's business dealings continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

It's also thought that the money he made from these associations helped establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.
 
 
-4 # Lyuda 2016-08-11 08:49
at the end Mr. Parry writes, "As her campaign sinks into its own anti-Russian mud pile of guilt-by-associ ation, Hillary Clinton and her supporters may ask themselves how far are they prepared to go – and whether their ambitions have overwhelmed any “sense of decency.”

So I assume that is his point, and like very many other articles if you really try to understand underlying point of them, there is anotion of defending Russia. And that bothers me. I know how many of you will disagree with me and give some names to my comment but please RE-read his articles and pay attention to what he says about Russia in them.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-08-11 15:35
What inaccurate information has Parry written about Russia?
 
 
+4 # newell 2016-08-11 09:00
All empires need an enemy, imaginary or not.
 
 
-10 # Robbee 2016-08-11 09:03
rump can end his bromance with fellow strongman putin anytime he wants - for all i know rump will do that during debates - rump will say anything he believes helps get him elected or benefits his wealth, income, prestige and power - what's good for rump is good for america

if rump fails to end his bromance - there is likely a personal financial state in him sucking up to putin - as in banks won't lend rump money - so he must resort to russia for his borrowing empire

hill can whip this horse till it dies - because rump is the only person in the world who can end his relationship - whatever it is - to putin

if rump does not disavow putin and becomes prez - he has signaled that putin is welcome to annex western ukraine and maybe even restore the whole soviet union - russia is in expansionist mode - and wants to spread dictatorship/pr otectorship to russian minorities everywhere

rump's bromance is fair game!
 
 
-4 # mblockhart 2016-08-11 10:46
My, my, how we wander into the weeds. Let's bring it back to Parry's implausible equation of Hillary Clinton with Joe McCarthy. There's plenty of evidence Trump may be paling around with Putin. He's said so then tried to walk it back! His campaign modified the Repub platform on just one point which Putin would endorse. There's the dubious history of Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign lead. We have no IRS returns and we have rumors of loans from Russian banks to Trump. Red-baiting is only red-baiting if there is no evidence of a connection. And why was apparently only the DNC hacked?
Meanwhile, Trump is really outdoing even Joe McCarthy on this scale but Parry ignores that. Very strange. He overlooks the demonizing of others, thinly veiled threats, lies and innuendo, inciting crazies to violence, self-aggrandize ment of Trump. Parry would have us believe him more than our own lyin' eyes and ears.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-08-11 15:44
LOL

"Trump may be paling around with Putin..."

That famous phrase of course refers back to the Republicans' (and specifically Moose-alini's) McCarthyish damning by faint association of candidate Barrack Obama with William Ayers.

I see little reason to trust Drumpf, but HRC's long-standing demonization of President Putin, and threats against Russia and Iran are well documented, and very frightening.

After all, Hillary's been "paling around with" war criminal Kissinger for decades.
 
 
+7 # dbrize 2016-08-11 18:05
Quoting Radscal:
LOL

"Trump may be paling around with Putin..."

That famous phrase of course refers back to the Republicans' (and specifically Moose-alini's) McCarthyish damning by faint association of candidate Barrack Obama with William Ayers.

I see little reason to trust Drumpf, but HRC's long-standing demonization of President Putin, and threats against Russia and Iran are well documented, and very frightening.

After all, Hillary's been "paling around with" war criminal Kissinger for decades.


And as for another mblockhart weed wandering nugget,"...rumo rs of loans from Russian banks to Trump"...":

I'll raise that bet, let's examine the Saudi contributions to the Clinton Foundation.
 
 
-3 # Robbee 2016-08-11 10:59
i get a big kick out of getting thumbed-down for picking on rump - where did the rest of our rump trojans go? - should be lots more
 
 
0 # pupdude 2016-08-11 23:17
Quoting Robbee:
i get a big kick out of getting thumbed-down for picking on rump - where did the rest of our rump trojans go? - should be lots more



Bathroom break?
 
 
+1 # Bryan 2016-08-11 16:25
Frankly 90% of congress should be dragged before a McCarthy hearing.

If Russia had had a McCarthy hearing on the 'Red (communist) Bolsheviks' there wouldn't have been a Russian civil war.

I guess most people don't remember or know that every world leader, particularly Churchill, at first praised Hitler because they saw the 3rd Reich as a bulwark against the Red Bolsheviks and communism spreading in Europe.
 
 
+1 # Activista 2016-08-11 23:15
Quoting Bryan:
Frankly 90% of congress should be dragged before a McCarthy hearing.

If Russia had had a McCarthy hearing on the 'Red (communist) Bolsheviks' there wouldn't have been a Russian civil war.

I guess most people don't remember or know that every world leader, particularly Churchill, at first praised Hitler because they saw the 3rd Reich as a bulwark against the Red Bolsheviks and communism spreading in Europe.

The Hitler-Stalin Pact - Aug 23, 1939 - HISTORY.com
www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-hitler-stalin-pact
History
On this day in 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union sign a non-aggression pact, stunning the world, given their diametrically opposed ideologies. ... After Nazi Germany’s invasion of Czechoslovakia, Britain had to decide to what extent it would intervene should Hitler continue German ..."
Stalin admired Hitler - they divided Poland - but than his "ideological" brother betrayed him ..
 
 
+1 # songofdarknessandlight@yahoo.com 2016-08-12 01:10
The lesson of mccarthyism wasn't that any accusation of spying for Russia is wrong, it's that accusations taken as fact without evidence is wrong.

This article errs in false automatic equivalency, it compares the effects of false accusations to what's occurring now. In so doing it completely avoids discussing whether Russian involvement in our political process is credibly supported by the evidence at hand. Only if the answer is no is it morally justified to compare what is occurring to mccarthyism.

The fact is, states do at times interfere with the political processes of other states and what should guide us is where the evidence leads.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN