Clinton Fuels New ‘Red Scare’ With Political Attacks Against Gabbard

Below is my column the Hill newspaper on the recent accusation of Hillary Clinton that presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard is a “Russian asset.” What is most astonishing is the silence of virtually all of the other presidential candidates. Only Yang and Williamson came out quickly to support Gabbard. For presidential candidates denouncing Donald Trump for his personal attacks and reckless hyperbole, it is the height of hypocrisy to remain silent unless they believe that Gabbard is indeed a Russian asset. If so, they should have the courage to say so, particularly front runner Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren.

Here is the column:

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.” Journalist Edward Murrow said those words 65 years ago, responding to Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy and his accusations of Americans being “Russian stooges” and “fellow travelers.” Murrow declared that, despite the best efforts of political opportunists, “We will not walk in fear, one of another.”

Those words came to mind after former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton accused current Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard of being a “Russian asset” in the 2020 election. It seems there is a communist stooge behind every poll, as people like Clinton make support for the establishment a loyalty test.

Long ago, I wrote about how the Russia investigation was spurring a new type of “red scare” as critics denounced Donald Trump, Republican members of Congress, and commentators as Russian apologists or Kremlin assets. It was not enough that most of us agreed that Russian intervention in the 2016 election was worthy of investigation. It did not matter that special counsel Robert Mueller determined that no one in the Trump campaign knowingly worked with Russian agents.

It does not matter that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democratic leaders reportedly have said they do not want to impeach Trump on Russian conspiracy claims, a curious thing, given their years of claiming clear proof of such crimes. It also does not matter that the United States has a long history of intervening in foreign elections, or that we have regularly hacked the emails of foreign foes as well as close allies like German Chancellor Angela Merkel. To even utter such facts is to find oneself on the feared “fellow travelers” list.

Clinton made her accusation on the “Campaign HQ” podcast, telling host and former Obama aide David Plouffe that the Russians “got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate.” That someone appeared to be Gabbard, who she claimed, is “the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.” She warned that Gabbard might run as a third party candidate at the behest of the Russians, continuing, “That is assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she is also a Russian asset.”

These comments by Clinton seem right out of the infamous Republican National Convention speech by McCarthy in 1952, in which he painted a widening group of Americans as Russian assets. He declared, “Our job as Americans and as Republicans is to dislodge the traitors from every place where they have been sent to do their traitorous work.” It is an irresistible temptation to portray opponents as Russian cutouts or conspirators, so perhaps it was only a matter of time before accusations of Russian conspiracy moved from Republican to Democratic rivals.

Clinton may hate Gabbard even more than she hates Trump, for the contrast Gabbard creates with figures like Clinton. Gabbard is a former Army National Guard major who served in Iraq and has long opposed our foreign wars and interventions. Clinton supported wars in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan before trying to distance herself from those conflicts that cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars.

Gabbard responded to Clinton, calling her “the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party.” Rather than step back, the Clinton camp has continued to mock Gabbard as a tool of foreign interests for her efforts against wars. In true McCarthy fashion, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill taunted, “Assad day for your candidacy,” a reference to the meeting between Gabbard and Syrian dictator Bashar Assad in 2017.

The Clinton aversion to Russia appears to be an acquired distaste. Her campaign spent a massive amount of money seeking dirt on Trump from foreign sources, including Russian intelligence assets, in 2016. The Clinton campaign denied any involvement in the creation of the Christopher Steele dossier that the Obama administration used to secure a secret surveillance warrant against Trump associates. The campaign hid its payments to the opposition research firm Fusion GPS as “legal fees” among the millions of dollars paid to its law firm.

Clinton lawyer Marc Elias vigorously denied to the New York Times that the campaign funded the dossier. Reporters proved that was false, with journalist Maggie Haberman noting, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.” Even when Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was questioned by Congress, he denied any contractual agreement with Fusion GPS, as Elias sat beside him.

It is notable that the Democratic cry of “Russian stooges” involves fear of a third party challenge. The establishment has pushed Joe Biden as the presumptive nominee, just as it pushed Clinton in 2016. Biden, however, has become embroiled in his signature gaffs and the questionable business dealings of his son. This week, a respected diplomat testified that he raised concerns about Hunter Biden and his deals to the staff of the former vice president but was shut down in those efforts.

For those of us who have long opposed the hold of the two major parties over our government, the Clinton attack is right on schedule. Every election, the establishment tells voters they have no alternative but to choose the lesser of two evils offered by this duopoly. A vote for a third party candidate is portrayed as supporting the other party.

Now, however, red baiting may be needed to maintain control. The argument for the lesser of evils did not work for Democrats in 2016. Despite polls showing a strong sentiment against the establishment, the party rigged its primaries in favor of Clinton, the ultimate establishment figure. That election became a contest between the two least popular candidates to run for president. Many voters saw Trump not as an ideal choice but as a way to defy the establishments of both parties.

Voters are even more unhappy today with the choice between Trump and his current challengers on the left. For some of us, the choice seems between an environmental apocalypse offered by Trump and an economic meltdown offered by Democrats. That could play into the hands of a strong third party candidate, which is why it is necessary for the establishment to portray such a vote as a Russian conspiracy.

The question is whether voters again will be duped, not by the Russians, but by our own American politicians here at home. Much has changed since 1954, when attorney Joseph Welch exposed McCarthy with his famous inquiry, “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” One thing is abundantly clear in government today. There is no room for decency in our duopoly of power.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

404 thoughts on “Clinton Fuels New ‘Red Scare’ With Political Attacks Against Gabbard”

  1. I keep listening to charges against the President and calls for impeachment that are not rational. Rep Green gave one of the only rational reasons for impeachment, he says that is the only way to defeat Trump in 2020.

    What makes him so strong? One of many reasons follows:

    “The median or average-income family has seen a gain of $5,003 since Trump came into office. Median family income is now (August 2019) $65,976, up from about $61,000 when he entered office (January 2017).

    Under George W. Bush, the household income gains were a little over $400 in eight years, and under Barack Obama the gains were $1,043. That was in eight years for each. Under Trump, in less than three years, the extra income is about three times larger.”

  2. I figured out that Allan has repeatedly made an issue out of noting that different avatars sometimes appear by the same person’s comments.
    Thought he’d want to explain why he finds that suspicious in other cases, but not in his own case.

    1. Anonymous The Stupid, since you are not smart enough to figure out the pattern I will spoon feed you. You and some others get the generic Allan with my name. Respectable people get the Allan with a distinct ink blot. I don’t hide my persona like you and I don’t use multiple persona’s like Peter Hill. You guys hide so you can constantly change your minds.

      1. Got it, Allan. You post comments using different avatars and you think you have a great, brilliant reason for doing so.
        And you blab about the fact that you spotted a change in avatars for anyone else because you find it suspicious.
        Makes a lot of AllanSense.

        1. Right, Fido. There is no need to add anything when responding to people like you. I don’t even know why I bother to leave my name.

              1. It’s just good to know that there is a way to get the favored pink-on-blue Allan avatar.
                That reward alone would make most people no longer post under the generic anonymous name.

                1. It is an information transfer device to quickly inform others that I am responding to an idiot (in your case).

                  1. The username “Allan” quickly informs others that the blog’s resident blowhard ( aka Allan) is spouting off again.

                    1. Stupid anonymous, you just don’t get it. I am telling people that I am responding to a worthless individual. Get Fido more depends. She is peeing on your leg again.

                1. Fido, too much for a stupid person or a dog’s mind to contemplate as are the comments of the folk on this list that actually discuss the subjects in the blog.

                  1. Oh, I think Allan could find the time to sum up the workings of his “complex mind” somewhere in the thousands of words he writes here every day.

          1. “”Allan” @ 10:13 PM: I don’t even know why I bother to leave my name.”

            “Mangy old cur” would be a better choice for him.

              1. And the “mangy old cur” (AKA “Allan”) sweeps back in to respond to yet another comment. This is his pathetic meaningless life.

                1. We all know what fools Stupid Anonymous and his dog Fido are. All one has to do is listen to their unimaginative and unimpressive responses..

                    1. It is not “clear to others” that Allan’s claim of having “a complex mind” is accurate.
                      He can’t count on “others” buying into that “complex mind claim”, simply because Allan believes it.

                    2. Anonymous, Everyone is able to judge for themselves a rough degree of intellect. In your case it is grossly obvious that you are intellectually impaired.

                    3. Allan’s complex mind can tell what is “grossly obvious” to others, and what “we all know”.
                      That is impressive. I hope focusing on this exchange does not distract him from his daily routine of spouting off about everything else under the sun.
                      “We all know” that he needs to be put his “complex mind” to work in order to produce thousands of words daily on any and all topics.

Comments are closed.