Columns, Congress, Politics

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. TRUMERS WANT GABBARD..

    TO SPLIT DEMOCRATS

    The Trump campaign knows their best chance of winning next year hinges on splitting the Democrats. This is where Tulsi Gabbard comes in.

    Politically, Gabbard is what used to a moderate Republican. But that wing of the GOP no longer exists. So Gabbard was elected to Congress as a Democrat. Yet Gabbard seeks to keep her face known to conservatives through frequent appearances on Fox News where she has a habit of saying things that endear her to Republicans.

    Republicans would never let Gabbard represent their party in any capacity of importance. But Republicans are practically demanding that Democrats fast-track Gabbard to the party’s top echelons.

    Therefore the Trump campaign and Russian bots are planning a major social media campaign on Gabbard’s behalf. They calculate that Gabbard’s pretty, youthful looks will play well in memes.

    The campaign will portray Gabbard as a young heroine suppressed by the evil Democratic establishment. Hillary’s comments became a gift to that effort. Yet Hillary was absolutely right about the scheme in store.

    All the Trumpers on my Facebook stream are keen on Tulsi. And they keep constantly pushing her with captions like, “Democrats would be nuts not to go with Tulsi”. What’s nuts is that Trumpers would never trust Gabbard with the White House. But if she can split the Democrats, that would be peachy!

    1. first off, let me tell you, it’s ok for people in one party, to like or dislike another party’s candidates.

      in fact the general elections is all about trying to split people off from their parties.

      secondly, I’ll interest myself in Democrat candidates whether anybody likes it or not.

      I’ve voted for specific Dem candidates in many elections, and given them money. the details don’t matter.

      I have a lot of mixed political viewpoints that may or may not overlap with a current platform.

      The Republicans can eat dirt if they think they own my vote just because I really like Trump.

      They turn on Trump I would vote for Tulsi or Yang.

      You’re just trotting out the same nonsense the Hillary people used on Bernie.

      This time it’s going to be Liz Warren playing the “Frontrunner” game once Biden quits. Which will come.

      1. Kurtz, even if I liked a Democratic candidate I wouldn’t vote for one at this juncture because the party’s ideals are too corrupted and they need to lose big. I would say the same about the Republicans except the Democrats are far more dangerous and insideous, and Trump is already causing the Rino’s to lose power.

        Tulsi is pleasant to look at but she is far from the beauty you

    2. How can Tulsi “split” Democrats? She’s not going to run 3rd party. The DNC are splitting themselves by opposing her in every way as payback for her supporting Bernie over Hillary. Does supporting Bernie Sanders sound like something a “moderate Republican” would do?

      You have offered absolutely nothing about her policy positions that you dislike. Your only stated objection is that some conservatives like her. Why is a unifying candidate so scary to you?

      1. Brad, Republicans should bring back their moderate wing to accommodate candidates like Tulsi. She shouldn’t have to run as a Democrat if that’s not where her heart is.

        1. This response makes no sense. Which of her positions do you regard as “Republican”? Why shouldn’t Democrats “accommodate” a candidate like Tulsi?

          I don’t think you have any idea where her heart is.

          1. Brad, Tusi’s not an arch-conservative, but she’s a little to the right of most Democrats. That’s what used to be moderate Republican. But Republicans have moving steadily to the right for at least 20 years. So now the GOP has no place for moderates.

            1. Which of her positions do consider “to the right” of most Democrats? You have offered none.

        2. “Francis” peter, recognize that she is from Hawaii. There is very little Republican base in Hawaii. For whatever reasons; i wouldn’t know.

          Her dad was a conservative Democrat from Samoa, and her mother an American.
          She’s going to be running there as a Democrat or basically not get elected is my impression.

          The “moderate wing” of the older Republican party was for more liberal than many Democrats were.
          the left right dichotomy is often useless, especially on matters of war.

          The biggest issue for Tulsi is that she is a non-interventionist in foreign affairs.

          Bush II ran that way and then instead responded to 9-11 with the GWOT afgan and iraq.

          Trump is delivering on his promises of diplomacy instead of war.

          Americans need voices for peace in both parties.

          1. Trump is incapable of diplomacy, even if he wasn’t a d.ck. He doesn’t know anything and doesn’t care enough to ask those who do.

            1. he’s engaging in diplomacy every day. some of it is effective, some perhaps not. the results are rarely clear and usually subject to interpretation. you have your interpretation and it is habitually negative we can see

              1. Kurtz, a man who lies and brags with every other sentence cannot negotiate anything. His word is no good. He can threaten. That’s it, And that is putting aside the fact that he doesn’t know what he’s doing. OK, we expect that not every president will not be as familiar with the back corners of the world as Bush, Sr. or Hillary, but that’s why we have a State Dept and a National Security apparatus. He ignores them and puts them down .

                Lastly, he’s not acting in our interest. He may acting in his business interests, his desperate need to one up Obama, or the Russians, but he’s damaging our national interest. That’s not diplomacy.

                1. Trump is doing a great job and for a man that can’t do things right he was able to build Trump Tower and all the other stuff while all you have done is build teepees that leak. Trump is a great President and HIllary is a has-been that never was.

                  Trump 2020

          2. Mr Kurtz – I like how you describe her. “Her dad was a conservative Democrat from Samoa, and her mother an American.”

        3. Among other things, she believes in universal health care, reparations, amnesty and abortion without restrictions. Not exactly moderate republican positions

    3. Is this Peter Shill PH Hill Gates etc. again using another alias? It seems so because the stuff being written is the type of garbage Peter promotes. Tulsi does not reflect a moderate Republican now or in the past. Peter’s brain cells are randomly firing

        1. Maybe, but some of the syntax appeared like Peter’s. Some of the statements seem to match his dreams. Maybe it is during work hours and he is trying to hide his time stealing.

          1. Poor Allan is so obsessed with Diane — a former commentator that he never interacted with and only knows of through DSS’s paranoia — that he sees shadows of aliases everywhere.

            Allan should understand that many laugh at his sole form of argumentation, that being ad hominems, and see no reason to take his whining seriously.

            The man Allan, (presumed), also forgets that he denigrates commentators who link or paste other’s words without offering ‘insight’, yet he is guilty of this charge more than most, as given here:

            https://jonathanturley.org/2019/10/21/149112/comment-page-2/#comment-1893097

            Allan’s sole commentary to his 2,003 word paste is this: “Those that ignorantly hate Trump will benefit from this article and if they find things that are errant and provide cogent responss [sic] they will benefit the rest of us.”

            “…benefit from this article … benefit the rest of us.” This chide of course is self-serving and Allan’s favorite word of recourse, ‘cogent’, is again offered — as in Allan’s mind nothing is ‘cogent’ unless in agreement.

            Allan offers no insight as to what the pasted article might offer in his multiple claims of ‘benefit’, no summation at all.

            Isn’t this Allan’s most vocal complaint on this blog — that other commentators have no original argument, that they just parrot the MSM and do not understand what they argue — that they are idiots, fools, marxists, socialists, etc. Anything but ‘cogent’.

            As Allan just showed, fools come in all stripes with the most vocal being unaware of their own standing.

            1. I gather the staff at the assisted living center took Diane to a different Starbucks.

              1. What a cogent response from the master of aliases.

                Something like nine since you first arrived?

                Of course, your comments that always question a persons sanity or lack of meds does beg a question of why this is always your most common response.

                I’ll leave it to you DSS, to continue the adulation of your own ineptitude.

                1. DSS has let it be known who he is and now just increases the number next to his alias so that one doesn’t have to guess. You try to deceive but that is meaningless for you never say anything under this alias or under your more common alias.

                  1. Why do you assume that I posses “more common alias[es].”

                    Is it so difficult for you to consider that many more read this blog than comment, and that after many reads of your vile insults some are compelled to comment?

                    You bring attention to yourself with your ad hominems, vitriolic screeds and long pastes of other’s words which — according to you — is a sign of intellectual wont.

                    You are a fool that that cannot see their own complaints in themselves.

                    1. “Why do you assume that I posses “more common alias[es].””

                      Inside information.

                  2. DSS was here long before you, and his adoption of roman numerals is nothing but an admission of so many aliases long past.

                    Additionally, DSS thought Darren was banning him in some instances — which speaks to DSS’s paranoia as Darren only bans — and doxxes — women.

                    1. DSS was here before me and did change names. I brought that up to DSS who provided a good explanation but sometime after started numbering the name changes. You, on the other hand, have used multiple different alises sometimes to be in agreement with yourself. You are a pitiful person who is unable to stand alone. You are lonely and want a partner so you make up people that become your friends.

                    1. Squeeky, Pogo is before my time. I started when Linda and Diane were the crazies. I liked DSS but would have liked Pogo as well. The D and S are close to one another.

            2. “Poor Allan is so obsessed with Diane — a former commentator that he never interacted with “

              What a stupid remark. I had many discussions with Diane before she changed her name and I think was banned from the list. Why do you think otherwise Greg T? There is plenty of evidence of such discussions on the blog. But who expects any sort of accuracy from a person of your nature.

              My diet is mixed so I provide both personal comments and comments of others. Yours seem to totally lack content and cogent thoughts. I use the word cogent because that is something one could never refer to in any of your responses.

              Now if you have any ability what so ever you might want to comment on Hanson’s op-ed. You can do so by reverting to another one of your Anonymous handles which are all empty of content.

              1. You adopted ‘Diane’ from DSS’s paranoia.

                Allan: “But who expects any sort of accuracy from a person of your nature.”

                As if you know my nature. All I know is that you hold others to standards you miserably fail to reach.

                Allan: “My diet is mixed so I provide both personal comments and comments of others.”

                Your ‘diet’ is a toxic brew, Allan. You insult more than anyone here, and yet have the audacity to paste screeds without your own summaries — which is what you accuse, and insult, others of doing daily.

                You are a hypocrite, a charlatan of angst; an utterly lazy and intellectual fraud.

                  1. I love when people create multiple personalities in order to pat themselves on the back.

                    1. You’re out of your element, Allan.

                      There are no multiple personalities here — merely multiple commentators that despise your insults.

                      Why is it so difficult for you to believe that many people think you’re a desperate and angry fool, a fraud of facts?

                      Read your own posts.

                    2. “There are no multiple personalities here”

                      So says the one with the multiple personality disorder. Right now it is Greg T speaking. Before it was Anonymous. This gal is crazy and has even taken the disguise of a male. That is good because now the female and male have met and you have a partner without being loaded down with extra costs.

                2. Fido, you never know what you are talking about.

                  Diane changed her name to Late4Dinner and then iwas called Late4D or L4D. I never stopped calling her by the first alias I knew her as. Ask Paul who was around for the name change by your crazy sister.

                  Here is a posting from Paul and Diane.

                  “Late4Dinner commented on Report: McGahn Refused To Issue Statement Denying Trump’s Desire To Fire Mueller.
                  in response to Paul C Schulte:

                  Diane – much as I hate to be the one to do this, you need to get on your meds. My logic is never flawed. 🙂”

                  To which Diane (Late4Dinner) responded:

                  “The blawg is my medication.”

                  You can find this example at: https://jonathanturley.org/2018/03/08/report-mcgahn-refused-to-issue-statement-denying-trumps-desire-to-fire-mueller/comment-page-1/#comment-1712904

                  You should keep your name well hidden because you are an embarrassment to yourself.

              2. “Now if you have any ability what so ever you might want to comment on Hanson’s op-ed. ”

                Is there a link or source for that Hanson piece?

                1. You can search it yourself Fido instead of pretending to be different people so you can pat your own back on the back. You have the man’s name and his column. You don’t have to pretend to be done. That is something very apparent.

                2. When Allan thinks that someone might criticize his source, he simply omits it.

                  1. Fido, you have been given the name of the Author along with its text. Use your paws and do a search or have one of your alias friends do the search for you. Ask you non-existent husband to do the search or find a real friend.

                    2. “Lazy-man Allan: Do your own dirty work.”

                      I already did Greg T. by posting the article and the name of the man who wrote it. Which bathroom do you use? Men or Women or does Fido just find the nearest tree?

                    3. Or maybe Allan could have his non-existent [wife] do the search. We know he doesn’t have any friends.

                    4. Anonymous, take note, I am not the one that requires surrounding myself with non-existent people. You are. That should tell you something. You are always looking to hide among others. That should tell you something as well. Your postings indicate what an empty world you live in. Get yourself to a psychiatrist.

                    6. “his baseless conclusions…”

                      Baseless? No. Right on target. Go play with your other personalities.

    4. Politically, Gabbard is what used to a moderate Republican.

      That’s a perfectly bizarre description of her. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    5. We wouldnt have Trump if nor for Hillary Clinton…….thats how despicable she was.Only Hillary could make Trump look decent.

      Tulsi would BEAT TRUMP……..and easily.

      Republicans are now the anti war party…….as are libertarians and most Democrats. The DNC is now the declared WAR PARTY!!

      that’s why trump won……Trump ran against the GOP neo conservatives , Hillary was the GOP neo consrvative.

      1. i think she would have a chance but it would not be easy. nobody can win against him “easily”

        Yang might actually have a better chance than Tulsi.

        I don’t see how Liz or Bernie can beat Trump.

        Biden had the best chance in my view but he’s been tarnished.

        This is ok: Trump is delivering good things for our nation. I think we might see 4 more years of modestly good or sideways positive movement. Probably a modest recession is already incipient but it wont be like the Great Recession of 7-9. Assuming there is not an implosion and/ or hot war with China,

        5 years out will be a sketchier time. By then AI and robotics will be killing off tons of jobs, at many levels including skilled professions. Also the gargantuan federal debt might finally trigger a currency crisis. Also mass migration could spike into the EU or West again and trigger more unexpected outcomes. There’s a lot of black swans that could show up out of nowhere. I hope Yang is around in 5 years and has maybe got some more political experience under his belt by then. Republicans would be wise to look at his support base and consider what they can do to address the workers’ concerns. Need to move it all past what Trump is doing right now for the workers, and take it to another level.

        We may look back in 5 and say, these were the end of the salad days. We’ll see.

        1. If Amy Klobuchar can win the primary she’ll kick Trump’s ass back to the Queens. She’s his exact opposite and without the exhausting stridency and drama. Americans are tired of hearing about the President everyday and want somebody serious and quiet who’ll get back to work.

          1. “If Amy Klobuchar can win the primary she’ll kick Trump’s ass back to the Queens.”

            Amy Klobuchar isn’t going to “win the primary.”

            1. Probably not, but there’s still a chance. If Biden sags much, the center will look elsewhere and then it’s likely her or Mayor Pete.

              1. PS Despite the press, Democrats primary voters are not radical. AOC is a media phenomena, not a powerful vote broker.

              2. Anon1 — Mayor Pete ain’t it. Biden? God help us. Klobuchar? She’s a good Senator.

                It’s Trump. You’ve got till 2025 to get a grip.

                1. “It’s Trump. You’ve got till 2025 to get a grip.”

                  Maybe. Maybe not. There’s a lot of time between now and the election.

                  But Klobuchar? Not this time around, in all likelihood.

  2. Clinton fuels red scare? Every one of trump’s appointments in Intel, has said the russians took part in whole scale propaganda to help trump. trump bends over backwards for Putin, and trump has screamed about a mexican invasion for 3 years. And JT knows if he brings up Hillary’s name he get 200+ responses from his trump supporters. Who’s fueling who JT?

    1. ha fish this is a big story. i had it on here first in the comments, I don’t mind saying.

      russian bot hive mind i guess huh?

    2. They love this crap. Persecution purple is their preferred eye shadow.

      That JT wrote a column for The Hill on this – what’s the legal issue again? What’s the issue at all unless you’re Tulsi’s mother? – is the surprising part.

      1. i guess it relates to election law huh? since hillary fed the “kompromat” defamatory dossier to FBI to gin up the FISA warrants and make trouble for her election component, and she’s now years later trotting it out again against Tulsi, whom she harbords a special grudge for, because of when Tusli resigned

        Hillary is powerful, she uses the tools at her disposal to keep power, to punish adversaries, etc. acting in the way that the powerful do. see now Tulsi’s using what’s at her disposal too. she’s got tons of fans outside the usual Dem circles because she appeals to a wider audience.

        you know some trump people like me support her but i’ll give an example to the left.

        “Kamala” was trying to curry favor to the left by saying she favored the legalization of consensual adult sex work.

        this was a lie. she was a prosecutor who imprisoned sex workers. she in no sense “converted” on the campaign trail, except only her mouth.

        before this flap, sex workers legal coops had already recognized Tulsi as a sincere and consistent advocate of legalization.

        these are generally far left type of people, with a handful of liberterians salted in; but Tulsi had already won them over. Kamala’s head fake just got her mocked as the fake she truly is. you can look this up if you doubt my account,. it was splashed all over twitter.

        See this is how the sincerity and consistency of Tulsi wins people over across the spectrum.

        She’s a beauty in more ways than one. look at this picture. she’s gorgeous!~

        https://theintercept.com/2019/01/05/tulsi-gabbard-2020-hindu-nationalist-modi/

    4. FishWings, have you seen what’s going on in Mexico these days? Drug cartels just defeated the armed police forces to get them to release El Chapo’s son from prison. But there’s no reason to secure our southern border. Nope, let’s focus on Syria and Turkey’s borders. Think, FishWings, think.

  3. I think JT provides a very good analysis of why Clinton is red baiting and why it needs to be opposed. My answer to every person who agrees with Clinton and to Clinton herself is: provide proof of what you are saying. Show your work. No innuendo, no guesses. Provide real evidence including papers, correspondence and conversations from the NSA’s files showing the actual proof that Tulsi is a Russian asset.

    Democrats, you need to demand evidence from Clinton and for your selves. She has been wreaking havoc on our nation with your help. You easily believe lies. Now you are some of the greatest supporters of wars, including war against Russia and great believers in the IC (whom you seem to have forgotten helped end MLK’s life and infiltrated left wing groups in order to destroy them). You have come a long way from protesting the Vietnam war and supporting the Church committee. You are with the deep state now, and you will continue as it’s greatest asset until you start demanding that your leadership clean up its act. You must stop believing lies and participating in the slander and hatred of your fellow citizens who do not want wars of empire and who do not automatically believe the IC.

    In the meantime, I recommend everyone else start sending Clinton some dossiers so she has excellent talking points! Can you bottom pee-gate? Yes you can! Show the IC what a real dossier looks like!! Fax em in!

  4. Voters are even more unhappy today with the choice between Trump and his current challengers on the left

    You have two problems:

    1. A secular decline in the fitness of character of those of the professional-managerial element in this country. You want to see what that looks like, take an honest gander at the administrators at GW(student and academic affairs, not the comptroller or the plant manager). The faculty aren’t much better and the trustees are negligent always and everywhere.

    2. A screening system which favors people who can ‘work a room’ and (in re the Presidency) people who have insane levels of ambition. It ought to trouble you that someone like Ted Kennedy was in Congress for 47 years, and faced only one competitive campaign in that time. It ought to trouble you that Daniel Patrick Moynihan never considered a presidential campaign.

    We need architectural changes, statutory and constitutional. However, we need to be better people. You’re not advocating either.

    1. Unhappily, I think you are correct DSS. Professor Turley seems to be travelling in the same rut of other pundits and hasn’t come to the realization that who we are is the problem.

  5. I was too young, engrossed in my career goals and apolitical to understand what Hillary meant with her “vast right wing conspiracy” remark in the 1990s. As a proud American citizen coming from a communist country, at home we marveled at America and saw it as a land to achieve anything we could not in our original country. We loved America and thought communists and leftists were not in this great country. We knew from experience that in communist countries they succeeded by “dividir y conquistar” so I didnt understand what Hillary was doing in the 1990s.

    Now I know

    Divide and conquer

    We did not vote for Trump in 2016. However we may very well vote for Major Tulsi Gabbard, US Army, a true and proud America. Hillary uses the tactics of communists. They who defend her should all be called out as true Reds

    1. “we may very well vote for Major Tulsi Gabbard, US Army, a true and proud America.”

      Estovir, I have a fondness for Tulsi. She may be a proud American but one should not become confused between fondness and having a similarity of basic ideas as she doesn’t seem to stand for American Republicanism that was more prevalent years ago. Her points of view on personal property and the state vs the individual are tainted in my viewpoint.

      Though I was always a registered Democrat, I have always been an independent. Pary affiliation to me is being able to vote in a primary that has an individual I find acceptable. There aren’t many.

      Today, I won’t vote Democrat no matter what for the party needs to be depleated of support so it reverts back to better days. I don’t find that either party fits my ideas of life, liberty and property where the Constitution dominates.

  6. Sooo, here is something to think about. Do you think that Hillary really, truly believes Tulsi is a Russian Asset, or do you think she is lying. Because if she really believes it, then she is crazy. Personally, I think she is lying.

    But if she is lying, what does that say about her, about the Democratic Party, and what they think about the average Democratic voter. I think it means they know their voters well, and rely upon their stupidity and upon the Main Stream Media to support the idea.

    Sooo, why does any self-respecting person still vote for Democrats??? Your own party elites consider you fools and schmucks who will believe anything.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Of course, Squeaky draws the correct conclusions. If one tracks Clinton’s history she says and does a lot of things, but if one looks carefully enough one can recognize that she is nothing more than a common crook looking to steal from the largest depository of wealth in the world.

        1. Absolutely. In lieu of a better candidate I will choose Trump who has been fulfilling his promises and has helped all Americans to rise. He is better than a Hillary who is a common thief or Bill who is a rapist or GWB who though perhaps nice screwed a bunch of things up, or Obama who was more of a screw up than GWB, wasn’t a nice person, and screwed the American public.

          Trump 2020.

    2. So Squeeker, your Pres Trump eschews lies? Maybe so, since he actually rarely seems to know the difference between fact and fiction. If lying disqualifies a candidate for you, you NEVER could vote for Trump.

      Don’t get me wrong, I do not like Hillary either.

      1. Believe it or not, I worked on Hillary’s campaign in 2008. I would have voted for her in 2016 except for 2 things:

        1. The utterly stupid email thing.
        2. Trump, who is obviously a more honest and capable person.

        I was for her knowing quite well that she was a lying crooked schemer. But what politician isn’t except for Trump? With him, what you see is what you get.

        FWIW, if Putin could run for President against anybody but Trump, I would vote for him. He knows what country he is the President of, which is more than I can say for about half the Democratic candidates.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. He knows what country he is the President of, which is more than I can say for about half the Democratic candidates.

          More than you can say about most Eurotrash heads of government. Messrs. Orban and Kaczynski have been notable exceptions. One thing I dislike about Obama was that he is post-American, i.e. Eurotrash.

          1. they’re nationalists. Putin and Orban impress me. The Polish I don’t know much about.
            Trump’s a nationalist. I don’t have a problem with nationalism, overall.

            It’s a firm foundation for international relations and stability, going all the way back to Westphalia.

            Unlike the ambiguous pretenses that window-dress interventionism and globalism recently, ie, “human rights” which 9/10 times mean either LGBT special rights, special ethnic minority rights, or unlimited “press freedom,” all of which are sufficient to justify any amount of riot and public disorder, unleashed in thinly veiled destabilization operations we call now “color revolutions” that actually seem only to undermine sovereignty and often also the democratic will of majorities that have “infringed” some imaginary “human right.”

            thus do new shibboleths displace the older ones

            this process has been revealing itself more and more the past century
            See Carl Schmitt, “Nomos of the Earth,”

            https://archive.org/details/TheNomosOfTheEarth/page/n1

  7. Hey Turley, how about mentioning that in the last debate Tulsi said that the US was backing al-Qaeda and the jihadists in Syria to effect regime change. That’s quite a controversial claim, yet you have made no mention of it. Funny that.

      1. you troll these forums to feed your insecure cowardly ego, so there is that JT feeds too.

        Cobarde

      2. the story’s gone viral, more than this little blog.

        I’ve been boosting tulsi here for a long time and now the latent becomes explicit with this attack from hillary

        she’s a worthy candidate, in many ways

        1. Thanks for your insight, comrade. It seems Hillary wasn’t as cutting edge as you.

        2. Mr Kurtz – of all horrible things, Fox News is giving Gabbard air time. Now, I don’t know how many Democrats and Independents watch Fox, but at least someone is hearing her side.

  8. The difference is that McCarthy is a genuine hero. He was attempting to expose the traitorous Soviet spies (many of whom were Ivy League educated) who had, IN FACT, infiltrated the governments of FDR and Truman in order to facilitate the international communist conspiracy to reshape the world.

    We now know with certainty from the Venona decrypts, and from biographies of Soviet intelligence officials after the Soviet Union collapsed, that literally hundreds of people in positions of influence and power within the FDR and Truman administrations were Soviet spies. Harry Dexter White (who led talks at Bretton Woods and was the first head of the IMF), Alger Hiss (instrumental in creating and leading the formation of the leftist/globalist United Nations), Lauchlin Currie, Noah Field, others in the Silvermaster spy ring; the Rosenberg/Greenglass spy ring; the Ware Group, and many more numbering in the hundreds were Soviet spies.

    These traitors were not just smuggling out highly classified information to the Soviets. Some were high enough in the administrations to set and influence policy. We are still living with the consequences of their influence today as evidenced by the existence of the United Nations and IMF. The late historian Stan Evans even found a letter showing that Harry Dexter White wrote the policy paper that, at least in part, provoked Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor. (Also see John Koster’s book, “Operation Snow: How a Soviet Mole in FDR’s White House Triggered Pearl Harbor”). White did so at the behest of his Soviet handlers who were fearful the aggressive Japanese, who had already invaded China, would attack the Soviet Union if it was not preoccupied with fighting the Americans.

    McCarthy was not only right, he was driven by the patriotic desire to expose the fact that the Soviets had placed spies high up in Democratic administrations.

    This time, Democrats created a total fairy tale about Trump being some sort of Russian puppet and they used the American intelligence apparatus and the leftist corporate media to create that impression in the minds of the public. Solely to destroy his presidency. Now Clinton is using the same playbook on Tulsi. Solely to destroy her candidacy.

    The Democrats are evil. McCarthy was, and is, a hero.

    1. Actually, he was a crass and deceitful opportunist who drank himself to death. His investigations were quite redundant. The FBI, other federal agencies, and oversight committees in Congress were at work on the problems in question. What McCarthy added was theatre later used to discredit the idea of making inquiries into the motives and associations of the left. It is now known that I.F. Stone was a Soviet asset, to take one example. (To my knowledge, a thorough audit of the Institute for Policy Studies has never been undertaken. Bet there are some nasty creatures under that rock).

      Prof. Turley, dissent often is disloyalty. No reason to think so in Tulsi’s case, however.

      1. “he was a crass and deceitful opportunist who drank himself to death”

        DSS, we have gone down this road before and it is perfectly acceptable to characterize him in that fashion, but the fact is in the world of politics he was far more correct than the naysayers that didn’t drink themselves to death. That agencies were looking into things is true but they weren’t highlighting the problem for the public to clearly see. Things like the Venona Project 1943 – 1980 awaited declassification. In the meantime history was written falsely and the children educated in a way contrary to American Republicanism. You can play your picayune game of McCarthy’s character assassination but the secret Soviet messages awaited declassification until 1995. McCarthy died in 1957. That is a long time span during which time a lot of damage was done.

    2. President Eisenhower encouraged television coverage of the McCarthy hearings. He knew that if the American people saw them, they would be sickened by them.

      McCarthy was easily censored by the Senate by members from both parties, and it was not a close vote — 67-22.

      1. Censured. There were two controversies in that hearing. One was a promotion granted to one Irving Peress, DDS, a red-haze clown who had been drafted into the military to work their in-house dental clinics. The other was the attempts by McCarthy consigliere Roy Cohn to better the situation of Pvt. G. David Schine, who, before he had entered the service, had been on McCarthy’s staff. Cohn’s dealings with Schine’s chain of command were a species of attempted extortion.

        1. DSS, you are very selective as to the controversies in that hearing. The most memorable controversy involved the quote everyone knows or will remember if mentioned. That revolves around the name Fisher (an insignificant figure), one that apparently you consider very unimportant even though history revolves around that name. His personal being is not significant but the surrounding history is what almost all of us remember.

          1. The hearings weren’t called on account of Fisher having an associate’s position at Hale & Dorr. They were called to resolve the two controversies I listed. The exchange over Fisher’s membership in the National Lawyers’ Guild occurred about 30 days into the hearings.

            1. DSS, as I said Fisher was an insignificant person, but he represents the history of what we remember and the errors therein. The hearings had to do with communism in government and Fisher appeared to have significant communist sympathies though he was a partner in the oppositions firm and was suggested by them to take a government position that could and likely would reveal US secrets.

              The memorable quote “have you no shame” began with the continuous insistence on a releae of names and the berating by Welch against Cohn and McCarthy. This had been going on for hours if not days. Cohn refused to release any names and McCarthy wasn’t said to be interested in prosecuting any of the individuals or firing them from government rather, he wanted their ability to see secret documents limited. His actual list of names was far shorter than the FBI’s or army intelligence and I believe shorter than the numbers of people later revealed to have spied for the Soviet Union so he was on target with his assumption. After countless assaults by the opposition requesting names be released and constant refusal McCarthy produced Fisher’s name who was a partner of the opposition and had communist sympathies.

              “have you no shame…” should be directed at those who wanted names released not at the one refusing to list the names.

      2. Stevej……Accorfing to Greta van Susteren, McCarthy lived with her family for awhile in Applewood (Appleton??) Wisconsin.
        He was her father’s law partner.

  9. This post is a great clarification of this contemptible episode in light of McCarthyism, which is exactly what it is, and a great vindication of Gabbard’s perfect reply to the odious Clinton, the notorious wretch who just will not go away. It must be emphasized, however, that while it is correct to say that the Russia obsession was always about protecting the two-party system from third-party challengers, the substance of what these challengers bring to bear is significant in and of itself, i.e., unapologetic opposition to unwarranted U.S. military intervention abroad and to the continued domination of the politics and economics of U.S. society by the 1%. This should not be lost in the noise. There are versions of this opposition on the right and the left, and it is the key issue on which both sides have a decent prospect of coming together to wrench apart the entrenched political establishment in the public interest. I only disagree with Professor Turley’s claim that “Voters are even more unhappy today with the choice between Trump and his current challengers on the left.” Not when Bernie Sanders is given a fair hearing (which almost never happens), and when the longstanding bugaboo term “socialist” is not used as an epithet to smear him with, but is explained in terms of the policy details underlying it.

    1. “Not when Bernie Sanders is given a fair hearing (which almost never happens), and when the longstanding bugaboo term “socialist” is not used as an epithet to smear him with…”

      Socialist. Does Bernie claim to be a SOCIALIST?

      “Do they think I’m afraid of the word? I’m not afraid of the word, …. When I ran for the Senate the first time, I ran against the wealthiest guy in the state of Vermont. He spent a lot on advertising — very ugly stuff. He kept attacking me as a liberal. He didn’t use the word ‘socialist’ at all, because everybody in the state knows that I am that.”

      From Bernie’s mouth to Wortmanberg’s ear.

    2. “…the odious Clinton, the notorious wretch who just will not go away.”

      So good.

      The odious notorious wretch who will not go away. We don’t even need to include the name Hillary for everyone in the world to know who we are talking about.

  10. Seriously, Professor? You really have no idea why the two Democrat frontrunners won’t call out Hillary?

    1. UnWoke – so the stack of dead bodies attributed to the Clintons isn’t a good reason to not call Hillary out?

      2. Actually, I was thinking of something more mundane — like whoever wins the nomination will need Hillary[‘s endorsement. With the possible exception of Mayor Pere, the candidates who have called out Herself have about as much of a chance of securing the nomination as I do.

  11. The Russia Hoax helped Trump politically. The same is true of Gabbard. If this did anything at all, it helped Gabbard.

    However, I wasn’t aware that anyone was listening to (or taking seriously) Clinton anymore.

  12. Great piece, JT. And Squeek, good to see you around. I’ll check out your links.

  13. This is personal for Hillary, nothing to do with Russia. Tulsi checks boxes that Hillary can’t: The youth box, the woman of color box, the “military experience” box, and the anti-war box. Hillary can’t compete with that so wants to take her out before she contemplates another run. 😉 Plus she resembles Monica with her pretty face and shiny dark hair.

    She won’t relinquish her glass ceiling to just any girl.

  14. Smear campaigns are ugly and by their nature, full of lies. Democrats have literally lost themselves in their hatred and are behaving like possessed individuals. Why have the Democrats for the last 2 years been accusing Americans who voted for someone other than the Democrat a traitor? Why have the Dems for 2 years been accusing so many Republicans and staff of the President of collusion/treason with the Russians?Before that, Obama and the IRS punished Americans who wanted to express their opinions and no one was punished. HRC’s statement is merely mirroring the virtiol and rhetoric of Schiff, Nadler, Blumenthal, Pelosi, Schumer – so don’t blame her. The star chamber video has been running in their worlds for 4 years. Dems have acted as if they are above the law and can work outside of the mainstream common norms. Sadly, they have truly harmed us. Nothing compares to their absurdity.

  15. “speech by McCarthy in 1952, in which he painted a widening group of Americans as Russian assets.”

    Professor, don’t forget Venona and how the lack of that knowledge somewhat changed our perception of history and that change continues through today.
    —

    “THE AMERICAN left has an unexamined past. Like the French conservatives, who went into deep denial about their collaboration with the Nazis a half century ago, American leftists and some of their liberal allies have refused to sort out their own intimate connections with Marxist-Leninism in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s.” …

    “So now liberals must face the question: Was Joe McCarthy right?” …

    “Now comes more from vaults of the National Security Agency. In the 1940s, the NSA had a top-secret program called Venona which intercepted (and much later decoded) messages between Moscow and its American agents. The recent publication of a batch of Venona transcripts gives evidence that the Roosevelt and Truman administrations were rife with communist spies and political operatives who reported, directly or indirectly, to the Soviet government, much as their anti-communist opponents charged. The Age of McCarthyism, it turns out, was not the simple witch hunt of the innocent by the malevolent as two generations of high school and college students have been taught.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1996/04/14/was-mccarthy-right-about-the-left/a0dc6726-e2fd-4a31-bcdd-5f352acbf5de

    1. This is a good point. I have this before. I think the Commies won after all. Their “useful idiot” program simply did not have an “Off Switch.” Sooo, the useful idiots continued to propagate into the Left, and now we have all these loony ideas about “fairness and equality” of results.

      If the Russians had physically conquered the U.S., they would have simply executed the idiots. Here it is from the KGB’s mouth:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Squeaky, I heard this video when it first came out, but now noting how quickly things have been moving in just the past 3 years I find this video even more compelling. I’m keeping this and sending it to my kids because Yuri Bezmenov’s warning to America is so real.

        Thanks, thanks and thanks.

        2. I should have added, should the process be completed in our lifetimes I expect Peter will be standing in front of a firing squad scratching his head and asking those with the guns “What’s happening?” At the same time Anon will be building a safe house only to learn that he can’t find nails, concrete and wood available in the stores.

      2. Thank you for posting this. I had seen this several years ago and sadly his predictions have turned out to be chillingly accurate.

    2. Here is an excerpt of the transcript:
      —————
      Bezmenov: It’s a great brainwashing process, which goes very slow[ly] and is divided [into] four basic stages. The first one [is] demoralization; it takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which [is required] to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged, or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism (American patriotism).

      The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties (drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals) are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, [and the] educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind[s], even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other words, these people… the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To [rid] society of these people, you need another twenty or fifteen years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common sense people, who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society.

      Griffin: And yet these people who have been ‘programmed,’ and as you say [are] in place and who are favorable to an opening with the Soviet concept… these are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country?

      Bezmenov: Most of them, yes. Simply because the psychological shock when they will see in [the] future what the beautiful society of ‘equality’ and ‘social justice’ means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy, frustrated people, and the Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people. Obviously they will join the leagues of dissenters (dissidents).

      Unlike in [the] present United States there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America. Here you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg and filthy-rich like Jane Fonda for being ‘dissident,’ for criticizing your Pentagon. In [the] future these people will be simply [squashing sound] squashed like cockroaches. Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful, noble ideas of equality. This they don’t understand and it will be [the] greatest shock for them, of course.

      The demoralization process in [the] United States is basically completed already. For the last 25 years… actually, it’s over-fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to [a] lack of moral standards.

      As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures; even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him [a] concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it, until he [receives] a kick in his fat-bottom. When a military boot crashes his… then he will understand. But not before that. That’s the [tragedy] of the situation of demoralization.

      So basically America is stuck with demoralization and unless… even if you start right now, here, this minute, you start educating [a] new generation of American[s], it will still take you fifteen to twenty years to turn the tide of ideological perception of reality back to normalcy and patriotism.
      ————–

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

          1. Squeeky, I frequently try to find transcripts and fail most of the times. Do you have a methodology of looking them up?

    3. – “Witness” by Whitaker Chambers

      – Alger Hiss was convicted of being a communist and Russian spy.

      – Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose administration was infested with communists, imposed programs/legislation derived from the principles of communism which are immutably antithetical, anti-American and unconstitutional to this day.

      – Charity is industry conducted in the free markets of the private sector and may not be compelled through legislation as Congress has only the power to tax for “…general Welfare…,” distinctly not individual welfare.

  16. Well said Mr. Turley. I have maintained for years that GW Bush and B Obama gave us Trump. It looks like the Demos are doing all they can to give us a 2nd Trump term. Sad, Truly Sad.

  19. Killary is scaring no one. She is just sinking her own ship. I think she thinks she is still relevant.

  20. Mrs Clinton is clearly suffering from TDS or some other psychotic disorder and if her family, friends and former co-workers shared one ounce of compassion, they’d have her immediately committed, restrained and medicated so that she can never be heard from again.

    1. Crooked Hillary should take a worthwhile lesson from Senator “driving miss” Feinstein

      Lay low STFU and keep out of the public eye

      Especially when your as guilty as sin!

    2. If the Demos want a chance in 2020, they need to send both Hillary and Bill on a yearlong cruise to ports unknown without a cell phone or computer access.

Comments are closed.