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. Hillary: “Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump, and that butch girl in finance, are introducing foreign substances into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That’s the way your hard-core Commie works.”

  2. There are three articles here today with photos. The Hillary blab, the tatoo jerk and the dog at the wheel. The dog photo is great. The Hillary one makes me puke and the jerk off one is awful. Please keep the Hillary photos off the blog.

  3. Those that ignorantly hate Trump will benefit from this article and if they find things that are errant and provide cogent responss they will benefit the rest of us.

    Why Do They Hate Him So?

    Democrats, NeverTrump Republicans, left-liberal celebrities, journalists, and academics all revile Donald Trump because he is trying and often succeeding to restore a conservative America at a time when his opponents thought that the mere idea was not just impossible but unhinged.

    Joe Biden claims he wants to take Trump behind the gym and beat him up.

    Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) jokes that she would like to go into an elevator with him and see Trump never come out alive. Robert De Niro has exhausted the ways in which he dreams of punching Trump out and the intonations in which he yells to audiences, “F—k Trump!”

    The humanists and social justice warriors of Hollywood, from Madonna to Johnny Depp, cannot agree whether their elected president should be beheaded, blown up, stabbed, shot, or incinerated. All the Democratic would-be presidential nominees agree that Trump is the worst something-or-other in history—from human being to mere president.

    Former subordinates like Anthony Scaramucci, Omarosa, and Michael Cohen insist that he is a racist, a sexist, a crook, a bully, or mentally deranged—and they all support their firsthand appraisals on the basis they eagerly worked for him and were unceremoniously fired by him.

    The so-called deep state detests him. An anonymous op-ed writer in the September 5, 2018 New York Times bragged about the bureaucracy’s successful efforts to ignore Trump’s legal mandates—a sort of more methodical version of the comical Rosenstein-McCabe attempt to stage a palace coup and remove Trump, or the Democrats efforts to invoke the 25th Amendment and declare Trump crazy, bolstered by an array of Ivy League psychiatrists who had neither met nor examined him.

    One wonders what McRaven meant with the adverb “sooner,” given that an election is scheduled in about a year and even retired officers are subject to the code of military justice not to attack, despite perceived taunts, their current commander-in-chief, much less wink and nod about his apparent removal (in what way?) from office. Do we really want a county in which retired admirals and intelligence officials publicly damn the current commander in chief over policy differences and advocate his removal, “the sooner the better”?

    The House Democrats simply want him impeached first, and later will fill in the blanks with the necessary high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Most of the prominent New York-Washington, D.C. insider Republican pundits abhor him. The creed of a NeverTrumper is that it is well worth the effort to see the current Republican president removed, and his administration imploded—even if that means four or eight years of an Elizabeth Warren, a Bernie Sanders, or a Joe Biden agenda as voiced in the debates. That would likely mean Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, slavery reparations, permissible infanticide in the case of late-term abortions, a wealth tax, and a generally socialist platform, from renouncing student debts to veritable open borders.

    Only amid the ashes of Trump’s destruction do sober and judicious conservative intellectuals, writers, pundits, think-tankers, and establishment Republican grandees believe they can step in to rebirth the Republican Phoenix, nurturing the rising new party with its once hallowed traditions as exemplified by George H.W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.

    The Conservative Record

    But what drives this unprecedented furor, given the economy has reached near-record low peacetime unemployment at 3.5 percent, resulting in millions of inner-city youth and poor being sought after by labor-needy employers? What is so evil about attracting the lower-middle classes to the Republican Party, and shedding its stereotype as a party of the golf links and corporate retreats?

    Workers’ pay has risen to a net per capita gain of $5,000 since Trump took office. The U.S. energy industry is booming as the world’s largest producer of gas and oil, a fact that has likely saved more lives by rendering the death trap of the oil-rich Middle East increasingly irrelevant to American strategic interests.

    By 2020, Trump will have remade the federal judiciary—when at an earlier moment in 2016, it looked as if an Obama-Clinton 16-year regnum would soon ensure a half-century dominance of left-wing activist judges.

    Trump entered office with North Korean nuclear rockets allegedly pointed at the West Coast, and with China heralded as the inevitable new global hegemon. A petulant NATO insidiously refused to meet its promised contributions. ISIS ran amuck.

    The border was wide open, and that had resulted in 20 million illegal aliens residing in the United States with de facto exemption from most consequences of violating U.S. laws. Trump at the outset has at least sought to address all those problems that sandbagged the prior administration.

    So Why the Hatred?

    Again, why the unadulterated hatred? For the small number of NeverTrumpers, of course, Trump’s crudity in speech and crassness in manner nullify his accomplishments: the unattractive messenger has fouled an otherwise tolerable message.

    While they recognize in the abstract that the randy JFK, the repugnant LBJ, and the horny Bill Clinton during their White House tenures were far grosser in conduct than has been Donald Trump, they either assume presidential ethics should have evolved or they were not always around to know of past bad behavior first hand, or believe Trump’s crude language is worse than prior presidents’ crude behavior in office.

    Trump is systematically undoing what Barack Obama wrought, in the manner Obama sought to undo with his eight years the prior eight years of George W. Bush.

    But the NeverTrumpers are and remain a tiny segment of the electorate who have had zero effect in swaying Republicans and only marginal influence in persuading swing voters, in their new roles as occasionally useful naïfs of the hard Left.

    Far more importantly, why do the media, academia, the entertainment and professional sports industries, the progressive Left, the administrative state, and most Democratic officeholders despise him so?

    His brashness bothers them of course. His quirky tweets and name-calling certainly. His loud rallies, his public put-downs, and his feuding are certainly not matched by those of past presidents.

    A Toxic Agenda

    But the real source of their antipathy is his agenda.

    Had Donald Trump in his first month as president declared that he was a centrist Republican —as many suspicious Never Trumpers predicted that he would, true to past form—and promoted cap-and-trade and solar and wind federal subsidies, tabled pipeline construction and abated federal leasing for gas and oil production, stayed in the Iran nuclear deal and Paris Climate Accord, appointed judges in the tradition of John Paul Stevens and David Souter, praised the “responsible” Palestinian leaders, pursued “comprehensive immigration reform” as a euphemism for blanket amnesties, then Trump would be treated largely as a George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush: hated, of course, but not obsessively so.

    More importantly, had Trump just collapsed or stagnated the economy, as predicted by the likes of Paul Krugman and Larry Summers, he would now be roundly denounced, but again not so vilified, given his political utility for the Left in 2020 as a perceived Herbert Hoover-esque scapegoat.

    Had Trump kept within the media and cultural sidelines by giving interviews to “60 Minutes,” speaking at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, bringing in a few old Republican hands to run the staff or handle media relations like a David Gergen or Andrew Card, Trump would have been written off as a nice enough dunce.

    But Trump did none of that. So, the hatred of the media, the Left, the swamp, and the celebrity industry is predicated more on the successful Trump agenda. He is systematically undoing what Barack Obama wrought, in the manner Obama sought to undo with his eight years the prior eight years of George W. Bush.

    But whereas the Obama economy stagnated and his foreign policy was seen by adversaries and rivals as a rare occasion to recalibrate the world order at American’s expense, Trump mostly did not fail—at least not yet. We are currently in an economic boom while most of the world economy abroad is inert. Had the economy just crashed as predicted, the Trump agenda would have been discredited and he would be written off a pitiful fool rather than an existential monster.

    Again, hatred arises at what Trump did even more than what he says or how he says it.

    Megatonnage

    But there is a final asterisk.

    What made Obama unpopular with the public—until his last year when he ceded the spotlight to Clinton and Trump and then was liked in absentia the more he was neither seen nor heard—was his wide social, cultural, economic, and political assault on conservatism.

    Obama ridiculed the tea-party movement with the obscene “tea-bagger” put-down. He told Latinos to “punish their enemies,” by whom he meant Republicans. His attorney general, Eric Holder, referred to blacks as “my people.” The EPA began making rather than enforcing laws.

    Obama sought to promote Iran as a foil to the Gulf monarchies and Israel, an effort that explains much of the otherwise inexplicable Iran deal and Iran’s current adventurism. Rappers visited the White House, some with long histories of obscenity and anti-police rhetoric.

    From “Cash-for-Clunkers” to Benghazi, the left-wing effort was 360 degrees, all-encompassing. Conservatives feared Obama was not so much changing politics as “fundamentally transforming America” as he had promised. Obama supporters bragged of a much-hailed new demography that had created a vast new constituency of the lockstep non-white voters supposedly now united not by class, or politics or culture, but by the mere fact of their appearance.

    Trump has pushed a far more ambitious agenda, and one that is as conservative as Obama’s was progressive. He apparently had every intention of using the pen-and-phone model bequeathed by Obama to do it any way possible.

    But more importantly, Trump’s lidless eyes never sleep. He is a 24/7 force of nature. No controversy is too trivial, too silly, too irrelevant to escape his Twitter commentary. Or rather Trump believes he is an existential war with the media, celebrities, elites of all sorts and the general status quo, or what we might call the American progressive project and its elite coastal architects.

    Trump senses that the more he offends them, and the more so they pronounce him a dunce, a nut, a boor, a criminal, an ogre, then all the more they reveal what many had suspected about them but had no hard evidence to substantiate those suspicions. Trump believes his checkered social life is now transparent and serves as a sort of armor when he jousts with the sober and judicious whose pretense of civility is ripped away leaving them hypocritical when they foam, swear, and damn the current president.

    Media bias? The hatred for Trump manifests itself in 90 percent negative coverage, according to reputable media watchdogs.

    Trump’s war with the Colin Kaepernick take-a-knee fad and the NBA-China nexus reminds us that hypocritical multimillionaires who grow rich throwing, catching, and bouncing balls are not by that fact to be looked up to as either moral or wise, but mostly remain clueless and hypocritical.

    The bipartisan Washington establishment? If an outsider Manhattan wheeler-dealer without military or political experience can at last call an appeased China to account, can avoid a Libyan fiasco, can acknowledge that America is tired of a 18-year slog in Afghanistan when others would not, or believes ISIS thrived as a result of prior arcane restrictive U.S. rules of engagement—and he is proven largely right—then what does that say about the credentialed experts who dreamed up the bipartisan conventional wisdom that with a few more concessions China would eventually become Palo Alto or that Libya would bloom at the heart of the Arab Spring?

    The Left detests Trump for a lot of reasons besides winning the 2016 election and aborting the progressive project. But mostly they hate his guts because he is trying and often succeeding to restore a conservative America at a time when his opponents thought that the mere idea was not just impossible but unhinged.

    And that is absolutely unforgivable. __V.D.Hanson

    1. Hanson is spot on. Thank you for posting that. It had me thinking about Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). I had learned of NPD after leaving a church with a pastor that clearly met the definition. Apparently NPD among clergy is very common. Once I began to understand the behavior of an NPD, my actions toward that individual went a different path. NPD’s will stop at nothing to get their way. Constitutions, bylaws, rules and other limits on behavior are viewed as beneath one with NPD.

      Hanson’s article prompted me look up Collective Narcissism. I wanted to see what parallels there were between the individual NPD and NPD group. Not surprisingly, they use those supporting Trump as an example of collective narcissism and say nothing of those opposing him. A key point the article attempts to make is that Collective narcissists are more likely to advocate violent revenge for lost grandiosity and gravitate towards similarly minded group members. My takeaway is they have projected the collective narcissism of the anti-Trumpers onto the group supporting the direction he has taken the country. After all, considering the hateful rhetoric and violence from the Left; considering they act as if the law is beneath them, collective narcissism in all it’s forms is exactly what the progressive movement and the DNC have become.
      http://theconversation.com/welcome-to-the-age-of-collective-narcissism-71196

  4. Hillary just made the Democrats the WAR PARTY……anyone who wants peace is a Russian asset now……

    Everyone Is a Russian Asset

    America laughed at Hillary Clinton’s remarks about Tulsi Gabbard, but her ideas fit perfectly in the intellectual mainstream

    https://rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/clinton-gabbard-russian-asset-jill-stein-901593/

    Max Blumenthal on why Hillary Clinton smeared Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein
    Hillary Clinton has smeared Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein as Russian assets, and almost no Democratic politicians are pushing back.

    thegrayzone.com/author/aaron-mate/

    Glenn Greenwald
    ‏Verified account @ggreenwald

    Yesterday, Hillary Clinton – in widely publicized comments – voiced grave accusations against 2 women (Jill Stein & Tulsi Gabbard) without a shred of evidence, accusing them of being “Russian assets,” which would be disloyal & criminal. Count how many Dems have denounced this.

    Glenn Greenwald
    ‏Verified account @ggreenwald

    Casually accusing critics of the Democratic Party (even when they’re Democrats!) of being Kremlin assets is a serious pathology in Democratic Party politics. So few prominent Democrats (if any) condemned Hillary because they don’t recognize it as wrong: it’s their prime tactic.

    Glenn Greenwald
    ‏Verified account @ggreenwald

    Yes, Russia favors candidates who advocate peace, rather than conflict, with them. Putin & Medvedev openly favored Obama over Romney in 2012 for that reason. That didn’t make Obama a “Kremlin asset”:

    Russia rooting for Obama in US election

    https://www.dw.com/en/russia-rooting-for-obama-in-us-election/a-16341745

    1. Emma Peele,

      You might not be aware but this web blog only permits two hyperlinks per comment. I edited your comment here so that it would post.

      If you would like the readers to review more than two links, this may be accomplished by using multiple comments of two links or less each.

  5. Comrade Clinton is using a ‘scare’ of the Communist Party? So what? She’s been a terrorist socialist for years. Nothing new there.

    1. Clinton is to the right of NIXON.She was a republican and supported Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller.She was the ehad of the young republican party in college.

    1. Tusli quit as second in command at the DNC because of the Clinton cabal cheating Sanders.Tulsi supported Sanders and stepped down from the DNC.Tulsi was threatened this would end her career .Tulsi has already shown more courage than most and to be smeared by someone as despicable as Hillary is a badge of honor.

        1. And you wonder why we have Trump……

          Donna Brazile wrote a book about it……Sanders was cheated as was the country and the world.

          Only Hillary could cheat and still lose to her own hand picked carnival barker.Hillary and Trump were the 2 most hated candidates in USA history and Trump was always more popular than Hillary.Even Trump figured out the electoral college system because Clinton’s so smaht…..

    2. By trump’s own actions regarding Putin and Russia, was Hillary wrong about calling trump Putin’s puppet?

        1. Not the sample lady at Costco!

          Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone nailed it

          https://rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/clinton-gabbard-russian-asset-jill-stein-901593/

          This witch-hunting insanity isn’t just dangerous, it’s a massive breach from reality. Trump’s campaign was a clown show. He had almost no institutional backing. His “ground game” was nonexistent: his “campaign” was a TV program based almost wholly around unscripted media appearances. Trump raised just over half the $1.2 billion Hillary pulled in (making him the first presidential candidate dating back to 1976 to win with a funds deficit). He didn’t prepare a victory speech, for the perfectly logical reason that he never expected to win.

          Even if you posit the most elaborate theories of Russian interference (which I don’t, but of course I’m denialist scum), what happened in 2016 was still almost entirely a domestic story, with Trump benefiting from long-developing public rejection of the political establishment.

          Rather than confront the devastating absurdity of defeat before an ad-libbing game show host who was seemingly trying to lose – a black comedy that is 100% in America’s rich stupidity tradition – Democrats have gone all-in on this theory of foreign infiltration. House speaker Nancy Pelosi even said as much in a White House meeting, pointing at Trump and proclaiming: “All roads lead to Putin.”

          All? Seriously? Is this ever going to end?

          1. and this ……
            We’re in a Permanent Coup

            Americans might soon wish they just waited to vote their way out of the Trump era

            Matt Taibbi, Matt Taibbi October 14, 2019

            “My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump. Many Americans don’t see this because they’re not used to waking up in a country where you’re not sure who the president will be by nightfall. They don’t understand that this predicament is worse than having a bad president.

            The Trump presidency is the first to reveal a full-blown schism between the intelligence community and the White House. Senior figures in the CIA, NSA, FBI and other agencies made an open break from their would-be boss before Trump’s inauguration, commencing a public war of leaks that has not stopped. ”

            https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup

            1. Matt Taibbi is an ass. His schtick is to be the most cynical guy in the room. He thinks that’s the same thing as being smart and cool. You know, kind of like your teenager, except he’s gotta’ be deep in his 40’s now

              1. Another Obama era whistle blower (REGISTERED DEMOCRAT) liberals hate! “Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL?

                Michael T Flynn, the former head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, on how to deal with ISIL and Iran.

                Flynn: “Obama admin made willful decision to ignore the intelligence on ISIS.”

                https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2015/07/blame-isil-150728080342288.html

                Hillary Clinton admits America created, funded and armed Al Qaeda / ISIS terrorists

                https://youtu.be/FsIp1TDwFLs

    3. By trump’s own actions regarding Putin and Russia, was Hillary wrong when she called trump Putin’s puppet?

      1. Trump, Gabbard, and the sample lady at Costco are all Putin’s puppets, Fishwings.
        Sorry you had to ask twice and wait so long for a direct answer.

  6. “… Robert Mueller determined that no one in the Trump campaign knowingly worked with Russian agents. …” the professor wrongly and unlawyerly asserts.

    Special Counsel Mueller and numerous lawyers found no evidence and indicted no Trump campaign official, employee or volunteer with conspiring with the Russian government or anyone working with or for the Russian government.

    “… . Gabbard is a former Army National Guard major who served in Iraq and has long opposed our foreign wars and interventions. …” wrongly professes the professor.

    House of Representative Gabbard is currently an Army Major in the National Guard; she served two tours in Iraq at the height of the War of Aggression against Iraq; as part of her current duties as an Army Major she served two weeks in Indonesia on active duty and, thus, took a two week absence from the 2020 Presidential Campaign and as a medic in Iraq House of Representative Gabbard medically treated seriously wounded and eventually fatally wounded and dismembered soldiers. Army Major Gabbard performed medical treatment and over saw fellow soldiers medical treatment of wound soldiers during her two tours under incoming artillery fire and large caliber weapons.

    Not that Army Major Gabbard’s active militarily service in America’s War of Aggression in Iraq compares to Ms. Clinton “taking” sniper fire from “terrorists” in Bosnia.

    “… Despite polls showing a strong sentiment against the establishment, the party rigged its primaries in favor of Clinton, the ultimate establishment figure. …” the professor deceptively, dishonestly and disrespectly misrepresents the facts and House Member Gabbard’s part in calling out the D.N.C. and it’s leader Debbie Wasserman Schultz* for its corruption.

    Perhaps, the professor does not want to state the facts for fear of losing his place in “Club,” which is the power elite in Washington D.C.

    To amend the professor’s ending quote:

    “Have you no sense of the facts, the law and the “truth,” decency, professor? At long last, have you, professor, left no sense of the facts, the law and the “truth?

    One thing is abundantly clear with the power elite, the Washington D.C. oligarchy, government today.

    There is no room for the facts, the law or the “truth,” if the professor were desirous of staying a fellow traveler in the power elite, the Club.

    Am I too hard on the professor?

    Does the professor not know the facts, the law and the “truth?” Then, the professor exemplifies ignorance.

    Does the professor know the the facts, the law and the “truth?” Then, the professor fails to tell all and the precise facts, fails to cite the applicable law and, most importantly and tellingly, fails to state the “truth”, the whole “truth”, and nothing but the “truth.”

    A little truth can be more deceitful, more harmful, than a lie.

    Such is the membership cost to join and dues for staying in the Club.

    There no two parties, so-called “duopoly.” The exists only one bird of pray. Yes, it has two wings. But, it is not Democrat and Republican; no it is not liberal and conservative. It is the Club of the power elite.

    Yes!, the oligarchy has internal power disputes on “who gets what ( politics ).” But, there is only one goal, one purpose, who gets control of the money, control of who is to be bought and paid for or paid off.

    Why am I wrong?
    dennis hanna

    * On July 28, 2016, Wasserman Schultz resigned from her position after WikiLeaks released a collection of stolen emails indicating that Wasserman Schultz and other members of the DNC staff had exercised prejudice against Senator Bernie Sanders and bias in favor of Hillary Clinton and in favor of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primaries.

    It was House of Representative Tulsi Gabbard who discovered the prejudice and the bias and disclosed the prejudice and the bias and dismissed herself from the D.N.C.

    Tulsi Gabbard is the most dangerous type of human being. Ms. Gabbard not only embodies principles and values, but also acts on her principles and values.
    People of principles and values almost, or, almost always, meet a “bad” end.

    1. … Robert Mueller determined that no one in the Trump campaign knowingly worked with Russian agents. …” the professor wrongly and unlawyerly asserts.

      You were wrong. Just suck it up and quit lying you wanker.

  7. Another Wingnut’s Greatest Hits thread!

    Must be something new on Behghazi to spend a day on, and just as relevant to what’s going on as this nonsense.

    1. “Another Wingnut’s Greatest Hits thread!”

      Say’s the man who thinks Tulsi, Jill Stein, and Trump are Russian agents. You just have to laugh.

      “Must be something new on Behghazi to spend a day on…”

      Says the man who isn’t aware that it’s through Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuits on Benghazi that we learned about Hillary’s emails which ended up turning the election. Not the Congress or the media- it was Judicial Watch that discovered this and so much more. I love it when no-nothings talk dismissively of “Banghazi” when it cost them the election and they don’t even know it. You just have to laugh.

      That Benghazi lawsuit even continues to this very day because they busted the State Dept covering-up Hillary’s private email server. The Obama State Dept knew full well that Hillary was using a vulnerable private server all along and they hid those emails from the FOIA request. Judicial Watch has now shown that that coverup was directed by top lawyers at the Obama White House. Right now, Hillary is fighting to not be deposed in person. The judge in charge of the case is not happy about having been lied to.

      1. Ivan, I have never said that I think Tulsi or Stein are Russian agents, though they could be “assets” meaning unwitting aids to Russian goals. Why would you say that?

        Trump is pretty clearly a Russian agent.

        You should either newspapers more regularly or my posts. If you did you know that the State Dept investigation of Hillary and staffs emails came up empty. But you are correct that Comey’s blunder cost Hillary the EC – not the popular vote which she won by 3 million.

    1. Please don’t insult Sen Joe McCarthy by comparing him to the Hillary Clinton & her friends.

      McCarthy was correct, there were American Hating Commies everywhere back then & just like their next generation Commies, Hillary Clinton & friends.

      You can still join the John Bitch Society as time has vindicated them that they are correct about the evils of Socialist/Commies/Fascism.

      1. You can still join the John Bitch Society as time has vindicated them that they are correct about the evils of Socialist/Commies/Fascism.

        The Birch Society’s various officials and mouthpieces once said that the country was 60%-80% ‘communist controlled’ in 1961 and that Dwight Eisenhower was a ‘conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy’. Their PR director penned a book in 1971 claiming the conspiracy was run out of the Council on Foreign Relations.

        They were kooks, and best forgotten.

        1. The commies now have schools across the nation & more important to me allowing Mental Retarded 8th grade boys with Dicks into the girls dressing rooms in our local schools.

          Yeah, there’s one hell of a public with these mature Communist Public School Indoctrination Centers.

          Title 9 Commies have crossed that line they can’t come back from.

          1. Typo:

            Yeah, there’s one hell of a public backlash against these mature Communist Public School Indoctrination Centers.

    1. Her claim was that the US government supported al-Qaeda starting with Obama and it’s continuing now under Trump. And I agree, in part. I have previously said that by threatening to destroy the Syrian government whenever it starts to move to retake Idlib, Trump is supporting al-Qaeda because they rule Idlib now. Also, our support for SA through both Dem and Rep administrations is support for al-Qaeda and it’s ilk.

      Trump largely ended the dirty war in Syria back in July 2017 when he ended the covert CIA operation that was funding and arming the jihadis, but he needs to go much further. Pulling out of Syria would be a good start.

      Please partake in the debate if you have any knowledge to share although I suspect you’re here for strictly partisan reasons.

      1. The issue an allegation by a presidential candidate about the policy of the current administration.
        Whether one likes or dislikes Gabbard or Trump is beside the point.
        Your take appears to be that the Trump Administration’s policy is to support the Al Qaeda-controlled areas of Syria over Assad’s attempt to recapture the remaining Al Qaeda strongholds.
        If that is true, then Gabbard’s accusation has merit. I haven’t seen overt or tacit support for those Al Qaeda areas from the Trump Administration.
        The discontinued operation Timber Sycamore program may have indirectly armed Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups in Syria via arms sales to countries that supported those groups.
        Since so much of that discontinued program was classified it’s difficult to tell how much military hardware supplied by the U.S. (and sold to the Saudis and others) ended up being funneled to the jihadists.
        Is there now a subsequent program of the Trump Admibistration designed to arm those in Al Qaeda- held areas, or is your conclusion that Trump is supporting them based on something else?

    2. its a FACT………Saudes support AQ and ISIS ……as does the USA.WHO do you think ISIS works for?

      Obama hoped to use Islamic State as leverage against Assad, John Kerry reveals

      https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/obama-hoped-to-use-isis-as-leverage-against-assad-/

      Julian Assange: Isis and Clinton Foundation are both funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar

      ‘This is the most significant email in the whole collection’

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/julian-assange-clinton-foundation-isis-same-money-saudi-arabia-qatar-funding-a7397211.html

      1. Nothing in your links says or suggests that the US supports or supported ISIL Nor does an A rated charity who’s founders received no compensation from it receiving funds from an individual or government imply support their policies.

        If your going to look in the weeds, wear bug spray and wear glasses.

    1. “Pierre Delecto, John Barron and Carlos Danger walk into a bar…,” CNN anchor Jake Tapper tweeted, mocking the bizarre controversy.”

  8. “For some of us, the choice seems between an environmental apocalypse offered by Trump and an economic meltdown offered by Democrats.”

    Professory Turley, like many people, is so far removed from the fray that he has misinterpreted the battle from afar.

    It is unethical to impoverish people for negligible improvement to the environment. Every single environmental policy must have a cost/benefit analysis. Discarding policy that is injurious to the American people is not an “environmental apocalypse.” I will briefly explain and add more detail later.

    Great harm has been done over the past decade or so in the name of “we must do something.” That rallying cry really needs to be amended to “we must do something helpful.”

    Examples of harm done in the name of climate action:
    1. California Air Resources Board (CARB), an unelected board, declared that engines of large vehicles prior to 2010 may not be registered in the state of CA. Many people lost the vehicles they used for their business, or for hauling livestock, without compensation. Newer vehicles are of course much more expensive. These can cost upwards of $100,000. Vehicle owners sell their obsolete vehicles out of state, which lowers their value as the supply increases. Those vehicles are still on the road, and still emitting. Air does not stay within state lines. So, without environmental benefit, CARB caused severe financial strain on the people of CA. I know of some people who went out of business. Water haulers may shut down, which means that people without producing wells suddenly find themselves without water, and an unsellable property. The increases the cost of goods and services, which are shipped with these vehicles, for everyone in the state of CA without any environmental benefit.

    2. Waterways. If a farmer digs a ditch on his relatively flat land, this may be declared a “waterway”, and protected, and he would be barred from farming that area.

    3. Habitat used to be able to be set aside as protected for an endangered species, where not a single specimen was ever found there. This makes the land unusable, unbuildable, unfarmable, unranchable, and unsellable. It does exactly zero to save any endangered species.

    4. Obstructing the Keystone Pipeline severely impacted the fossil fuel industry in Canada, putting many out of work. A pipeline is more environmentally sound than, say, an oil tanker. Activists would rather we burn fossil fuel to ship oil in a tanker, which can leak all across the ocean, from countries that support terrorism, than buy it from a nearby ally in a safer manner.

    5. Wind turbines – useful life of 20 years. Require $500,000 to decommission. Kill migratory birds and bats. Only generate when the wind blows. Unreliable. Expensive to maintain. Manufactured and shipped with fossil fuels. Chop the air so they sound as annoying as the syncopation of this paragraph.

    6. The Paris Climate Accord harmed America and encouraged pollution. It was economically extremely disadvantageous to America. Meanwhile, China’s agreement lets them continue increasing their rate of emissions for many years, at which point they might think about tapering off.

    7. CA automatically enrolled many communities in the Clean Power Alliance, at the maximum level of wind and solar. Our energy bill doubled because, once again, politicians said bald-faced lies that it would be cheaper than fossil fuels. Nope. Everyone in the community started complaining that their bills suddenly skyrocket by hundreds of dollars. We are not an affluent community.

    There are many examples of climate activists thrashing around, causing carnage, in the name of “doing something.” Elites might disdain complaints with a “let them eat cake” attitude, but those whom are injured by their actions revolt against those policies.

    1. Karen fails to grasp that doing nothing with a looming problem is doing something and with consequences. In fact, if 97% of climate scientists are correct, doing nothing will have drastic consequences economically, and potentially politically.

      Her list is too tedious to counter, but the Paris Accords are voluntary, which makes them difficult to “harm” signees or stop them from doing whatever they decide to do. Countries agreed to set a goal and take action but are free to set their own goals.

      1. “Her list is too tedious to counter” that should be the starting point for any response to Karen maybe shorthanded TTTC🙁

  9. “Red Scare,” Obama Coup D’etat, Faux Impeachment Sans High Crime, The Genetic Hysteria of Misandrists, whatever it is, the communists had better do something soon because President Donald J. Trump is going to destroy them in a landslide in 2020. In the words of the worldly, accomplished, eminently intellectual and constitutionally scholastic Comrade Al Green:
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”

    – Rep. Al Green

  10. The big question is not the “messenger” but the “message”. To comply with the First Amendment, is the political speech a fact or opinion. Is that fact or opinion true and in context? A huge factor here is that the FBI and other agencies perceive themselves as having “censorship authority” over citizens on Facebook and social media.

  11. Both Tulsi Gabbard and the Green Party of the United States have issued scorching rebukes of Hillary Clinton for baseless accusations the former Secretary of State made during a recent interview claiming that both Gabbard and former Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein are aligned with the Russian government.

    “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said in a transparent reference to Gabbard. “She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset.”

    Clinton provided no evidence for her outlandish claims, because she does not have any. Gabbard has repeatedly denied centrist conspiracy theories that she intends to run as a third-party candidate, a claim which establishment pundits have been making more and more often because they know there will never be any consequences when their claims are disproven. There is no evidence of any kind connecting either Jill Stein or Tulsi Gabbard to the Russian government.

    Of course, this total lack of evidence hasn’t dissuaded Clintonites from falling all over themselves trying to justify Mommy’s claims anyway.

    Asha Rangappa

    @AshaRangappa_
    This is so important. Russian “assets” are not formal relationships in the USIC sense of the word. If you are parroting Russian talking points and furthering their interests, you’re a source who is too dumb to know you’re being played to ask for money. https://twitter.com/alexzfinley/status/1185330643988824064

    Alex Fangley 🧛‍♀️
    @alexzfinley
    Seems a good time to share (again) this piece by @john_sipher for @just_security, in which he explains terms of art in intelligence. How does Russia define an “agent”? https://www.justsecurity.org/63660/is-trump-a-russian-agent-explaining-terms-of-art-and-examining-the-facts/

    8,253
    8:50 PM – Oct 18, 2019
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    3,015 people are talking about this
    “Russian ‘assets’ are not formal relationships in the USIC [US Intelligence Community] sense of the word,” CNN analyst and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa explained via Twitter. “If you are parroting Russian talking points and furthering their interests, you’re a source who is too dumb to know you’re being played to ask for money.”

    “It’s important to point out here that a Russian ‘asset’ is not the same thing as a Russian ‘agent’,” tweeted virulent establishment narrative manager Caroline Orr. “An asset can be witting or unwitting; it’s any person or org who can be used to advance Russia’s interests. It’s pretty clear that Tulsi satisfies that criteria.”

    “One doesn’t have to be on the Kremlin’s payroll to be a Russian asset. One doesn’t even have to know they are a Russian asset to be a Russian asset. Have you not heard the term ‘useful idiot’ before?” tweeted writer Kara Calavera.

    Yep, yeah, that makes perfect sense. One doesn’t have to actually have any formal relationship with the Kremlin to be a Kremlin asset. One doesn’t have to know they’re a Kremlin asset to be a Kremlin asset. The Kremlin doesn’t even need to know one is a Kremlin asset for them to be a Kremlin asset. Nothing has to have happened except the accusation of being a Kremlin asset. It’s just kind of a vague, shapeless nothing thing that doesn’t necessarily have any actual meaning to it at all besides the way it makes people feel inside. It’s more like a religious belief, really.

    Isn’t it interesting how that works? Establishment loyalists get a damaging and incendiary tag that they can pin on anyone who disagrees with them, with the sole evidentiary requirement being that disagreement itself.

    Author and antiwar activist David Swanson noticed this bizarre intellectual contortion as well, tweeting, “Notice that they carefully define ‘Russian asset’ to mean not necessarily an asset and not necessarily with any connection to Russia.”

    David Swanson
    @davidcnswanson
    Notice that they carefully define “Russian asset” to mean not necessarily an asset and not necessarily with any connection to Russia. twitter.com/RaniaKhalek/status/1185469157766242304 …

    Rania Khalek

    @RaniaKhalek
    Former US intelligence people are pushing the “Tulsi is a Russian asset” line. That’s not at all suspicious, amirite?

    For all those progressives dogpiling on Tulsi, just wait. Soon this will be used against Bernie too.

    View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
    183
    5:31 AM – Oct 19, 2019
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    97 people are talking about this
    Establishment narrative managers have been performing this obnoxious trick for years; this is just the most publicly it’s been brought into the spotlight. They claim someone is a Russian asset, then when asked to provide proof that the person is working for Russia, they say they might be an “unwitting” Russian asset, or a “useful idiot”, who does the Kremlin’s bidding without realizing it by sharing ideas and information which the Russian government agrees with. Which is just another way of saying that they hold positions which diverge from the microscopic Overton window of establishment-authorized opinion.

    Such positions typically consist of some form of opposition to longstanding US military agendas, such as America’s failed policy of regime change interventionism. Both Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard have inserted skepticism of US military policy into mainstream political discourse, which is tremendously inconvenient for the people whose job it is to manufacture consent for new wars and endless military expansionism.

    The “Russian asset” smear has given the establishment narrative managers the ability to make incredibly inflammatory and scandalous accusations about anyone who opposes the US establishment foreign policy consensus, without ever having to back them up with facts. It’s no obstacle for me if I can’t prove that you have any connection to the Russian government, because I can still smear you as a Russian asset by saying your views align with Moscow’s interests, or by noting that Russian news media has done news reporting on you as our friend Neera Tanden does here:

    Neera Tanden

    @neeratanden
    Tulsi is definitely NOT backed by Russia. twitter.com/rt_com/status/1185306710019313664 …

    RT

    @RT_com
    ‘Queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption’: Tulsi Gabbard DRAGS Hillary Clinton after ‘Russian asset’ claim on.rt.com/a3ms

    15.1K
    11:31 PM – Oct 18, 2019
    Twitter Ads info and privacy
    3,734 people are talking about this
    Never mind the fact that there are many, many reasons to oppose the US establishment foreign policy consensus which have nothing to do with Russia. Never mind the fact that the US establishment foreign policy consensus has been an unmitigated disaster that has only made the world worse and is pushing the US-centralized power alliance toward a point where a direct military confrontation with Russia, China and their allies becomes inescapable. Never mind the fact that Russia is far from the only country in the world that wishes America would scale back its aggressive military expansionism. It has been firmly established beyond any doubt that it is now literally impossible for an American political figure to vocally oppose US warmongering without being labeled a Russian asset.

    In reality, “Russian asset” is nothing more than a completely meaningless noise that war pigs make with their face holes, no more coherent and communicative than the barking of a dog or the chattering of a squirrel. If we were to come up with a definition for that term which reflects the way it is actually being used in modern political discourse, that definition would be something like, “An incantation which magically makes political dissent look like something treasonous and Machiavellian.”

    Establishment narrative managers are getting more and more aggressive with the psychological bullying tactics they are using against political dissidents. Applying a ridiculous, meaningless pejorative to anyone who disagrees with mainstream US foreign policy views is just one more ugly tool in their infernal toolbox. It is not normal, healthy or acceptable to accuse someone of being a Russian asset just because they disagree with the authorized commentators of the American political/media class, and when they make such accusations they should be publicly shamed for it.

    caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/10/19/russian-asset-is-a-meaningless-noise-war-pigs-make-with-their-face-holes/

    WOW

    1. Mr. Kurtz.

      So that your comment would clear the moderation queue, I edited it to remove the hyperlinks that exceeded the limit of two. Sometimes when pasting quotes from websites into the editor for writing comments, it will carry with it hyperlinks–thus possibly triggering the hyperlink limit. Something to be aware of.

      Your comment above is now visible.

      1. i guess it was the twitter links that tripped the link limit. I’ll keep that in mind.
        thanks for getting it up on the board.

  12. While Russia would favorably view Tulsi Gabbard’s anti-war stance, and most of the Democratic candidates pro-Socialism positions, that does not make any of them “Russian agents.”

    Mean girls in the political arena.

  13. This is the Clinton Political Machine. Spread false rumors to discredit an opponent. I’m not sure if she’s going to run for President a third time, or if she’ll be content choosing a candidate she’ll allow to run for Democrats.

    We’re getting really tired of the games.

Leave a Reply