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. It is notable that the Democratic cry of “Russian stooges” involves fear of a third party challenge.

    Hillary/Bill Clinton are bought, paid for and wholly owned subsidiaries who are willing to trade their morals, integrity and the nation to the highest bidder.

    Italicized/bold text below was excerpted from a report titled:

    Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

    As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

    And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

    Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left.

    Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

    The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

    The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

    Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared.

    Ian Telfer was chairman of Uranium One and made large donations to the Clinton Foundation.
    Ian Telfer was chairman of Uranium One and made large donations to the Clinton Foundation.

    But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.

    His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.

    The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a response.

    Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview.

    Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.

    The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences.

    Who are the real “Russian stooges”?

  2. So glad “I’m with her” is not with us as President 🙂

    NYT can’t even see right from red from DOA “paper of record”
    Brit Hume
    ‏Verified account @brithume

    She makes a no-evidence charge of treachery against Tulsi Gabbard and gets a puff piece from the New York Times.
    5:57 PM – 21 Oct 2019

    Replying to @brithume

    At least we can all agree her “best life” is not being President.
    3 replies 2 retweets 152 likes
    ‏ @a1chargersfan

  3. The sad part is, there is almost 50% of the voting public, that still wants this insane lady as president. When over half your country is insane, you know you have a very big problem.

    1. Untrue. half the country is not insane.

      The majority are prideful, gluttonous, slothful, wrathful, willing slaves to appetites of all stripes, and too many are depressive, anxious, and complain of loneliness

      Chronic self-induced pathology grips America but not insanity


      Take, Lord, and receive all my liberty,
      my memory, my understanding,
      and my entire will,
      All I have and call my own.

      You have given all to me.
      To you, Lord, I return it.

      Everything is yours; do with it what you will.
      Give me only your love and your grace,
      that is enough for me.

      – St. Ignatius of Loyola

  4. It must be tough to be so boring you have to invent friends so you all can talk to one another.

  5. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-eight citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-seven weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – you violated the Civility Rule?

    1. Independent Bob – the difference is McCarthy was right and was getting his info from Hoover. Clinton is wrong and is getting her information from her hairdresser.

      1. If we hear her claim there are 57 card-carrying communists in the Defense Department, we’ll know she is getting her information from the waitress at Outback Steakhouse.

        1. Loved the clip. I was at the library awhile back and picked up a copy of “Masters of Deceit” by J. E. Hoover (1958). It seems that chapter 4- “Life In the Party” might be an interesting read later in the week when the power goes out again at our place.

          1. Dr M. Scott Peck’s book:
            em>People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil (1998) applies all too well to Bill and Hillary. Not surprisingly Dr Peck wrote it during the Clintons reign of the lie and Americans being enamored with these satans.

            People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Peck demonstrates the havoc these people of the lie work in the lives of those around them. He presents, from vivid incidents encountered in his psychiatric practice, examples of evil in everyday life. This book is by turns disturbing, fascinating, and altogether impossible to put down as it offers a strikingly original approach to the age-old problem of human evil.

            Then again, Americans would do well to get acquainted with Dr Karl Menninger’s Whatever Became of Sin?

            In the present book Dr. Menninger attempts to apply psychiatry to a world-wide affliction, the depression, gloom, discouragement and apprehensiveness which are so prevalent. The word “sin” has almost disappeared from our vocabulary, but the sense of guilt remains in our hearts and minds. The prisoners punished in our jails are a small minority of all the offenders; “all we like sheep have gone astray.” While a few deplore their guilt, many remain blandly indifferent or vaguely depressed or bitterly accusatory of others. Are these states of illness? Not until the EPILOGUE, which he calls a deferred preface, does the author tell us how he came to write this book and how he has come from from many years of experience to consider moral values an essential aspect of psychiatry. If, as he believes, mental health and moral health are identical, the recognition of the reality of sin offers to the suffering struggling, anxious world a real hope not of belated treatment but of prevention. This task enlists the physician, the psychiatrist, the minister, the lawyer, the editor, the teacher, and the mother in a common army- an army against self-destruction and world destruction.


        2. Darren, if one reads these threads on a regular basis, they will see that Trump supporters are obsessed with communists. Trumpers here routinely refer to Democrats as ‘communists’. And most Trumpers think that Trump is the only thing standing between ‘freedom’ and communism. In fact that seems to be Trump’s main appeal to supporters; ‘he’s not a communist’.

          So Darren I’m not sure ‘who’ you presume to mock with this clip from “Advise & Consent”.

          1. you’re not talking about me. I have a lot of things to say about communists and none of them very simple. and I find these complicated remarks generally elicit no feedback at all.

            quit saying Trumpers Trumpers Trumpers like there’s some strict party line pro Trump voters need to follow. we’re not marching in lockstep on every little thing.

            not until the election day that is and then it will be one phalanx after another.

          2. if one reads these threads on a regular basis,

            Would conclude no matter what alias Hill uses, he’s still a half a brain short of a critical thought.

        3. Finding American Hating Commies is very easy in many cases.

          Just like last week we could all see LeBron James, the NBA & Nike on their knees kissing the Commie Chinese govt’s azz to keep allowing them to earn money under the Commies Slave Factory system.

          The money they were chasing from the Commies was said to be around $15 billion to the NBA & $35-50 to Nike for literally Chinese Commie Slaves making their BB shoes/tee shirts/etc..

          Then there’s those pieces of sh*t Tim Cook of Apple & Sundar Picah (sic) of Google.

          I can keep going, there are far more then 57 Commies in the US/govt.

          1. communism in the PRC is mostly just what we would call, nationalism.

            it’s a nationalism that wants to keep out the power of American foreign influence from their domestic affairs.

            I can relate to that as an American nationalist.

            when you look back to communism as an international phenomenon, it had a certain amount of help from international capitalists, over several decades.

            there’s a lot to ponder in that. most of all, is international capital a friend today for the American nationalist?

            Not when you look at the likes of international capitalists like Geo Soros today, financier of troublemakers everywhere.
            more to ponder.

          2. you know what international capitalists in America really like about Chicoms?

            most of all, they don’t allow unions. supposedly, the proletariats are already in charge, see!

            allows them to export American manufacturing jobs to the PRC where people work for a lot less per hour. big profits on selling their junk back here. similar thing with environmental: there’s little regulation on industry in china, they pollute terribly. cheaper to run factories there, instead.

            they don’t like Trump because he’s creating pressure on China which could dislodge the Chicoms which have this strange anti-labor alliance with socalled American companies like Nike.

            he’s also potentially disrupting their logistics and supply chains which could cause them a big hassle outsourcing to other third world scheissholes like Vietnam, instead.

            see, if you wonder why these billionaires do certain things, you won’t learn why by reading it in the papers. because they own the papers too. but you can almost guarantee that whatever they say they support, they probably don’t, it’s a lie. like labor and the environment. no they just talk a big game here for their gullible consumers and then go on and do their dirt over in the slave quarters in asia.

            Chicoms are playing a long game however. whatever deal they have today, they may change it. long game for them has included getting rich on foreign factories in china, thus to steal tons of technology, and gain the capital investment needed to modernize in a way that Mao’s “Great Leap forward” dismally failed to accomplish. That’s it. They’re nationalists. They’re willing to subordinate everything to the national agenda, even labor and the environment.

            And, the American Trump hater billionaires should probably realize, they might just make a deal with Trump too, if the terms were right. Like Nixon. Then who knows what direction things might go. We’ll see!

            What Trump’s been doing, putting American national interests above American capital, is a historically brave and wonderful thing. Some of them hate him for it. Some of them don’t. Some of them take a long view too. Again, we’ll see how it turns out!

            1. Kurtz, what you wrote looks interesting, but I’ll have to get back to it later I hope.

              Even the US govt isn’t without sin & is currently hardly a functional capitalist economy.

              I think it was another 100 bil the FRS printed just last night to keep the wheels on another day.

              Go to some of the new News sites & look at how many countries are burning right… Mexico, etc.., etc. all over the globe.

              Bullets, Toilet Paper, Cigs, Booze, etc… all the new Money as currency is just uncollectable paper hanging Debt Bonds.


        4. “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

          – William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987

          Let’s be clear, in the words of Whittaker Chambers,

          “Its original purpose was the Communist infiltration of the American government.”

          It was said that pro-McCarthy forces were seeing communists everywhere. Well, duh! They were because they were. That America was/is infused with communists is not evidence that it is not. Alger Hiss was proven to be and convicted of being a communist and a Russian spy as described in “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers. One of thousands in the Roosevelt administration – there to this day.

          “the purpose of this group at that time was not primarily espionage. Its original purpose was the Communist infiltration of the American government. But espionage was certainly one of its eventual objectives.”[32]

          – Whittaker Chambers

          Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

          The entire communistic American welfare state is extant, real and unconstitutional as affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, Dept.’s of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Obamaphones, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

          Accusation of espionage

          On August 3, 1948, Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist Party member, appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) to denounce Alger Hiss. A senior editor at Time magazine, Chambers had written a scathingly satirical editorial critical of the Yalta agreements.[30] Chambers asserted that he had known Hiss as a member of “an underground organization of the United States Communist Party” in the 1930s.[31] The group, which Chambers called the “Ware Group”, had been organized by agriculturalist Harold Ware, an American communist intent on organizing black and white tenant farmers in the American South against exploitation and debt peonage by the cotton industry (Ware had died in 1935).

          According to Chambers, “the purpose of this group at that time was not primarily espionage. Its original purpose was the Communist infiltration of the American government. But espionage was certainly one of its eventual objectives.”[32] As historian Tim Weiner points out, “This was a crucial point. Infiltration and invisible political influence were immoral, but arguably not illegal. Espionage was treason, traditionally punishable by death. The distinction was not lost on the cleverest member of HUAC, Congressman Richard Nixon…. He had been studying the FBI’s files for five months, courtesy of J. Edgar Hoover. Nixon launched his political career in hot pursuit of Hiss and the alleged secret Communists of the New Deal.”[33]

          – Wiki

    1. Judicial Watch, James O’Keefe, Larry Nichols(former Clinton Hatchet man), Infowars, Gateway Pundit, Breitbart & many others documented Hillary’s/DNC Voter/Voter Machine frauds & stopped some of it.

      They ran those same scams in 2018 & if Trump hasn’t got a handle on those frauds like right now I’m not sure he can win 2020.

      For example, millions of his supporters like me have had our access to information from certain conservative sources censored that we would otherwise be using to help Trump’s re-election.

      1. Okay – I have also seen a sea change in GOOGLE searches. Articles that used to be easy to find are now buried.

        1. we never use Google or any of Alphabet Inc products. We removed all of their apps from our phones, tablets and computers a year ago

          For search purposes we use:

          duckduckgo dot com or
          startpage dot com

          neither of which track you

          1. I agree with you. Stay away from Google products. I use duck duck go also. These very large companies have too much power and are becoming dangerous.

    2. Karen,

      I can see now it’s impossible for anyone to stay caught up with every person, issue etc., but early today I saw you again wrote about the horrble condition of Cali state regs on people.

      Maybe Trump isn’t everyone’s cup of tea but he’s been fixing a hell’of’lot of stuffed I wanted fixed.

      As a long time land guy in rural America some of the govt land/water regs were pissing a lot of us off.

      Here’s the Trump Signing:

      Note this Welder guy, just 10 acres & a Bankrupting govt fine of $37,500 Per Day!!!!

      “Mr JOHNSON: Well, thank you for having me, today, and my wife Morgan and my son, Roaman. I work as welder in Wyoming, and about five years ago, when I applied for a stock pond permit for my private property, I had no idea that the EPA would come knocking at my door and threaten me and my family — civilly, criminally, and a fine of $37,500 per day. The fines were up to $16 million when Pacific Legal Foundation stepped in and sued the EPA on my behalf, and my family.”

      1. It’s a David and Goliath story.

        Those who live in more urban areas are insulted from how these regulations affect people in the country. But if someone knocked on their door, and informed them they could no longer live in their house, or that the government just dissolved their job, it would bother them.

        Here is a post about how difficult it is to fill in a hole in CA.

    3. Karen, you’re grossly distorting the issue. This article does ‘not’ refer to ‘fraudulent or unauthorized voters’. It refers to names on voter rolls belonging to residents who moved to other districts or died. Yet you seek to represent this as ‘proof’ of fraud. Which makes ‘you’ a fraud!

      Los Angeles is the nation’s 2nd Largest City with 4 million people. Los Angeles County is the nation’s biggest, by far, with 10 million people. Greater L.A. has up to 18 million people if one includes Orange County and portions of Riverside, San Bernardino and Santa Barbara Counties.

      With that large of a population you’ve got thousands of people moving around, or aging out, every single month. There are 200,000 people in Hollywood; just one section of Los Angeles. 200,000 would be the largest, or second, largest city in many states. So in Hollywood alone we have hundreds of people moving every month.

      Young singles change apartments several times throughout their 20’s. Couples in their 30’s trade up to houses. Seniors in their 60’s and 70’s leave L.A. to retire out of state. And thousands of people come to L.A. (from other states) but leave within a year.

      So I don’t think any state, county or city bureau has the budget or capabilities to track all these moves. And from a civil liberties point of view, we may not want any bureau tracking every move. What’s more, few of us have ever thought to notify the Elections Commission when moved to other districts. Unless people comply with that, there are going to be a lot of ‘zombie voters’ listed at polling stations.

      Again, there is a major difference between a defunct name on voter rolls and ‘fraudulent voters’. But Karen sees no need to make that distinction.

      1. FC (Peter?) to Karen S:

        “…you’re grossly distorting the issue.”

        She does that… Let her waste her time. No one’s paying any attention.

        1. Correction:

          Karen S appears to have a very small fan base of possibly a dozen people at the very most, but no one who matters is paying any attention. Just my opinion.

          1. Anonymous – even if Karen’s fan base was as low as a dozen, that is four times the size of yours.

      2. Francis – instead of the tiresome ad hominem, you could merely point out the fraud and inaccuracies in the voting registry. I would entirely agree with you. The lawsuit specifically addressed the registry. I do not believe the deep blue state of CA has investigated how many of these ineligible people actually voted. In fact, the state resists such efforts.

        Illegals often vote in CA. When you renew your drivers license, the website asks you if you are a citizen. Then it automatically registers you to vote. Illegals trying to pass in CA would therefore be automatically registered to vote. Around a million illegal aliens have drivers licenses under AB 60, which offered licenses to those here in violation of the law. But not all illegal aliens wish to be so identified on their drivers licenses. It is a quite common crime for illegals to engage in identity theft and social security fraud, in order to try to pass as a legal resident or citizen for employment purposes.

        People whom I know are illegal have talked about how they don’t want to vote for Trump, because he wants to make it harder to cross the border. Well, they shouldn’t be voting at all, let alone try to change the immigration policy of our country.

        1. Karen, you are totally disingenuous. Your claim that 1.6 million people voted illegally has no basis in fact. The issue is simply voter registries bearing defunct names. Yet you continue doubling-down on your contention that vast numbers of illegals are voting without any proof.

          If you’re really in California you know that Republicans sill have a major presence here. If the state GOP knows of voting districts with suspicious patterns of phantom voters, that story would have emerged quite some time ago.

          Devin Nunes, a Hispanic Republican Congressman from California would surely have revealed suspicious voting districts by now (if he knew of any). If Nunes can’t produce any evidence supporting Trump conspiracies, I don’t know how ‘you’ can. And here you’re merely providing anecdotal evidence based on ‘illegals’ you have allegedly talked to.

          Every day I see ‘illegal’ Housekeepers walking up steep canyon roads to reach the homes they clean. I seriously doubt if they have any energy after work to cast illegal votes.

          1. I’ve heard some ridiculous theories as to why illegals don’t vote, but being too tired is one of the most ridiculous.

      3. There are 2.2 million illegal aliens estimated to live in California. ( Identity theft to pass as a citizen is one of the most common crimes committed by illegal aliens. People registering for a drivers license who check the box that they are a citizen are automatically registered to vote.

        Why would anyone think that illegal aliens do not vote in California?


        I renewed my drivers license this year. He is correct. The screen queries if you are a citizen, yes or no. You check the box. Zero supporting documents required. Then you are automatically registered to vote. This means you get voting mailers.

        When I vote in CA, I give them my name at the polling place, and they check it off on a list. No one has ever, in my life as an adult, asked me for an ID, let alone proof of residency in that district.

        So, that’s all it takes for an illegal alien to vote. Check the “yes” box that they are a citizen, no proof required. Then they are registered to vote. In order to vote, they just state their name.

        That is all.

        Imagine if that is all that is required for someone to withdraw funds from anyone’s account. State their name. No ID required.

      5. Anecdotally, I know illegal aliens and legal residents, both, who voted. Some voted because they want to keep illegal immigration going. One person from Canada did not know he was not supposed to vote. He got automatically registered and thought he was supposed to. There have been get out the vote campaigns, in Spanish, to urge people to vote for Democrats unless they want illegals to be deported.

        “But there is evidence to back Trump’s claims. A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.

        “We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections,” wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

        More specifically, they write, “Noncitizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.”

        Specifically, the authors say that illegals may have cast as many as 2.8 million votes in 2008 and 2010. That’s a lot of votes. And when you consider the population of illegal inhabitants has only grown since then, it’s not unreasonable to suppose that their vote has, too.

        Critics note that a Harvard team in 2015 had responded to the study, calling it “biased.” But that report included this gem: “Further, the likely percent of noncitizen voters in recent U.S. elections is 0.”

        Really? That’s simply preposterous, frankly, as anyone who has lived in California can attest. Leftist get-out-the-vote groups openly urge noncitizens to vote during election time, and the registration process is notoriously loose. To suggest there is no illegal voting at all is absurd.

        What’s appalling, as we said, is not the media’s skepticism, but its denial. But why? Illegal votes shouldn’t be allowed to sway U.S. elections. So why tolerate them?”

      6. except that it’s through misuse of defunct names that voter fraud can occur, and historically has occured

        perhaps you recall the expression from chicago: “the dead vote early and often”

    4. Karen,
      There’s something completely illogical about Anon1 and Hill’s denials of election fraud. Why would anyone go to such efforts to minimize the significance of schemes that disenfranchise voters? What are they trying to protect?

      Election integrity will be the deciding factor in the 2020 outcome.

      1. Election fraud is shorthand for disenfranchising democratic voters and some GOP operatives have admitted it. There have been numerous studies showing any fraud at the voting precinct is miniscule and insignifigant and efforts to stop that amount results in legitimate voters being turned away.

        The Presidents own hand picked “Commission” to look into this supposed fraud disbanded with zippo to show for it. It’s a joke. The reason it is insignificant – and I mean in a handful in a million votes, that being usually a mistake, not purposeful – is because the penalty is high (up to 5 years and $10k) and the gain almost non-existent.

        The only people promoting this are hustlers or suckers.

        1. Bull, knowing that those who are voting are legal voters and are voting only once is essential to democracy.

          People like Anon want unrestricted voting by illegals and others as long as they vote Democratic. We have to prove who we are when we get on a plane. No more is being asked of people (actually less) when they vote. Liars and cheats want the democratic process of voting to be insecure.

      2. Olly, don’t expect honesty or integrity from either Anon or Peter Hill. They have both proven over and over again that they lack both. Part of the problem might be due to poor intellectual development where they have to use lies to cover up what they lack.


    President Trump may have reversed his decision to host world leaders at one of his own properties during next year’s Group of 7 summit at the urging of his fellow Republicans, but he hasn’t finished defending his right to do it in the first place.

    Mr. Trump on Monday dismissed what he called the “phony emoluments clause” of the Constitution that prohibits a president from illegally profiting from his business while in office and was cited by critics of his choice of Trump National Doral Miami for the summit. He also accused President Barack Obama of trying to profit off the presidency.

    “Doral was a very simple situation,” the president told reporters at the White House. “I own a property in Florida. I was going to do it at no cost or give it free if I got a ruling, because there is a question as to whether or not you’re allowed to give it, because it’s like a contribution to a country.”

    Mr. Trump said Democrats had gone “crazy” over the prospect of hosting an international summit at a Trump property, when in fact it was private criticism from Republicans that ultimately forced his rare reversal. And he continued to talk up the resort, with its “massive meeting rooms” and “best location” and said that “it would have been the greatest G-7 ever.”
    Mr. Trump then toggled to what he believes inoculates him against charges of trying to profit from his presidency: that he doesn’t take a salary.

    “They actually say that George Washington may have been the only other president to do” that, he said. “See whether or not all of the other of your favorites gave up their salary.”

    In fact both Herbert Hoover and John F. Kennedy also donated their salaries while they were president.

    Edited from: “Trump Dismisses ‘Phony Emoluments Clause’ Defending Doral”

    Today’s New York Times

    1. Regarding Above:

      Here we have the president literally dismissing the Emoluments Clause as ‘phony’. Trump uttered this dismissal amid a so-called ‘cabinet meeting’ that was recorded by cameras. The meeting had been called to discuss deregulation but never got around to that topic. Instead Trump just railed against Democrats and weak Republicans in relation the impeachment drive. The entire spectacle was totally unhinged.

      Therefore Republicans should consider dumping Trump as their nominee and choosing Tulsi Gabbard as an alternative. That would give Republicans a chance to show their praise for the congresswoman is totally genuine.

      1. Frances Clerke:

        “Therefore Republicans should consider dumping Trump as their nominee and choosing Tulsi Gabbard as an alternative.”
        Might help if she was a Republican but she’s not close. The Emoluments Clause argument is a canard. Doral was going to do the summit at no profit. Trump’s holdings are in a blond trust anyway. Still Trump was smart to take another boomerang out of the know-nothings quiver.

        BTW, forgive the Repubs for dismissing your suggestion; Wildebeest typically don’t take river crossing advice from crocodiles.

        1. Mespo, Republicans in Congress were unusually silent regarding the G 7 at Doral. That was the reason Trump backed down. Even if Trump didn’t intend to charge the government, he was still promoting his property. That’s an obvious conflict. And this time Republicans saw it as such.

        1. socialism is just a matter of degree across both parties.

          medicare for all is the current signficant socialistic proposal
          most of the Dem candidates are mildly supportive of some version of that.
          get a look at chart for detials

          Look however at who would GET RID OF PRIVATE INSURANCE ALTOGETHER:

          Sanders and Warren

          [DANGER ! TOTALLY NUTS IDEA. not even in the “people’s republic of china” are the communists that red! totally insane. ]

          who would not mess with it:


      2. Francis Clerke – I like Tulsi as a person, however she supports reparations, abolition of the 2nd amendment, and she is a socialist. I just cannot get behind that.

        1. Paul, me too. There are a great many things that I like about Ms Gabbard, but her politics are not one of them. I greatly admired her not going along with the crowd at the debate. She openly stated the impeachment effort was politicized theatre.

          She should still get fair treatment by the DNC.

    1. Anonymous: In 2016 Bernie played useful idiot for Trump. And here Bernie encourages Tulsi Gabbard to play useful idiot to Trump in 2020.

        1. By late March of 2016, Bernie had effectively been beaten by Hillary for the Democratic nomination. The math was no longer there for Bernie to win. Yet he continued campaigning anyway because he couldn’t leave the stage. The adulation of big crowds became an addiction. Trump suffers from the same syndrome.

          1. FC:
            Bernie threw his support to Lady MacBeth after the convention and even campaigned for her. Presumably his socialist cult followed. That’s hardly ushering in the opposition. Maybe you have amnesia.

            1. mespo – Hillary screwed Bernie and then Bernie back Hillary. That is when I lost all respect for Hillary. And remember when there was that confusion with the computers and Bernie was locked out of the DNC computers, but Hillary wasn’t?

            2. I don’t think much of Bernie Sanders or his politics. But I believe that credit was due him for at least attracting great numbers of small/individual supporters who (rightly or not) believed in his cause. Surely, he was a legitimate and major candidate for his party yet what the DNC did to him was in my view an abomination as far as the electoral process is concerned.

              Had he at the demo convention called out the DNC and said that he could never support a charlatan such as Hillary Clinton I would have respected him for having the guts to stand up for himself and his injustice. But instead he bowed in submission, supported that crook and made himself look like a patsy and a stooge for the Democrats. Probably a good thing he lost, because that incident at the DNC showed that he lacked a spine and was weak. America suffered too long under Obama to have another wimp in office.

          2. I don’t fault Bernie’s staying in the race. I think candidates owe it to their voters and especially if the represent ideas they may hope to press at the convention.

            On the other hand, we still have LIV like Paul claiming with no evidence that Hillary “screwed” Bernie. There is no evidence for that.

              1. I’m kind of busy Paul. You tell me how Hillary cheated Bernie. Others here have tried but couldn’t find anything, but hey, you’re fresh blood. Give it a crack.

                  1. Paul’s got nothing. That makes about 4 people claiming they knew Bernie was cheated, but nobody can say how in a way that stands up to even cursory examination.

                    1. Paul, Anon is clueless. Democrats thought there was a choice in the nomination process. Even Donna Brazile believed that, but it was untrue. Clinton took control of the DNC and ordained herself the candidate. The rest was all show. That is how a free election goes in the Democratic Party. That is how Lenin and Stalin ran their respective “democratic” governments.

                    2. Allen is delusional. If he thinks the primaries were cancelled or something, he’s high. Bernie lost. Big time. Nobody cheated him.

                    3. I guess Anon is illiterate and can’t read the printed word. I said nothing about primaries. What I said was: “Paul, Anon is clueless. Democrats thought there was a choice in the nomination process. Even Donna Brazile believed that, but it was untrue. Clinton took control of the DNC and ordained herself the candidate. The rest was all show. That is how a free election goes in the Democratic Party. That is how Lenin and Stalin ran their respective “democratic” governments.”

                      Take note how Anon lies about what others have said or didn’t say.

                    4. No Paul, why would I read an article when you should be able to condense it into the cogent facts. It’s your premise,. not mine. You can’t even cut and paste the cogent facts. There are none.

                    5. Anon1 – I gave you the entire article so you could see that I did not cut-and-paste to make my point. It was all there. I cannot help it if you are a twit.

            1. “There is no evidence for that.”

              Well, aside from all the links to evidence that we all have posted, which you ignored, and then claimed didn’t exist. Not honest.

              1. State the case you phony. You can’t and neither can Paul Emma or Allen. It doesn’t exist.

                1. I did, Anon, more than once but you just ignore anything that shows something you don’t want to hear. That is what Hillary Clinton did to Donna Brazile and Democrats.

                  1. Allen has never presented evidence to show Bernie was cheated by the DNC. There is no evidence. If there is he can do it again and really show me up.

                  2. Allan, anything and everything Anon states is fake.
                    Their email address / avatar color changes because Anon is avoiding being blocked by Darren.

                    Nothing Anon says is accurate, honest nor true.
                    Anon’s only purpose is to antagonize you, Karen, Kurtz and what few commenters still engage their screed. Most of us have ignored the comments for a reason or just poke the idiot LOL

                    1. MJM, you are right. I like poking the idiot and don’t care what he says. He looks like a fool to everyone that isn’t a fool themselves.

                    2. MJM,
                      I don’t pay very much attention to the avatars.
                      But since you brought it up, I noticed the different avatars on Allan’s nearby posts.

                    3. “But since you brought it up, I noticed the different avatars on Allan’s nearby posts.”

                      Anonymous are you too dumb to figure it out? I don’t expect much intellect from you so I doubt you will be able to figure out the pattern.

  7. Look anonymous, Greg T., Fido or whatever you wish to call yourself at any specific moment I didn’t bother going back to my arguments with Diane one that lasted for a very long time. I need not spend the time for others know of her existence under the alias “Diane” even if you don’t wish to recognize it. Diane existed for DSS as well and he recognized her mental instability and multiple personalities. That is why you have been called Diane.

    When you start thinking about psychiatric illnesses start thinking about your home turf where you have multiple personalities on the list and they could match multiple personalities in real life. Get yourself to a psychiatrist.

        1. Allan will just keep responding with his silly attacks, as long as people keep replying.

          He’s a classic jerk.

          1. It’s only you Fido and all your multiple personalities that are the people you are referring to. Don’t you ever get confused over which personality you are using? In case you don’t realize it, you do. Now, get yourself to a psychiatrist.

      1. No need. I don’t have multiple personalities and I am logical. Next time you are schooled skip some of the Liberal Arts and study the more difficult disciplines. Your mind is dull even though your writing passes.

  8. Anon – I do not lie.

    I consistently provide supporting information to back up my opinion, and discuss the pros and cons of it myself. If you take issue with my positions, by all means discuss. No one is right all the time. But to call me a liar is simply lying, yourself.

    Why do you persist in lying about me, Anon? Do you have such a weak position that you have to resort to such a desperate ploy as assaulting my integrity? When you can’t win an argument, go after your opponent personally?

    What a peach you must be in real life.

    1. Karen S:

      The basket case Anon1 called the blog a slum and then proceeded to tell us he’s going to stay around. My take on a commenter like that is he’s a paid troll and thus intellectually dishonest — if not outright impaired. My suggestion you do as I do and consider him gone. It makes for such pleasant reading from the likes of you, Paul, Allan, Squeeky, TIA and several others I enjoy.

      1. Mespo, last week you wrote to Anon1 a very well composed post on why Anon1 was no Erudite. It appears to have been beyond his comprehension.

    2. Uh, yeah Karen, you do lie and you know it. A weak position is something strong minds can deal with and you failed that simple test with a back and forth several months ago.

      1. Liar. I have never lied on this blog.

        Is this you, Hillary Clinton, constantly claiming you won the election, but someone else is in your House? The constant slander does sound so familiar…

      2. “Donald Trump and the GOP have raised more than $300 million this year for his re-election — more than any other sitting president IN HISTORY at this point in the campaign.”

        Read it and weep Anon1. Suck it up and cope. You’ve got till 2025.

      3. Anon1 — you know what a “weak position” is? Canada just re-elected Prime Minister Blackface. The one being investigated for obstruction. The one who paid for the silence of the high school girl he was having “inappropriate relationship” with as a high school teacher. The one who taught drama. Yes, THAT is who just got re-elected to continue destroying and embarrassing the country of Canada.

  9. (Satire)”According to sources close to Hillary Clinton, the failed presidential candidate was gently returned to her padded cell disguised as the Oval Office over the weekend.

    After the failed presidential candidate had escaped from the premises again and accused thousands of people of being Russian agents, orderlies were finally able to catch her and guide her back to her cell. She had escaped through the ventilation ducts, apparently, and quickly gave deranged interviews in which she seemed not to understand that she hadn’t won the 2016 election. She also found a smartphone and tweeted troubling things, causing asylum personnel to put out a call for her safe return.”

  10. Anon1 is a partisan loon.

    Anon1: “Sanders was not cheated by anyone. If you think so, state when, where, and how.”

    (1) Hillary took control of the DNC before the campaign started. They then deliberately limited the number of debates and scheduled them so as to limit the audience.

    Donna Brazile: “The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead.”

    (2) The corporate media was in the tank for Hillary.

    As MSNBC host Ed Schultz prepared to cover Bernie announcing his candidacy, he was ordered by the President of MSNBC to cover something else. Shultz believed he was later fired for supporting Bernie.

    (3) Donna Brazile, while working for CNN gave Hillary Primary debate questions.

    1. In my experience, Anon will demand proof of your position, and then just ignore it.

      Hillary Clinton took on the debt of the DNC in exchange for control of it…before the primaries.

      So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

      Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.

      By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart…

      (According to Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign) Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

      If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way.”

      1. In your experience Karen I have admitted when I was wrong to you but you have lacked the character to do that, persisting to the point of lying to avoid admitting being wrong.

        You demonstrate the fact that Hillary bailed out the DNC but do not show any behavior that was unfair to Bernie, let alone “cheating”.

        Try again.

            1. Mespo – wouldn’t it be funny if Anon was either Hillary Clinton, herself, or someone who works for her?

              He still seems to be going bananas over the scandal where under Obama, State gave taxpayer money to an organization run by the son of a Hamas leader, used to try to oust Netanyahu. Emails were deleted in which the plot was openly discussed with State. Sounds familiar.

              Anon had claimed that I lied when I said the US interferes with the politics and elections of other countries, including allies. He ignored numerous links about meddling, even Bill Clinton on video admitting he’d interfered with Netanyahu. Professor Turley just referenced such meddling. But Anon got strangely fixated on the State scandal. He/she has been obsessing over it for months, now.

              Plus he/she keeps declaring that Hillary Clinton won the election. Not should have won, but won.

              I think this person is at least somehow connected to her campaign. They show an extraordinary amount of loyalty and willful blindness. Plus, there is that pattern where they declare that someone is lying, and demand proof. When proof is offered, they just ignore it.

              No matter how many times we patiently explain how elections work, and the Constitution, he just doggedly keeps declaring Hillary the winner.

              Makes ya wonder…

              1. Karen S – Anon1 cannot be Hillary because she does not know how to use a computer.

              2. Karen S:
                He’s a paid shill and will advocate anything that dungeon master Soros writes for him on flash cards. That’s why I ignore him. His construction company cover story was laughable. So don’t put much stock in the sincerity of his positions. He knows we meddle in other countries elections. Everyone who reads above an eighth grade level does.

                1. Mespo, I suspect based on all his responses, especially very early in the game, that he is a small licensed contractor which is no big deal. In the business world he might affectionately be known as ‘bent nail’. If he ever lost his license he could probably get a part time job at H&R Block.

                  1. I am a small builder and have never pretended otherwise. My gross is on either side of $1 million a year.

                    1. I assume a small builder is the equivalent to a small licensed contractor which is what I said. The $1million gross + or – sounds like a reasonable amount but what counts is the net that one pays taxes (or should pay taxes) on. Nothing wrong with the work.

                    2. Anon. No way. There is no possible way you work in construction, but are on a blog post during daylight hours.

                      A house flipper, maybe.

                2. Mespo, you’re really pathetic aren’t you? You don;t know me and if I was paid or not is irrelevant to your inability to win an argument.

                  You’re the lawyer. Say something!

              3. Karen quoted an article stating (paraphrase) that “Obama put everything into defeating Netanyahu in an election”. The facts are that the State Dept awarded a grant to an Israeli group to help promote a two state solution. That had long been US policy under at least 4 administrations and at that time was Netanyahu’s policy (still is kind of). Later that year or next – look it up – Netanyahu called for an election that was not scheduled or reasonably predictable. Most of the grant had been spent but some of it was used by the Israeli group to campaign against Netanyahu. The State Dept was forced to review grant policy and promised to be more careful. But, unless Obama was clairvoyant, and if he even knew about the grant – it wasn’t much – he certainly did not put everything he had into defeating Bibi in an election.

                Karen persisted and would not retract the obvious falsehood. That makes her a liar,

                1. Anon:

                  1. A few months ago you claimed I was lying when I said that the United States interferes with elections and politics all over the world, including our allies.
                  2. I gave you a great many links, including Bill Clinton, on video, admitting he interfered with Netanyahu’s election.
                  3. You ignored all of the links, in the same pattern I commented on recently. You focused on the link to one of the many articles, which used the phrase “Obama did everything in his power” to oust Netanyahu. That was the words of the author, not me. I included the article because it discussed one of the State scandals, in which taxpayer money funded attempts to get Netanyahu voted out.
                  4. You claimed that because I posted that particular link, I was a “liar.”
                  5. State gave taxpayer money to an organization, OneVoice. OneVoice communicated via email with State that its intended purpose was to unseat Netanyahu.
                  6. I also posted the results of an investigation which determined this was not illegal. It was also discovered that State gave no stipulations to OneVoice for the money’s use, so technically OneVoice could use it for whatever it wanted, and not violate any agreement. After all, we destabilize foreign governments all the time. Of course it’s not illegal. State was reprimanded for deleting the emails from the organization in violation of the Records Act. State claimed it had not read the plot documents.
                  7. Obama denied knowledge of the taxpayer funded attempt to overthrow Netanyahu. He was not asked to release transcripts of any phone calls or emails.
                  8. This would require State to go completely rogue, hand over taxpayer money to One Voice without any stipulation that it not be used in the election, delete emails outlining the plot to overthrow Netanyahu without reading them, and not read or watch any of the campaign material OneVoice used the money for. It would have to just give the money, and then have no interest in what happened. This would require the State Department to disregard virtually 100% of the intelligence reports on Israel
                  9. I stated that the phrase “Obama did everything in his power” was obviously hyperbole, as that would be an assassination attempt, bomb, boots on the ground…
                  10. OneVoice’s mission statement considers the state of Israel an “occupier.”

                  Now, you can certainly argue that State went rogue and tried to unseat Netanyahu, with whom coincidentally Obama was having a very rocky relationship, and whom he undermined, demanding that Israel give up more land, without Obama’s knowledge. Perhaps anti-Obama activists were working in State to undermine him…in a very pro-Democrat government agency…

                  You denied most vehemently my statement that the United States has a long history of interfering in politics abroad. Called me a liar and demanded I prove it. I did. I even had Bill on tape admitting it. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you went insane over one single phrase in one single article, where the journalist wrote, “Obama did everything in his power.” You called me a liar over that hyperbole written by someone else. And then you didn’t let it go. You ground on and on and on, obsessing compulsively that you think I’m a liar because of an exaggerated phrase that someone else wrote. That is irrational.

                  The fact remains that the US has routinely interfered with foreign policy, politics, and elections. As Professor Turley himself wrote, “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.”

                  Hear that? “Routinely interfered.” The US interferes with politics abroad, and Trump won the election.

    2. Doofus:

      1) The numbers of debates are set by the DNC as they want and they are not obligated to meet the publicity requirements of a candidate who’s not even a democrat. That’s like saying a noon game on ESPN must be a plot. They could have told him to change parties or FO.

      2) The “corporate media” is not the DNC and therefore not possibly part of “cheating”. It gave Bernie plenty of time and jacked up his fame because they love a story and a horse race – it sells newspaper and broadcast advertising.

      3) Brazille told Hillary there was a question coming about water at a debate in Flint Michigan.

      Is that all you got? Here’s what I got:

      Bernie got his ass kicked in the primary vote worse than Trump by Hillary – about 55-43%.

      By the way, I voted for Bernie because he was a personal friend of mine in the early 70’s..


      “Once she was at the party’s helm, Brazile wrote that she discovered an agreement that “specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary</b< would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff.”..

      two Democratic officials tell NPR that Brazile and Perez are referring to two different things. In addition to that joint fundraising agreement the DNC reached with both campaigns, the party and the Clinton campaign struck that separate memorandum of understanding giving the campaign staffing and policy oversight.

      That document was signed on Aug. 26, 2015 — before, among other things, Vice President Joe Biden ruled out a run for president.

      The DNC has not denied this characterization or timeline.

      A Democratic official who has reviewed the document pointed out that in addition to the Clinton signoffs Brazile characterized, it included language stating that “nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC’s obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process” and that “all activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary.”

      The agreement also noted that the DNC “may enter into similar agreements with other candidates.” (Read the full memo below.)

      Still, Sanders’ 2016 campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said the agreement was the latest evidence the DNC tried to tip the scales against his candidate. He and other Sanders backers have regularly pointed to the party’s scheduling of debates on weekend nights as one example of how DNC officials tried to aid Clinton’s campaign.”

      While the DNC claimed that it reached joint fundraising agreements with both the Clinton and Sanders campaign, the facts are that Hillary Clinton paid off the debt of the DNC, had signed agreements that gave her control of the DNC before the primary, including staffing, and scheduling of the debates. She also controlled the DNC’s finances.

      Did Bernie have control of the finances of the DNC, make staffing decisions, oversight, and had control over scheduling debates. No. He did not. Hillary did. This violated the verbiage in the agreement itself, which obligated impartiality and neutrality.

      Who. What. Where. When. Bolded to make it easier for Anon to find.

      1. Tell us what the DNC did to Bernie? You keep telling us about the organization and how Hillary bailed it out. So what? She was most likely going to be the candidate because she kicked Bernie’s ass.

        What did she or the DNC do to cheat? Be specific.

        1. Anon:

          Your pattern is that you demand even more evidence, which you then completely ignore.

          So this is not for you. This is to refresh the memories of anyone reading the blog.

          1. As bulleted above, Hillary Clinton took control of the DNC, including staffing decisions. Leaked emails from the DNC showed that they supported Hillary and wanted Bernie out. The superdelegates were arranged for Hillary long before the primary.

          2. Donna Brazile leaked debate questions for two separate occasions.

          3. Hillary Clinton scheduled debates in her favor, and to Bernie’s detriment.

          4. Hillary Clinton controlled the spending of the DNC.

          5. In addition to the DNC itself, Democrats organized primaries in several states to favor the establishment. For example, in 2016, NY required voters register with a party 193 days before the election. Since many Bernie voters were independent, they were denied a vote. In 2020, voters are required to register with a party 11 months before the primary, which will skew towards the establishment. Many voters are still making up their minds. Requiring them to register that long in advance gives outsiders little chance.

          I don’t even like Bernie Sanders. He’s a Socialist who honeymooned in the USSR, ignoring the plight of its people. He’s a fool who couldn’t hold down a job, and now wants to tax companies out of existence. At least he was honest. He explained that even if he raised taxes on everyone making over $30,000, he could come up with roughly half of the cost of his Medicare for all.

          My personal feelings about Bernie do not matter. The DNC was unethical. Many Democrats recognize this, and it is not considered a controversial opinion. Even the NPR has discussed it, hence my link to them. The Democratic Party is skewing hard Left.

    4. Ivan, Bernie waited 50 years to join the Democratic Party. Why so long? One can’t wait that long to join an organization then expect to take over that organization only weeks after joining.

      No D.A. or Election Commissioner anywhere in the country flagged the Clinton campaign for wrong-doings against Bernie.

      1. Francis:

        1. It is unethical to give one candidate control over the party before the primary, paid for by offloading debt.

        2. Why would the Election Commissioner get involved? There has been no allegation that Hillary Clinton hacked into the voting machines. The DNC behaved unethically, but if they want to just choose one person, disenfranchising Democrat voters, then it’s up to voters to admonish them at the polls. Which they did. In one voting district after another, and flipping long held Democrat states.

  11. The media seems to have amnesia about the genesis of Clinton vs Gabbard cage match.
    Tulsi Gabbard resigned from her post at the DNC in 2016 in protest b/c she saw them rigging the primaries against a powerfully surging Bernie by cutting down on the # of debates,feeding HRC the questions prior to the debates and other shenanigans cococted by Wasserman-Schultz and the Democrat establishment.

    1. Tulsi showed real courage in stepping down from co chair of the DNC because of Clinton cheating……thats the kind of courage we need especially now.

      1. Emma, you should vote for Tulsi. Don’t just talk. She would make a much better president than Trump.

    2. 1. The # of debates is set by the DNC as it sees fit and it is not required to increase them to help a candidate not even a member of the party.
      2. The only debate answer Hillary got was Donna Brazille telling her they would ask about the water – the debate was in Flint Michigan.
      3. What other shenanigans?

      1. superdelegates was part of the beef if I recall. now apologize for that too.
        go read Brazille’s book and give us a book report if you’re really innerested

        1. Super delegates are present in both major parties and for valid reasons. They are mainly office holders with a stake in who heads the ticket and the last remnant of the parties having a brain. I’m in favor of them, but even if not, those were the rules before Bernie.

          He lost the vote by 5 million out of something like 35 million.


          1. No. Anon. It is so awkward that you cannot grasp this.

            Hillary won the popular vote. Donald Trump blew her out of the water by winning far and away more individual elections in voting districts. Therefore Donald Trump won the election.

            Say it together with me:

            Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
            Donald Trump won the election.

            For Hillary Clinton to have won the election would have required a Constitutional Amendment.

            Anon – are you Hillary Clinton writing under an alias? Because you sound like her at times.

            1. She won the popular vote padded with harvested votes. 114% turnout. Boo Yah!

              1. Tabby, show us a credible source that says a D.A. or Election Commissioner found wrongdoing by the Clinton campaign.

              2. Say it with me: Judicial Watch through the FOIA showed that just in the LA area in 2016, that Hillary claimed to have won, there were 1.5 million fraudulent votes.

                With some of the other known vote/voting machine fraud that’s public there is no way Hillary was even close to winning the popular vote.

                And she just said the other day they are going to have to Lie more going into 2020 to have 1.2 a chance against trump.

                1. No they didn’t Oky but I know you really really wish they had. But hey, the fact that your hero got his a.s kicked by a woman shouldn’t be embarrassing. Just ask Karen.

              3. TIA, well she is an over achiever. She did learn how to be an investment genius from reading the Wall Street Journal.

          2. i’ll admit he lost the primary to her

            I won’t admit that the Dem primaries are fair or clean

            There’s a good argument that Obama advocates engineered a win over Hillary in the 2008 Dem primary, with considerable help from a court proven case of voter fraud. From Mayor Pete’s hometown.

            I’ve posted it before.,..


            “…..As the Supreme Court of the United States said in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, “not only is the risk of voter fraud real but … it could affect the outcome of a close election.”[2]

            In fact, the conviction of local party officials and election workers involved with the 2008 Indiana Democratic primary provides a recent example of the warning sounded in Crawford. This fraud was not uncovered until well after the 2008 presidential election, so Americans will never know what impact it might have had on the heated contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President if it had been discovered at the time.

            One thing, however, is certain: Had this fraud been discovered, Barack Obama would have been disqualified from the primary ballot in a major state, and Hillary Clinton would have won all of the Democratic Party delegates in Indiana.

            Get exclusive insider information from Heritage experts delivered straight to your inbox each week. Subscribe to The Agenda >>

            2008 Indiana Democratic Primary
            In the spring of 2008, the Democratic primary season was in full swing. Then-Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were relatively even in the number of delegates each had received.[3] Going into the May 6 primaries, Senator Obama had a slight lead over Senator Clinton.[4] According to a New York Times calculation, Senator Obama had 1,474 delegates to Senator Clinton’s 1,377—a difference of less than a hundred delegates.[5]

            However, Senator Clinton had an edge in superdelegates,[6] a special category of additional Democratic Party delegates who are not elected through the normal primary and caucus process. Instead, these delegates are automatically designated as delegates by party rules and include elected officials and party committee members. As of May 2, Clinton had 260 pledged superdelegates, while Obama had only 241. Thus, Obama was ahead of Clinton by only 78 delegates.

            On May 6, Indiana and North Carolina held their primaries. Clinton won Indiana by 50.6 percent to 49.4 percent, and Obama won North Carolina by 56.1 percent to 41.6 percent.[7] The two candidates were fighting over 187 delegates—72 in Indiana and 117 in North Carolina.[8]

            Under Democrat Party rules for these two states, Clinton and Obama split the delegates according to the proportion of their vote totals. As a result, Clinton walked away with 37 delegates from Indiana and 48 from North Carolina.[9] Obama fared better, winning 34 delegates in Indiana and 67 in North Carolina.[10] Obama’s thin victory was a disappointment for the Clinton campaign, which had hoped to use a big victory in those two states to mount a successful comeback.[11] At the conclusion of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, Obama had captured a total of 1,575 regular delegates to Clinton’s 1,422, increasing his lead to 153 in regular delegates.[12]

            If Barack Obama had been disqualified from the Indiana ballot, however, Clinton would have won all 72 of the delegates in Indiana instead of just 34. She also would have had a new total of 1,497 regular delegates, compared to Obama’s new total of 1,541—a difference of only 44 delegates[13]—and with the addition of the superdelegates, her deficit would have been reduced to a mere 25 delegates.

            With six primaries left totaling 217 delegates, Obama’s lead would have been in dire jeopardy.[14] Instead, on May 10, Obama took the lead in superdelegates with 275 to Clinton’s 271,[15] and he never relinquished it.[16] Obama won the Democratic nomination for President soon thereafter and went on to win the presidency.

            The above narrative is typical of American politics: two candidates vying for the nomination (and campaign funds) in a very close race. Yet the story did not end with President Obama’s election. Rather, revelations of election fraud and abuse by election and local political party officials continue to cast a pall over the nomination process in Indiana.

            The allegations of electoral fraud first emerged in 2011 when a Yale University undergraduate student looked through the signatures of the petitions that were filed with Indiana election officials to get Barack Obama qualified for the Indiana Democratic primary ballot.[17] Ryan Nees, a former Obama White House intern, pored through the “byzantine and complicated” petition signatures.[18] Page after page of the voter names and signatures in St. Joseph County turned out to be complete forgeries.[19]

            Nees said the fraud was easy to detect “because page after page of signatures are all in the same handwriting.” A close inspection also revealed their similarity to signatures from a petition for a previous gubernatorial election. Even worse, some of the names appeared on the list several times.[20]

            Erich Speckin, a forensic document specialist, confirmed the forgeries, concluding that 19 of the ballot petition pages for Obama filed with election officials were illegitimate.[21] Nees uncovered the fraud while working as an intern for Howey Politics Indiana, a nonpartisan political news website, and later published his findings through the South Bend Tribune.[22]….”

      2. Excerpts from Donna Brazil’s book.

        “When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain.”

        That didn’t happen.

        “If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. … it compromised the party’s integrity.”

              1. Read the book and read the few sentences above that were taken from the book.

                Hillary Clinton is known for a lack of integrity so it shouldn’t surprise you.

                1. “When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain.”

                  Hillary took control over the party before she was the nominee. Even Donna Brazile didn’t know when she became chairman.

      3. Actually, as I referenced above, Hillary Clinton had a signed agreement with the DNC in 2015. In exchange for paying off 80% of their debts, she took control of the party – staffing decisions, oversight, spending, and scheduling of debates in her own favor.

        This does not include feeding her questions beforehand.

        That cheating.

        1. Tell us what the DNC did to Bernie. You’re so sure it happened because you never question the talking points, but have nothing.

      4. Anon:

        “The only debate answer Hillary got was Donna Brazille telling her they would ask about the water – the debate was in Flint Michigan.” No. That was the subject of one of the emails.

        “A WikiLeaks e-mail dump revealed that Brazile sent an e-mail message on March 5, 2016, to John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri with the title: “One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash.” The message continued, “her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint.”[27] At the next event in Flint, Clinton was delivered a similar question from audience member Mikki Wade, whose family was affected by the poisoned water.[28]

        On October 11, 2016, a WikiLeaks e-mail dump included an e-mail Brazile sent on March 12 to Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri with the subject header: “From time to time I get questions in advance.”[29] In the e-mail, Brazile discussed her concern about Clinton’s ability to field a question regarding the death penalty, and in a CNN town hall debate the following day, Clinton received a similar question about the death penalty.[27][30] According to tech blog Errata Security, the e-mail in question was verified using an everyday verification program and the DKIM system.[31] Brazile at first vehemently denied receiving or furnishing the Clinton campaign with any town hall questions and dismissed the Wikileaks organization as “these sad ass whipper leakers try to slow my groove”.[32] She accused TYT Politics reporter Jordan Chariton of “badgering a woman.”[33] Questioned by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, Brazile said, “As a Christian woman, I understand persecution. I will not sit here and be persecuted because your information is totally false.”[34]”


        These are just two emails that were leaked. I have no idea what else might have been discussed over the phone or in person.

        1. Gee, Karen, that’s underwhelming!

          “Hey, you’re going to get a question about water in Flint Michigan”

          “Look out for the death penalty!”

          “Uh, gee thanks Donna. Now I have to forfeit the race to Bernie because, you know, like you helped me so much.”

          Yeah, that must have swung 5 votes at least.

          1. Were Bernie and Hillary treated equally by the DNC?

            No, they were not. This was so obvious to the Democrats, themselves, that they initiated changes, and Wasserman-Schultz had to resign.

            So, the DNC got it, why don’t you?

      1. Headline from article:

        State Dept. Inquiry Into Clinton Emails Finds No Deliberate Mishandling of Classified Information

        WASHINGTON — A yearslong State Department investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server found that while the use of the system for official business increased the risk of compromising classified information, there was no systemic or deliberate mishandling of classified information….

        “While there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience,” the report said, “by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations.”….

        State Department investigators reviewed thousands of pages of documents, sent from 2009 to 2013, when Mrs. Clinton served in the Obama administration. The emails were on subjects that were not considered classified at the time, but that have been or were retroactively marked as classified. …

        Mr. Trump’s own administration officials — including his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner — have admitted to using private messaging services to conduct official work. House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry has revealed that Trump administration diplomats used private phones to message each other about their efforts to pressure Ukrainian officials to investigate the president’s American political rivals, including the Bidens.

        1. Sammy Gravano just gave an interview after 20 years of silence. He had a few interesting things to say about this. check “valuetainment’ on youtube. near end of interview

        2. i can accept the conclusion of this investigation. however, it shows how an “important” public official is not subject to the same expectations of rigorous handling of classified materials that some low level enlisted sailor on a ship is.

          that’s probably fine with Hillary supporters and maybe there are good reasons for this.

          or maybe it’s just unfair to the little guy. for my part, my opposition to Hillary during her tenure as Secretary of State, stems first and foremost related to her “regime change” plotting in the middle east, which I believe was contrary to American national interests, taken from a long view.

          I think history will show that John Kerry was more effective in the office than she was, by far. Not that I like him much either, but it’s a valid comparison of apples to apples.

        3. In order for Ivanka to have behaved in a similar manner, she would have to:
          1. Have a secret server in her bathroom
          2. Lie about its existence.
          3. Have the President use a secret email address to communicate with her on her illegal server, and then lie about knowing about it
          4. Back up the illegal server to the Cloud
          5. Give people with zero clearance access to the illegal server
          6. In violation of the Records Act, she would have to delete tens of thousands of emails, while under Congressional subpoena
          7. THEN wipe the server clean with Bleach Bit
          8. THEN smash the laptops and BlackBerries of her staff, and herself, with a hammer
          9. When asked if she wiped her server, she would have to lie and say, “Do you mean, did I wipe it with a cloth?”
          10. Lie and claim that the emails were about yoga
          11. Be caught having classified, and Top Secret, information on the illegal server, deleted in violation of the Records Act, and recovered on the laptop of a convicted sex offender with zero clearance.

          Since all of this was determined to be outside the realm of what any reasonable prosecutor would prosecute, then I think that Ivanka has to get busy just to keep up. She could do all of the above and be absolutely fine, due to Hillary’s precedent.

          In fact, why did Trump release that transcript anyway? If he gets impeached, he should just smash his devices with a hammer. What could Democrats say about it, with a straight face?

  12. I wonder what Hilary would think if Bill could run for the whitehouse and he chose Tulsi as his running ” mate”.

Comments are closed.