Clinton Aides Fuel Misleading Narrative After Gabbard Attack Backfires

Before my recent Washington Post column ran discussing Hillary Clinton’s attack on presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard as a “Russian asset”, I had to deal with an issue raised be a false narrative being put out by her flacks. While first taunting Gabbard, her spokesperson Nick Merrill and others started to suggest that the story was false and that Clinton spoke of “Republicans” not “Russians.” It was a masterful spin. Clinton flacks focused on the reference to “grooming” and got the New York Times and other media outlets to “correct” the story to say that it was a reference to Republicans. That suggested that people may have misheard the podcast interview. That interpretation is clearly false, but the Internet is now full of references to the “false story,” which is precisely what many wanted in putting out the “correction.” For those who continue to attack the use of “fake news” by the Russians, it seems that some disinformation is considered fair game when it is used for the right purpose.

Nick Merrill@NickMerrill
and others said that the New York Times corrected its account to say that Clinton was not referring to the Russians but the Republicans.

Nick Merrill@NickMerrill
On Friday, the NYT did a piece about a podcast Secretary Clinton did with David Plouffe. They incorrectly quoted her saying that the “Russians” were “grooming” a candidate running in the Democratic primary. They rightfully fixed it to reflect that she was taking about the GOP.

Clinton did appear to be referring to the Republicans in the earlier part of her comments below, but clearly referred to Gabbard and Jill Stein as “Russian assets in the podcast with former Obama aide David Plouffe.

For many however the point was made by suggesting a confusion with “Republicans” for “Russians” in listening to the podcast. Media issues stories saying that “it turns out” Clinton was referring to Republicans not Russians. It was vintage Washington misdirection. Clinton has long loathed both Stein and Gabbard. Stein was viewed as taking votes away from Clinton who was opposed by many as an establishment figure with little authenticity. She holds a grudge against Gabbard was the first (and one of the few) members of Congress willing to buck the DNC and the establishment by endorsing Bernie Sanders in 2016.

When the story ran, the Clinton people relished the attack and taunted Gabbard. Merrill mocked Gabbard and, rather than denying the story, mocked that this is “Assad day for your candidacy” — a reference to Gabbard’s controversial 2017 meeting with the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. He added “If the nesting doll fits. This is not some outlandish claim. This is reality. If the Russian propaganda machine, both their state media and their bot and troll operations, is backing a candidate aligned with their interests, that is just a reality, it is not speculation.”

Then however condemnations grew over Clinton’s attack. Suddenly attacking an anti-war candidate was not as popular as Clinton assumed. That is when we saw the disinformation campaign.

Here is the interview and you can judge for yourself:

 “The thing we have to do is get enough people to turn out so that they can’t, you know, steal those votes through suppression in Wisconsin, or convince blacks not to vote in Michigan, all the stuff that they did this last time which was very effective and the Russians play a big role in.” 

Plouffe: “Right, and they’ll double down on this time. Trump had those advantages but he was not an incumbent. So as we know, whether it’s Ronald Regan, your husband, Barack Obama, those first 18 months of the election cycle were as important as the last six months. …

“You know, Donald Trump, as you know better than anyone in the world, only got 46.1% of the vote nationally. You know he got 47.2 in Wisconsin, 47.7 in Michigan, and if you had said those before the election you would have said he’s going to lose in a landslide.”

Clinton: “Right.”

Plouffe: “But one of the reasons he was able to win is the third party vote.”

Clinton: “Right.”

Plouffe: “And what’s clear to me, you mentioned, you know, he’s going to just lie. … He’s going to say, whoever our nominee is, ‘will ban hamburgers and steaks and you can’t fly and infanticide’ and people believe this. So, how concerned are you about that? For me, so much of this does come down to the win number. If he has to get 49 or even 49.5 in a bunch of…”

Clinton: “He can’t do that.”

Plouffe: “…which I don’t think he can… So he’s going to try and drive the people not to vote for him but just to say, ‘you know, you can’t vote for them either.’ And that seems to be, I think, to the extent that I can define a strategy, their key strategy right now.”

Clinton: “Well, I think there’s going to be two parts and I think it’s going to be the same as 2016: ‘Don’t vote for the other guy. You don’t like me? Don’t vote for the other guy because the other guy is going to do X, Y and Z or the other guy did such terrible things and I’m going to show you in these, you know, flashing videos that appear and then disappear and they’re on the dark web, and nobody can find them, but you’re going to see them and you’re going to see that person doing these horrible things.’”

“They’re also going to do third party again. And 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. 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, ’cause she’s also a Russian asset.”

Plouffe: (Inaudible)

Clinton: “Yeah, she’s a Russian asset, I mean, totally.

“And so, they know they can’t win without a third party candidate and, so, I don’t know who it’s going to be it but I will guarantee you they’ll have a vigorous third party challenge in the key states that they most need it.”

156 thoughts on “Clinton Aides Fuel Misleading Narrative After Gabbard Attack Backfires”

  1. Is that a real picture of Hilary, or somebody wearing a Hilary Halloween mask?

  2. Indeed, people like to fine-tune everything that is said and done by a person so that it is beneficial to them. And then make a scandal out of it.

  3. Maybe the Democrats big tent doesn’t have room for the likes of Tulsi Gabbard. After all she is a woman who spent multiple tours of duty in the Middle East as member of our military. She is more liberal than I am but I feel I could trust her a lot more than than that collection of wack jobs running for the democrat nomination.

    1. She has some pleasant aspects to her, but she’s never held an executive position. She’s young and she and her husband have no children. She really needs to be in a position that fits into family life better than does f/t electoral politics.

      In truth, of their top five candidates, only Sanders has something approximating the right background. Regrettably, he has at least three other things wrong with him.

      1. Major is an executive position in the US army. Here is what wiki has to say about it, which is gleaned directly from Army sources:

        “In the United States Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force, major is a field grade military officer rank above the rank of captain and below the rank of lieutenant colonel. It is equivalent to the naval rank of lieutenant commander in the other uniformed services. Although lieutenant commanders are considered junior officers by their respective services, (Navy and Coast Guard) the rank of major is that of a senior officer in the United States Army, the United States Marine Corps, and the United States Air Force.

        The pay grade for the rank of major is O-4. The insignia for the rank consists of a golden oak leaf, with slight stylized differences between the Army/Air Force version and the Marine Corps version. Promotion to major is governed by the Department of Defense policies derived from the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act of 1980.

        A major in the U.S. Army typically serves as a battalion executive officer (XO) or as the battalion operations officer (S3). A major can also serve as a primary staff officer for a regiment, brigade or task force in the areas concerning personnel, logistics, intelligence, and operations. A major will also be a staff officer / action officer on higher staffs and headquarters. In addition, majors command augmented companies in Combat Service and Service Support units. U.S. Army majors also command Special operations companies, such as U.S. Army Special Forces companies, Civil Affairs companies, Military Information Support Operations companies, and certain types of separate, numbered vice lettered, Military Intelligence companies.”

        seems to me in this position, she had executive authority over her responsibilities. i”m not clear on this except that she’s with the medics. If treatment of injured people is the question, then the ability to make tough choices is the very essence of that: triage.

        the position of executive in the most general sense, is one who makes decisions. As Bush said, “I’m the decider.” that’s the very essence of it. experience varies according to the position. seems to me from his leadership of many business enterprises and command over large resources, Trump had considerable executive experience.

        however, I agree that the lack of children is something that takes away from her qualifications for the position of POTUS. the experience of being a parent makes you wise up in countless ways.

        1. She’s in the Hawaii National Guard. I think she drills about 8 weeks a year.

          1. She switched to national guard status after being elected to public office. She was active duty when she was serving in Iraq. I am not a Republican but there are also liberals who are sick of people mocking military service.

          2. maybe so, doesn’t bother me. Guard deploys for a lot of action the past 20 years.

      2. Hillary Clinton has executive positions and was worse than Bush.

        I will take any candidate that is against the wars and she showed real courage supporting Bernie and quitting the DNC after they cheated Sanders and taking on the pentagon.

        She could take on Trump and many republicans and independent voters like her anti war policies.

        She could pull in cross over voter support. I would love to have a Sanders/ Gabbard ticket!

        That’s unbeatable



    Inside the conservative bubble of fantasy politics, the game extends to generating fake social media support for fringe candidates for the Democratic nomination, including Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang and, most of all, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii).

    Gabbard has about 1 percent support among Democrats for the party’s presidential nomination, according to the RealClearPolitics national polling average.

    But Gabbard is literally referred to as “mommy” by far-right conspiracy theorists who champion her as a victim of the Democratic Party establishment.

    At the moment, Gabbard is the star on far-right websites because Clinton correctly pointed out the Hawaii congresswoman could end up as a third-party candidate who divides the anti-Trump vote in 2020 and delivers a second term to the president.

    Instead of responding to the real threat another third-party candidate poses to Democrats, Gabbard lashed out at Clinton as the “queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long.”

    Gabbard, with her sympathy for the Assad regime in Syria, as well as her defense of WikiLeaks’ decision to release emails from the Democratic National Committee in 2016 — reportedly hacked by the Russians — and willingness to attack fellow Democrats make her an ideal candidate for use by the Russians.

    Trump loyalists saw potential in Gabbard in 2016.

    Bannon arranged for her to have a face-to-face meeting with Trump to have her considered for a post in the administration, possibly as ambassador to the United Nations.

    Trump supporters promote her constantly.

    “On podcasts and online videos, in interviews and Twitter feeds, alt-right internet stars, white nationalists, libertarian activist and some of the biggest boosters of Mr. Trump heap praise on Ms. Gabbard,” The New York Times reported two weeks ago.

    The paper explained that anti-Semites “fawn” over Gabbard, “praising her willingness to criticize Israel.”

    And the story noted that earlier this year “the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website, took credit for Ms. Gabbard’s qualification for the first two Democratic primary debates.”

    Gabbard has pledged that she will not be a third-party candidate.

    But she plans to take whatever delegate support she wins in the primaries to the Democratic convention to pressure the nominee to hear her agenda for the party.

    That means another possible split within the party with the telegenic Gabbard ready to diminish Democrats as captives of establishment politics — divided and out of touch with the base of the party.

    Why would the Russians have an interest in her?

    Edited from: “Juan Williams: Heed Clinton’s Warning On Tulsi Gabbard”

    The Hill, 10/28/19

      1. Jill, ‘who’ is Julian Assange on par with (in terms of sympathy)?

        Assange, one should note, is ‘not’ an American. He is an anarchist, from Australia, who believes the world will be a better place when the United States has lost it’s ’empire’. With that dream in mind, Assange partnered with Russian hackers to sabotage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Because Assange correctly calculated that Donald Trump would sabotage America. And almost every week we see Trump working on Putin’s behalf while polarizing the country.

        So if I don’t see Assange as sympathetic, those are my reasons.


          by Alison Broinowski


          It’s been a long time since the Democratic National Committee (DNC) brought suit against Julian Assange for publishing its leaked emails in 2016. But on 29 July, a Federal Court in New York dismissed the case. The ruling upheld his status as a journalist and publisher and dismissed claims that WikiLeaks’ publication in 2016 of leaked Democratic emails was illegal. The New York Times and Washington Post buried this highly significant story (Oscar Grenfell, ‘Media silent on dismissal of DNC suit against Julian Assange’). It didn’t appear in the Australian media at all.

          Journalism, as George Orwell recognised, is printing what someone in power doesn’t want published. That’s what most journalists used to do. Even if their words are no longer printed on a page, a few still do. Many now do not. Yet some in the media behave as if nothing in journalism has changed.

          Hillary Clinton was an early enthusiast for internet freedom, which she declared would provide people with access to knowledge, and create ‘opportunities where none exist’. In 2016, WikiLeaks offered online access to Clinton’s emails and to the internal communications of the DNC, which led to the failure of her campaign. Internet freedom suddenly became less equal for some. Clinton hated Julian Assange, who had provided voters with opportunities and access to knowledge where none existed, just as she said. That made him ‘a traitor’. Candidate Trump loved WikiLeaks, but under President Trump, 18 charges of espionage were issued against Assange.

        2. James, Assange is a political prisoner. There are many political prisoners, including other journalists in other nations. We have detainees who USGinc. fully admits are innocent but still refuse to release. These people are comparably to Assange. Sympathy isn’t a relevant fact. Unlawful detention and torture are.

          It is not a crime to be an Austrialian citizen, nor is it a crime to be an anarchist. It is not a crime to criticize the American empire. None of these things is a reason to arrest any person, let alone unlawfully imprison and torture them. The indictment against Assange has NOTHING to do with the 2016 election. It is USG claiming that a publisher, who published, just as did the Guardian and NYTimes, information about US war crimes during 2010 and earlier is guilty of violating the espionage act.

          This is an illegal act by the US. Simply because you believe that Assange lost Hillary the election by revealing truthful information which each of us had a right to have when evaluating her candidacy, is irrelevant to his charges. It’s really sadistic of you to want someone else to be treated in an illegal and unlawful manner because your candidate lost an election.

          Your claim that Assange worked with Russia is untrue. Nevertheless I won’t keep you from believing lies which have been fed to you by other liers in the media. If you value our Constitutions, freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you will support Assange. If you would actually like accurate information concerning Assange’s case I would go to Consortium News and Craig Murray. To learn about Gitmo and the people being held there unlawfully and also being tortured, I would go to Andy Worthington and the law college of Seton Hall University.

          Get informed. Protect the rights of other people and defend your Constitution.

          1. Jill, any James Bond-like villain can call themselves a ‘journalist’ to publish hacked information for reasons of espionage, malicious politics or revenge pornography. Those earlier hacks that Assange published compromised a number of U.S. intelligence partners in various trouble spots; people who put their lives on the line (and the lives of their families).

            Aside from hacked documents, did Julian Assange ever have a ‘real’ career in journalism? Does Assange have a body of work as a writer of original news stories? Did Assange ever publish a legitimate magazine or paper that wasn’t dependent on hacked documents for content?

            Again, any dirty trickster, or mischief maker, can call themselves a journalist while putting out hacked documents. Or recording people without their knowledge then selectively editing clips (like James O’Keefe). But real journalists have legitimate resumes that compare with legitimate professionals in the field.

            1. Translation: Assange published information inconvenient to the Democratic Party. Waaaah!

            2. James, Assange has numerous journalist and publishing awards to his credit. However, I do agree that anybody can call themselves a journalist, as many people do at the Guardian,, NYTimes and WaPo, for example. Fortunately for all of us, we do not yet fully live under a dictatorship that tells us who we may count as a journalist and who we may not.

              As I’m certain you already know, it was the NYTimes who first published the information you are so upset about Assange publishing. May I please have your call for the arrest of the editor and reporters of the Times who published this information? Until I see your call for their arrest I am going to think you are not sincere in caring about this subject at all. So, do you want them arrested or not?

              P.S. During Chelsea Manning’s trial the govt. had to withdraw their assertion that anyone was harmed by the release of this information by the NYTimes, Guardian and Wkileaks. Just wanted to “Correct that Record” for you.

              1. Jill, had the NYT ‘not’ published those leaks, people like you would all have said they were ‘suppressing’ the story. Or ‘covering-up’.

                The NYT and WaPo are the nation’s most important newspapers by far. And they have been important for decades. But the decline of regional newspapers has made the NYT and WaPo more prominent than ever. And though I love those papers, this trend is not good.

                Just 25 years ago The L.A. Times was the nation’s # 1 newspaper. Back then a hard copy of the L.A. Times was thick enough to spend an hour with. I used to consume it every day; the crime stories alone made fantastic reading!

                There were several great newspapers around the country before the internet. The Saint Louis Post Dispatch, Milwaukee Journal, Boston Globe, and San Francisco Chronicle were all fine news sources. But the internet and Craig’s List destroyed the business model of regional newspapers.

                So now we’ve arrived at a point where the NYT and WaPo are increasingly the only papers that publish large volumes of hard news. And not coincidentally, those papers are both owned by the richest of billionaires.

                Sadly It takes a super-rich sugar daddy to keep newspapers vital. The L.A. Times was not so fortunate. The L.A. Times today is just a shadow of it’s former self in terms of staffing and budget. The former headquarters of the L.A. Times now stands empty when not used for film shoots. That gives you some idea of how far newspapers have fallen.

                So getting back to your criticisms of the NYT and WaPo, those papers increasingly find themselves in positions where no matter what they publish, a large segment of the public is going to see a ‘bias’ or believe a cover-up is taking place. There should be enough fine newspapers that two don’t dominate. But the economics of the news business has made that impossible.

                1. James, your post has nothing to do with what I said, what you asked me about earlier, which I answered honestly. I will repost my reply to you and ask that you answer it honestly as I did your original post. Here it is:

                  James, Assange has numerous journalist and publishing awards to his credit. However, I do agree that anybody can call themselves a journalist, as many people do at the Guardian,, NYTimes and WaPo, for example. Fortunately for all of us, we do not yet fully live under a dictatorship that tells us who we may count as a journalist and who we may not.

                  As I’m certain you already know, it was the NYTimes who first published the information you are so upset about Assange publishing. May I please have your call for the arrest of the editor and reporters of the Times who published this information? Until I see your call for their arrest I am going to think you are not sincere in caring about this subject at all. So, do you want them arrested or not?

                  P.S. During Chelsea Manning’s trial the govt. had to withdraw their assertion that anyone was harmed by the release of this information by the NYTimes, Guardian and Wkileaks. Just wanted to “Correct that Record” for you.

                  BTW, Yes, I do want to know about war crimes committed by my govt. in my name. And yes, I would have complained had they not published this information. I’m glad they did. They won Pulitzer prizes for this reporting just as Wikileaks won numerous awards for their publishing the same information.

                  Your positions seem inconsistent and based on political expediency, not on an ethical commitment to free speech and freedom of the press.

                  1. Jill, Chelsea Manning was only a corporal! Edward Snowdon was only a contractor. We can’t have low level soldiers and contractors arbitrarily deciding, on their own, to release troves of classified documents. The U.S. is finished as a super power if we allow that kind of mischief.

                    One should note that Manning was a sexual misfit who felt totally out of place in the military. Snowdon was essentially an anarchist. Again, we can’t have personnel on that level just deciding, on their own, to dump volumes of documents. Yet Julian Assange enabled them to do that under the noble pretense of ‘journalism’. It was all a sham!

                    So I have no sympathy whatsoever for Manning, Snowdon or Assange. All three deserve the special hell they carved for themselves.

                    End Of Subject

                    1. Obama commuted Manning’s sentence because he did not disapprove of what he did. Same deal in re Berghdahl.

                      Obama is post-American. He is properly exiled.

                    2. James, How imperious of you to say, end of subject. You have yet to be able to answer a simple question!! The NYTimes published the material of a mere Corporal before wikileaks did. They won all kinds of awards for publishing that material. By your “logic”, the NYTimes editor and the reporters who published the information and reported it should be in jail. Why can’t you say they should be in jail as they did work with Assange and publish the same material as he did?

                      The fact that you don’t like Assange does not stand above justice. We don’t have to like people to defend their rights. On the other hand, if you really believe everyone who published this material should go to jail, except the NYTimes because you “love them”, this is not an ethical stance either. Do you have a consistent ethical stance on the issue of jailing reporters and publishers or not? If so, state it.

                      You attempts to evade this question are inoperative!

                    3. I think Manning was only a pfc, not a corporal.
                      It was also pretty clear that he/she “had issues”, which makes it even more curious that a screwed-up private had access to highly classified material.

                2. today the LA Times is under-rated and the NYT and WAPO are over rated.

                  the NYT for all its poor editorial choices at least has a better style.

                  The WAPOO is garbage

      1. Yes, Deb in Rye, Americans hated her so much that 3 million more of us voted for her over Trump.

    1. Juan, i sort of like the guy, but where does he come up with garbage like this:

      “But Gabbard is literally referred to as “mommy” by far-right conspiracy theorists who champion her as a victim of the Democratic Party establishment.”

      Oh, I have read a lot of “far right” websites, “conspiracy,” etc. I suspect more than Juan Williams has, and I have never seen her called “mommy.” More garbage and fake news!

      As for criticizing Israel, it’s doesn’t mean she’s an “antisemite” and it is stupid of Juan to trot out that canard. The POTUS must be able to elevate American national interests over all other nations, including our respected friends, such as Israel.

    2. The democrat establishment has slandered Gabbard and Sanders.

      Now any one against war is a Russian agent.

      That’s how bad Hillary Clinton democrats have become.

  5. “Glenn Greenwald praises Sen. Sanders on whistleblowers, blasts CNN and MSNBC”

    29,988 views•Oct 28, 2019

  6. Oh, look. Clinton is gaslighting the American people yet again. Her voters don’t seem to mind.

    Do you mean, did I wipe it with a cloth?
    I never deleted work emails.
    I secured my emails.
    It’s a Republican conspiracy.
    I ran under sniper fire.

    I don’t even like Gabbard’s politics. Calling her a Russian agent was utterly and completely contemptible. She’s an Army Combat veteran, for God’s sake.

    When are Democrat voters going to snap out of it, and realize that their party keeps making false accusations to dehumanize their political foes, because they cannot debate policy? It’s so Machiavelian. Win by any means possible, even if you have to spend millions on a fabricated dossier, obtained from Russian intelligence, poison our own intelligence community with it, withhold its origins from the FISA court, and drag the entire country through investigations into fabricated nonsense for years.

    Yes, Russia meddled in our election. They provided a fake dossier to undermine Trump. And it worked great. Yes, they spy upon us, and if some idiot uses the password of “password”, then they will happily take up what he lays out for them. I wouldn’t even call that hacking. More like forgetting your briefcase in Central Park.

    1. Karen, where did you copy this from?? It reads like it written in an alternate universe.

        1. FishWings – who was it that called a rapist and murderer “an austere religious leader?”

        2. They also have alternative definitions on reality, facts and truth.

          You say that like it’s a bad thing. The IG, Barr and Durham are going to flood your consciousness with reality, facts and truth. Buckle up.

      1. Everything Karen says here has been reported on. Yet you think it comes from an alternate universe. What is it that you don’t understand?

      2. It reads like it written in an alternate universe.

        Pay attention Hill. That’s your left brain trying to connect with you. You’d do well to listen to it.

      3. James, Karen gave the link for her information. I clicked on it and it comes up fine.

        Argue the information presented by the CIA. I don’t disagree with you that many people in the CIA live in an alternate universe, however, that is irrelevant. There’s the information from the CIA, now show how its wrong. Show your work! The rest is just a personal attack.

      4. Unable to debate my opinion or facts? Do you deny that Hillary Clinton paid a British spy to obtain an opposition research dossier on Trump from Russian intelligence, and then lied about it?

        It is ironic that you mock my post, regarding how Democrats employ false accusations because they cannot debate policy…with a false accusation against me. Thank you very much for providing Exhibit A.

    2. Clinton called her a Russian asset, not an agent. An asset can be an unknowing tool. An agent is an active member of Russian espionage.

      1. How, specifically, is Tulsi Gabbard being used as an ‘unknowing tool’ for Russia?

    3. I’m sorry, Karen, but what office is Hillary Clinton now holding that her “voters” elected her to, or is this just a diversion to the growing evidence of impeachable offenses? Why do you keep harping on Hillary Clinton, anyway?

      It’s amazing to me how you Trump disciples can switch the flip. This has to be one of Kellyanne’s narratives. According to you, now it’s the Democrats making up false accusations to dehumanize their political foes because they can’t debate policy. What policy? What false accusations? It is the Republicans who have no response to the facts underlying the Ukrainian scandal, and no matter how much pivoting they try to do to dump on Hillary Clinton and the Bidens, the facts prove Trump has committed an impeachable offense. And the facts are not untrue because they make Trump look bad, either. It cannot be disputed that he tried to leverage Ukraine into a fake investigation of the Bidens by withholding aid, all of which he has admitted in tweets and which is supported by the memo of the call and multiple witnesses. The facts set forth in the Mueller Report cannot be disputed. It has been explained to you several times that the “dossier” was not the impetus for the Mueller investigation, but you keep claiming that it is, like the starry-eyed Fox disciple you are. Russian meddling was the false social media campaign directed at key voters in states Trump had to win. The Russians were given insider polling information by the Trump campaign so they’d know where to direct the lies. These are facts.

      BTW: you didn’t answer my inquiry as to your level of education.

      1. Karen reads a lot. Unfortunately it’s all wingnut nonsense, which even when corrected on, she keeps repeating zombie like on and on. She’s a true believer who never checks this BS against mainstream media for corroboration. If I hear something that from the left seems to good to be true, I post it without seeing it at places which do check stories and care about their reputation, not for bias confirmation, but reporting accuracy. I suggest Karen try this, though I don;t expect thatto happen.

        1. Anon1 – the MSM is being sued for libel, why would Karen check with them?

  7. What this shows is the Clinton camps’ utter contempt for the people of the US. She and her minions are lying and gaslighting our population in order to keep Clinton from looking like the evil jerk she is.

    If you said something, you said it. You can apologize for it if you regret saying it. That is honorable. So we know an apology is out of the question for Clinton! Instead, she simply sends out her minions to lie, which they do. Brennan told the press to lie about Flynn and they did it.

    If you look at this squarely, we see a lackey press full of the IC, which has no problem flat out lying to the American people.

    What I’m really hoping we don’t see is Democrats, in any great numbers, willing to believe these lies or pass them along. People need to have integrity because their “leadership” doesn’t have any. It is perfectly clear what Clinton said and what she meant. To retract what she said is to retract reality. That is incredibly contemptuous and dishonest.

  8. Why doesn’t the wicked witch of the north just go away. Her and slick Willy must have enough money. Can’t they just leave us alone.

    1. Her cupidity is notable. More than that, she’s an attention-whore and power-tripper. Her husband was in it for the blowjobs.

  9. I don’t know who Titsi Gabard is and I dont give a hoot & holler. But I can tell you this.. no owner in the NfL want Colon Kepernick as their quarterback. Its like it is with Gabbard. You dont want no one on your team who ain’t a team player.

  10. Back on the subject ~ every time Hilliary mentions Jill Stein she fails to mention Gary Johnson’s votes as a Libertarian which would likely go to Trump and his votes were quite a bit more than Stein’s.

  11. Some context might help: Hillary was originally a Rockefeller-Republican. As I understand it the Rockefeller wing of Republican Party was the wing that most African-American voters belonged to prior to federal Civil Rights Act. These were non-racist Republicans that Hillary belonged to. Many African-Americans were Republicans prior to the CRA. Once the Civil Rights Act was passed in the 1960’s, most racist voters switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. Many African-American voters switched to the Democrats. In some ways Hillary is closer to Abraham Lincoln’s Party than most 21st Century Republicans. Fast forward to the 2016 election: Bernie Sanders intentionally didn’t want to split the Democratic vote like Ralph Nader did years earlier. Bernie was helping the Democrats by running in the Democratic Primary instead of running as a third party. Bernie was rewarded, for helping Democrats, by having his voter base excluded from several state-primaries. Many election experts think Bernie would have won the Democratic Primary, if his voters had been allowed to vote in New York and California, and likely would have beat Trump. Democrats might have been in power if not for the restricted state primary elections. Gabbard has a great interview with Libertarian John Stossel that is very impressive to watch.

    1. Some context might help: Hillary was originally a Rockefeller-Republican. As I understand it the Rockefeller wing of Republican Party was the wing that most African-American voters belonged to prior to federal Civil Rights Act

      No, Hugh Rodham was a votary of Barry Goldwater. His daughter did minor volunteer work on Goldwater’s 1964 campaign.

      After 1930, most blacks on electoral rolls voted Democratic. However, as late as 1960, there remained a large bloc of Republicans (30% of the total or thereabouts) among the minority of blacks registered to vote. The black Republican electorate largely disappeared over the next four years. Not aware of any social research which suggests the affiliations and preferences of black Republicans ca. 1946 were any different than the distribution of preferences among generic Republicans.

    2. Ashcroft:
      No Democratic voters were restricted from voting in any primary in the state they were registered.
      Blacks began peeling off the GOP in the 1920’s, a movement accelerated with FDR.

      “The realignment of black voters from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party that began in the late 1920s proliferated during this era. This process involved a “push and pull”: the refusal by Republicans to pursue civil rights alienated many black voters, while efforts—shallow though they were—by northern Democrats to open opportunities for African Americans gave black voters reasons to switch parties.26

      The 1932 presidential contest between incumbent Republican President Herbert Hoover and Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was something of a turning point. During his first term, Hoover had tried to ingratiate himself with southern segregationists, and his administration had failed to implement economic policies to help African Americans laid low by the Great Depression…..

      By 1936 only 28 percent of African Americans nationally voted for Republican nominee Alf Landon—less than half the number who had voted for Hoover just four years before.41 Over time, the party affiliations of black Americans in Congress became equally one-sided. Including Oscar De Priest, just nine black Republicans were elected to Congress between 1929 and 2017—about 7 percent of the African Americans to serve in that time span.42…”–New-Deal/

      1. Had nothing to do with ‘civil rights measures’, to which Republicans were more congenial than Democrats prior to 1964. Had a great deal to do with the economic catastrophe during the period running from 1929 to 1933 and with an an unusual alignment of circumstances: a Democrat (Franklin Roosevelt, under the influence of his wife) congenial to black interests and a Republican (Herbert Hoover) coldly indifferent to them. Jogged loose from the Republicans, Democratic machine bosses could incorporate blacks into their ward clubs and patronage networks. See Wm. Dawson as an example of a black patronage broker.

        1. I suggest anyone who cares for facts read my link, not TIA’s BS.

          It is noted that black support for the GOP began to wain in the 1920’s due to GOP economic conservatism and sucking up to southern segregration. Later, the growing black urban districts began electing their own black representatives through the Democratic Party. Still today, if you look at the congressional delegations isolated by party, the GOP elected officials are as white as their conventions. This isn’t an accident.

          1. It is noted that black support for the GOP began to wain in the 1920’s due to GOP economic conservatism and sucking up to southern segregration.

            Except that statement has no social or historical reality. Segregation was a system constructed by Democratic pols and operated by them. The Republicans had little to do with it. The term ‘economic conservatism’ is a nonsensical one with reference to the political world of 1928. The one minor truth in your screed is that it was Hoover’s policy to redistribute federal patronage jobs in the South from blacks to whites. This was almost coincident in time with the onset of the Depression.

            1. Perhaps I should have used more precise words than “economic conservatism” when describing GOP policy in the 1920s. More accurate would be the party of rich men.

              1. Only your addled mind would fancy a bogus polemical description was ‘more accurate’.

                The parties at the time were an assemblage of subcultures – ethnic, regional, genealogical. The federal government was modest in its dimensions (federal revenues amounted to about 3% of GDP in 1929) and what disputes there were over ‘economic’ matters tended to play out within the parties, not between them.

        2. PS The GOP was not more congenial to the CR Acts of the mid-sixties, both bills ushered through Congress by a vote counting arm twisting Democratic President. The vote was divided by north/south.

          CR Act of 1964:

          The original House version:

          Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
          Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
          Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
          Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
          The Senate version:

          Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
          Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
          Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
          Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

          1. PS The GOP was not more congenial to the CR Acts of the mid-sixties, both bills ushered through Congress by a vote counting arm twisting Democratic President. The vote was divided by north/south.

            80% of the Republican congressional delegation voted in favor of those acts, FWIW, a higher % than that in the Democratic caucus. Republican opponents were largely from states with few blacks where segregation per se was not an issue.

      2. FDR and Trump have a lot of good things in common that the mass media won’t ever explain.

        they don’t want people to understand certain things

          1. Anon1 has reached Natacha status with me as in “scroll right by.” Calling the place a slum and then desperately trying to occupy it seems the height of nuts.

              1. the Left have no principles whatsoever. They don’t practice loyalty to each other, hence Bill Clinton’s “open marriage” with codependent Hillary Clinton. See also the most recent moral cripple Katie Hill’s “throuple”

                their’s is about power which is why they kick anybody to the curb (including blacks and women – nod to VA Governor Northam and Lt Gov Justin Fairfax) and leave them for dead, literally, and keep burning down the house (see ANTIFA)

                Why else do the paid trolls on here lie 25/8? No principles whatsoever

                The Left Targets One of Its Own

                A dissent against transgenderism leads to an effort to cancel a Toronto library talk.

                By Michael Taube

                Oct. 27, 2019 4:40 pm ET

                Toronto You don’t have to be conservative to attract a leftist censorship mob. Ask Meghan Murphy. The Vancouver-based feminist writer is scheduled to speak Oct. 29 at a Toronto Public Library panel discussion titled “Gender Identity: What Does It Mean for Society, the Law, and Women?” The event will go on, but only because the city librarian refuses to buckle to pressure.

                Ms. Murphy focuses mostly on sexual politics and is an opponent of legal prostitution. In 2017 she started critiquing aspects of transgenderism. Last year she got into a well-publicized Twitter war with trans activist Lisa Kreut, who’d been invited to speak at the annual Women’s March. When Ms. Murphy tweeted, “This was, after all, a march for women,” the site briefly suspended her account.

                “I see no empathy for women and girls on the part of trans activists, that is to say, those pushing gender identity ideology and legislation,” Ms. Murphy said last year. “What I see is bullying, threats, ostracization, and a misogynist backlash against the feminist movement and much of the work it’s accomplished over years.” She was speaking to Woman’s Place UK, a group that opposes efforts to supplant sex with “gender identity” in antidiscrimination laws.

                Prominent local authors and the Toronto Public Library Workers Union demanded the Toronto library cancel Ms. Murphy’s appearance. As of Sunday evening, an online petition accusing her of “hate speech” had garnered more than 7,500 signatures.

                Pride Toronto, which runs the local gay-pride parade, wrote an open letter to the library stating there would be “consequences to our relationship” if Ms. Murphy was allowed to speak.

                Even Mayor John Tory, a Conservative, said he was “disappointed” Ms. Murphy was speaking at the library and urged librarian Vickery Bowles to “reconsider her decision.” But Ms. Bowles stuck to her guns: “I’m not going to reconsider . . . supporting free speech,” she told the CBC.

                Ms. Murphy’s adversaries call her a “right-wing bigot,” but that’s laughable. “My father was a Marxist who was active in the labour movement, campaigned for Canada’s left-wing New Democratic Party, and educated me about the harms of capitalism,” she wrote last year in Quillette. “Throughout my teen years and young adulthood, I never questioned which side I was on.”

                Ms. Murphy started her career working for, a far-left website that considers the NDP too moderate. She later worked at the Tyee, a left-wing online magazine, and has written for Britain’s New Statesman. “To this day, I remain steadfast in my belief that everyone deserves access to affordable housing, free health care, and advanced education,” she wrote in Quillette. “I believe that poverty is unacceptable and that wealth is unethical. I believe racism and sexism are embedded within our society.”

                Her dissent on transgenderism has attracted the attention of right-leaning publications like National Review and the Spectator. She told a reporter in May that she’s “not comfortable” making common cause with conservatives, but allowed that “they are willing to engage.” Increasingly they seem to be the only ones who are.


                1. their principles are teleological, that is, they start with a conclusion and then justify things to reach what these aims. that is perhaps a circular sort of reasoning, or maybe it’s just the way things are. his is also called “consequentialist”

                  they get their notions of what is the proper thing, via their place in history and time. that’s the existentialist principle operating to justify the teleological approach, as opposed to some sort of universalistic ethics, or more properly speaking, they do not accept deontological ethics, such as the older Christian set of norms. (but they want their adversaries to be so disarmed!….)

                  I contend that Trump is likewise not operating according to a deontological ethic, but a consequentialist and existentialist sort himself. He just comes from a different place. Well, in politics I am inhabiting a post-Christian, existentialist, consequentialist sort of norms myself. And, they see that as what makes him dangerous, that he is just as “strategic” in achieving his aims as they are.

                  Where does liberalism fit in? Liberalism itself is a consequentialist set of political norms itself. it arose from the Enlightenment which was a revolution of sorts against a feudal Catholic order. So from A to Z in the American political experience it’s really always been consequentialist IMO and at least now we have a fighter in Trump who champions “our” particular zeitgeist, if not theirs.

                  Friend versus foe, you just cant get away from it in politics, it’s as necessary as light and darkness.

      1. Sure, but I save my attention for what comes out of the WH – a staggering load every day – and Congress. Why do I care what politicians who will not get elected say about each other?

        I’t’s not like I’m a Republican looking for distractions from the grim spectacle I’ve installed on Pennsylvania Ave. If you haven’t noticed, it’s starting to smell.

        1. No distractions necessary. Sorry you’ve got issues. Maybe she has a spot open for you on her rolls.

Comments are closed.