Taking a Page from Joe McCarthy

Exclusive: Hillary Clinton and her supporters have turned to ugly McCarthyism in attacking Donald Trump to divert attention from their email scandals, a dangerous use of Russia-bashing, says Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

One trick of the original McCarthyism from the Old Cold War was to take some innocuous or accurate comment from a leader in Moscow — saying something like “poverty is a cruel side of capitalism” or “racism persists in the U.S.” — and to claim that some American reformer who says much the same thing must be a Kremlin tool.

Now, in the New Cold War, we are seeing a similar trend in the way some Democrats and the mainstream U.S. media are citing accurate assessments from Russian President Vladimir Putin and claiming that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is somehow in league with Putin for observing the same realities.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

A case in point is Tuesday’s editorial in The Washington Post, entitled “The Putin-Trump worldview” (in print) and “Trump and Putin share a frightening worldview” (online). The editorial quotes Putin as “observing that Mr. Trump ‘represents the interests of the sizable part of American society that is tired of the elites that have been in power for decades now … and does not like to see power handed down by inheritance.’”

The Post’s editorial writers then snidely note that “Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump have an uncanny way of echoing each other’s words.”

But that is a classic example of McCarthyistic sophistry. Just because some demonized figure like Putin says something that is undeniably true and an American sees the same facts doesn’t make that American a “Putin puppet” or a “Moscow stooge” or any of the other ugly names now being hurled at people who won’t join in today’s trendy Russia bashing and guilt by association.

Putin is not wrong that many of Trump’s supporters – along with many Americans who backed Sen. Bernie Sanders – are “tired of the elites” that have behaved arrogantly and stupidly for decades. Many Americans also don’t believe that a family’s name should decide who becomes the leader of the United States, whether that be the Bushes or the Clintons.

Indeed, what Putin is saying amounts to almost a truism, yet here is The Washington Post not only suggesting that because Putin is saying something that it must be false but then smearing Trump (or anyone else) who detects the same reality.

Double Standards

The same Post editorial also goes to great lengths to reject any comparisons between the Russian and Syrian government airstrikes on the Syrian neighborhoods of east Aleppo — to root out Al Qaeda-connected jihadists and their supposedly “moderate” rebel allies — and U.S. and Iraqi government airstrikes on the Iraqi city of Mosul under the control of Al Qaeda’s spinoff group, the Islamic State.

U.S.-backed Syrian "moderate" rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy (left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot from the YouTube video]

U.S.-backed Syrian “moderate” rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy (left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot from the YouTube video]

Insisting that the two similar operations are nothing alike, the Post’s editors white-out the central role of Al Qaeda in commanding the rebel forces in east Aleppo. While ignoring Al Qaeda’s dominance of those neighborhoods and its terror rocket attacks on civilian areas of west Aleppo, the Post only says, “the rebel forces in Aleppo include Western-backed secular groups who seek only to overturn the blood-drenched Assad regime.”

Note the Post’s characterization that rebel forces “include Western-backed secular groups” rather than an honest admission that those supposedly “secular groups” have served mostly as cut-outs in diverting sophisticated U.S. military weapons, such as TOW missiles, to the jihadist cause, a reality recognized by U.S. military advisers on the ground. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “How the US Armed-up Syrian Jihadists.“]

Many of these supposedly “secular groups” have openly allied themselves with Al Qaeda’s recently rebranded Nusra Front (now called the Syria Conquest Front). This so-called “marbling” of the “moderates” in with the jihadists was one of the sticking points in the failed limited cease-fire in which the Post’s beloved “secular groups” rebuffed Secretary of State John Kerry’s plea that they separate themselves from Al Qaeda.

An intellectually honest newspaper would have at least admitted some of these inconvenient truths, but that is not the modern-day Washington Post with its own “blood-drenched” editors who played a crucial role in rallying support behind President George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq under false pretenses.

The Post and its editors have on their hands the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a result of that illegal aggressive war, but those editors have not suffered a whit for their participation in war crimes. Instead, exactly the same senior editorial-page editors – Fred Hiatt and Jackson Diehl – are still there, touted on the newspaper’s masthead, still misleading the Post’s readers.

By contrast, The Wall Street Journal (of all places) did some serious reporting on the key question of “moderate” rebels allied with Al Qaeda. The Journal reported on Sept. 29: “Some of Syria’s largest rebel factions are doubling down on their alliance with an al Qaeda-linked group, despite a U.S. warning to split from the extremists or risk being targeted in airstrikes. The rebel gambit is complicating American counterterrorism efforts in the country at a time the U.S. is contemplating cooperation with Russia to fight extremist groups.”

If even Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal can acknowledge this important context, why can’t The Washington Post?

Dangerous Terrain

But the whipping up of a New Cold War with Russia and the demonizing of Vladimir Putin extend beyond The Washington Post to virtually the entire U.S. political/media establishment which has plunged into this dangerous terrain without any more serious thought and analysis than preceded the Iraq invasion, except now the target for “regime change” is nuclear-armed Russia and this adventurism risks the extermination of life on the planet.

Lawyer Roy Cohn (right) with Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

Lawyer Roy Cohn (right) with Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

Despite these grave dangers, the Democrats and the Clinton campaign have settled on a strategy of exploiting the New McCarthyism of the New Cold War to discredit Trump through “guilt by association” to Putin even though the two men have apparently never met.

Mostly this New McCarthyism has been used to divert attention from developments threatening to Hillary Clinton’s electoral chances, such as the release of embarrassing emails among Democratic insiders hacked from the personal account of Clinton adviser John Podesta and, since last Friday, the statement by FBI Director James Comey that he has reopened the investigation into Clinton’s use of an unsecured email server because of emails found on a computer in the home of Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, Anthony Weiner.

In the first instance, the Clinton campaign sought to redirect attention from the content of the emails, including the text of speeches that Clinton gave to Goldman Sachs and other financial interests, to the assessment of U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia was probably behind the hack.

‘A Witch Hunt’

In the Comey situation, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has sought to counter Comey’s stunning announcement last Friday by calling on the FBI director to also disclose whatever the FBI may have discovered about links between Trump’s aides and the Kremlin.

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that Democrats have raised suspicions about Carter Page, an early-on Trump adviser and former Merrill Lynch banker who gave a speech last summer criticizing the United States and other Western nations for a “hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change” in Russia and other parts of the old Soviet Union.

Page termed Reid’s efforts to transform a political disagreement into a criminal case “a witch hunt,” a phrase familiar from Sen. Joe McCarthy’s Red-scare investigations of the late 1940s and early 1950s into the loyalty of Americans.

Another Trump adviser caught up in the Democrats’ attempts to smear the Trump campaign over alleged ties to Moscow is Roger Stone. The Times reported that Democrats have accused Stone “of being a conduit between the Russian hackers and WikiLeaks,” which published Podesta’s hacked emails, because Stone has said he had contacts with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and seemed to anticipate the damaging disclosures, though Stone has denied any prior knowledge.

An irony from this case of “trading places” – with the Democrats now darkly suggesting Republican ties to Moscow rather than the opposite during the McCarthy era – is that Roger Stone was a longtime associate of the late Roy Cohn, who was the controversial counsel on Sen. McCarthy’s Red-hunting investigations.

Stone derided the Democratic attempts to discredit Trump and himself with claims of ties to Moscow as “the new McCarthyism.”

Despite the irony, Stone is not wrong in his assessment. Rarely in American politics since the dark days of Joe McCarthy have so many unsubstantiated accusations of disloyalty been directed at any major political figure as the Democrats have done to Donald Trump.

In the third debate, Clinton even accused Trump of being a Putin “puppet.” If such a remark were made by Joe McCarthy or his Red-baiting ally Richard Nixon, there would have been understandable outrage. But Clinton’s ugly charge passed without controversy.

Though there are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose the eminently unqualified Donald Trump for President, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats risk setting in motion dangerous international forces with their promiscuous Russia-bashing. Recognizing the terrifying potential of nuclear war, a more responsible course would be to tone down the rhetoric and address the legitimate questions raised by the email issues.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

61 comments for “Taking a Page from Joe McCarthy

  1. Drew Hunkins
    November 2, 2016 at 13:19

    Obama actually just admonished the men who aren’t voting for Killary that they’re likely sexist pigs. This is the basest sort of gonadal-identity politics horse manure that’s so utterly distasteful it causes that little vomit reflex to kick in. Certainly many of the men who aren’t voting for Killary very well may have misogynistic proclivities but many of the men who are against Hillary are liberal anti-war and economic populists who are voting for Jill Stein. Last I knew, Stein came equipped with a vagina.

  2. F. G. Sanford
    November 2, 2016 at 12:09

    Let me try to make this entire issue more digestable, palatable and absorbable for those of you who are paragraphically challenged. The Clintons have “earned” $140 million dollars since 2007. What “product” do you think they were selling? Don’t all of you respond at once. Creative answers are worth extra credit. Big words are also acceptable, if they can be found in a standard dictionary. Don’t hold back; your childrens’ future is at stake.

  3. Realist
    November 2, 2016 at 05:21

    A panel of geniuses, including Ruth Marcus and two other nincompoops, explained the reason for Russia’s “disruption of the American presidential election” (no debate about that and no evidence required) on the Chris Matthew’s show last night. Ready for this? Putin wants to foment a “Color Revolution” in America just as Washington has fomented so many of the same in his former sphere of influence. Not many points for accuracy in that narrative*, but lots for imagination. I’ll bet most of the viewing public believed it too.

    *Except for the admission that the U.S. does interfere in the politics of other countries.

  4. November 2, 2016 at 04:20

    Alexander Mercouris wrote a very interesting take on the Trump/Russia accusations and the damage they are inflicting on American democracy in The Duran.


    • Jurgen
      November 2, 2016 at 04:42

      Thank you for the link, quite an interesting read indeed but seems to be a bit naive

      And BTW, speaking of H. Abedin:

      “E-mails – Hillary Clinton and the Muslim Brotherhood” – http://www.voltairenet.org/article193924.html

    • backwardsevolution
      November 2, 2016 at 12:22

      Bryan Hemming – Anthony Weiner’s laptop, with its 650,000 emails, is going to point out some real damage to democracy, and they won’t just be “accusations”.

  5. November 2, 2016 at 03:59

    Blame shifting has been the Clinton’s way for many years . I remember the bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory making antibiotics anti-viral meds and most medications for minimal cost and supplying third world countries with affordable and essential medications. Bubba Clinton ordered a full areal assault and flattened this vital industry for the developing world. His excuse. was that this pharmaceutical establishment was making chemical weapons for islamist terrorist. Further studies showed no such existence. . Pure war crime committed against humanity. At the time MONICA LEWINSKY SCANDAL. So the Clinton’s have form they did the same in Arizona. Bubba implicated with realestate fraud and graft and also using the local airport in supposedly bringin in Cocaine from Columbia. . I am not a Trump supporter or apoligist. I am also certain that a Trump presidency will not be any better than the Obama regime or a Clinton regime hence fellow citizens make ur vote count and go and vote 4 anybody else but CLUMP. Stein is where I am going to cast my vote 4.
    Post Scriptum. Thank u Mr Perry keep up the great journalism. I might add Trump might bring some needed detente with the Russians and the Chinese cause ww3 is not a good scenario this day and age.

  6. Jurgen
    November 2, 2016 at 03:59

    1) Let’s assume that Russians are as deeply involved in the US election process as WP, NYT, etc. keep claiming they are, and that they try to influence the outcome of the current election.
    2) Let’s assume that the Russian government possesses some sort of basic intellectual skills and thus they are aware of 95-98% of Americans (American voters) being generally
    3) Let’s assume that the Russian government tries to help one of the candidates to win the election.

    Question: Knowing a generally negative attitude towards Russia/Russians in general and the Russian Government of the majority (95-98%) of American voters , which candidate they would demonstrate and proclaim their support for?
    The answer seems to be quite obvious – they would demonstrate their support for the one they wanted to loose, Donald Trump.

    • November 2, 2016 at 05:21

      Juergen, you are wrong. The Russians are not going to play such a stupid game. In their own way they are supporting the candidate they want to win. Why dissimulate?

      On the other hand, the real morons are the WP, the NYT, etal., who are trying to smear Donald by associating him with these “evil people” They think that people are so stupid that they are going to believe the nonsense they are putting out that the Russians are trying to “help” Donald. They are not so naive. How could such “evil people” actually “help” anyone. It’s hard t believe that people read such drivel.

  7. Tristan
    November 2, 2016 at 01:09

    If nothing else the “reporting” of the msm should be recognized for what it is in the US, nothing more than pure propaganda. As such, those of us who seek to remain informed do what is possible to remain so. The nature of American elites is now fully exposed, in that they no longer feel the need to cloak their immense wealth and the then resulting power. Capitalism with out regulation or restraint is failing the masses, as it always has, and in the context of Globalism it is exasperated to an elevated level. Then the need to produce more enemies, who would seek to undermine the fantastic life unrestrained globalized capitalism has to offer.

    The ploys of the elites to fool the masses into believing that unregulated and unrestrained capitalism is the soothing balm of a good life and the expectation of elevation in one’s class is now fully exposed as a lie. This results in more obfuscation in the service of the status quo. But the lies of unrestrained globalized capitalism are now becoming clear, the “scales are falling from their eyes”. Yet many are still under the influence of the prosperity gospel of capitalism and are confused as to their condition. Unfortunately this is difficult to remedy under the current circumstances of our oligarchic government and its sycophant media “personalities”.

    When we are assaulted with lies in support of a position which assumes that because the speaker makes a point of obvious truth that is in disagreement of the predetermined status quo “Truth” logic and the mind is turned to mush. So much so that the Orwellian term “Doubleunthink” is appropriate. I guess it’s time for a drink of Victory Gin.

  8. backwardsevolution
    November 1, 2016 at 21:47

    Trump’s Five-Point Plan for Ethics Reform:

    “It’s time to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C. That’s why I’m proposing a package of ethics reforms to make our government honest once again.

    First: I am going to re-institute a 5-year ban on all executive branch officials lobbying the government for 5 years after they leave government service. I am going to ask Congress to pass this ban into law so that it cannot be lifted by executive order.

    Second: I am going to ask Congress to institute its own 5-year ban on lobbying by former members of Congress and their staffs.

    Third: I am going to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.

    Fourth: I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

    Fifth: I am going to ask Congress to pass a campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in American elections.

    Not only will we end our government corruption, but we will end the economic stagnation.”

    Just getting rid of the lobbyists and the revolving door would be a huge start. Add to it the dismantling of the TPP and the cessation of war, and Trump is head and shoulders better than Hillary. He’s not perfect, by any means, but you might be surprised at what he does for the good of the country. I really believe he DOES love his country.

  9. F. G. Sanford
    November 1, 2016 at 20:34

    The Big Sleep. That’s the America we live in today. We’re aware of the “Big Lie”, but mistakenly think we would never fall for it. The “Big Lie” is the one that is believable simply because ordinary people may tell “little lies” in the course of everyday life, but they would never stoop “Big Lies” themselves. It is unthinkable to them that their leaders would resort to such infamy. But by the same token, they are also immune to the “Big Truth”. The “Big Lie” works hand-in-hand with human gullibility. The “Big Truth” is as difficult to believe as the “Big Lie” is to deny. Thanks to Cheryl Mills and Neera Tanden, we now know that The President knew all about Hillary’s secret server, and regularly emailed her on it. He lied. Thanks to Anthony Weiner, we now know that there was an attempt to bury any serious inquiry into the scandal. Once the “Big Lie” could no longer be denied, Comey was brow-beaten into re-opening the case, probably with threats to leak the truth, thus ruining his “legacy”. The DoJ guy who has apparently been tasked with oversight of the re-look is Peter Kadzic, an old friend of John Podesta. Kadzic is the guy who also lobbied Bill Clinton through his Chief of Staff John Podesta for the pardon of Marc Rich, a notorious international finance criminal whose wife donated to Hillary’s senate campaign and the Bill Clinton Library. So, I don’t expect the re-opened investigation to get very far. Which brings us to Mitch McConnel (Sarcasm Alert). Has anyone noticed that Harry Reid is probably Mitch’s twin brother, separated at birth? Aren’t we hearing the same kind of bloviation and obfuscation from the Democrats as we were accustomed to hearing from the Republicans when they were engaged in moral turpitude? The “Hatch Act” does not confer criminal immunity. It does not offer criminals respite from investigation or indictment. It does not preclude public ridicule from scandal of one’s own making. It does not constitute a “gag order” of the First Amendment. It was not intended as a law to legalize obstruction of justice. But that’s exactly how it’s being portrayed. The flimsiest of connections to Russia are being hyped to distract from real scandal, though Clinton’s DoS had approval authority for the Rosatom deal, and Bill got $500,000 for a (payoff?) speech to Moscow bankers. The Podesta Group (founded by John and brother Tony) has lobbied for a pro-Russian Ukrainian group of politicians through an intermediary (Rick Gates) connected to Paul Manafort, the ex-Trump campaign chairman. So…based on the kind of logic spouted by the mainstream media, the Trump and Clinton campaigns are linked to each other and to the Russians. Perhaps a case could be made that, regardless of who wins, the Russians will actually be in charge. The real truth is the “Big Truth”. The Clintons have earned $140 million since 2007. That’s more than Michael Jackson in his prime, and they never sang a song. Imagine how much this election is worth to them and their globalist backers? I just watched CNN’s matriarchal presstitute whorehouse madame, Christiane Amanpour, conduct an interview with a Syrian “journalist”. They dragged out all those discredited pictures of torture victims “mass murdered” by Assad, and showed ample film clips of the “White Helmets” saving the Syrian children from Russian bombs. CNN also announced that the MI5 Chief has proclaimed Russia is an increasing threat to the UK. Another story had Hillary insisting that Comey “release what he has”, which she of course realizes would be against the law. But hypocrisy upon hypocrisy, whatever he has – is her stuff – so if she REALLY wanted it released, she could release it herself. But Americans are sleeping the “Big Sleep”, and even if confronted with it, would not believe the “Big Truth”. The “Big Truth” is that the people really in charge don’t care whether a Republican or a Democrat wins, as long as he or she is a puppet. Both sides are colluding to preserve the myth of American Democracy so they can maintain the Permanent War Economy based on the “Big Lie”. I suppose my epiphany came with Abu Ghraib. It’s an odd observation, but the first thought that went through my mind was, “Why did they let those Soldiers take pictures?” I was shocked at my own callousness. Then I realized. I realized what every Soldier or Sailor or Marine would have to know if they had served and had been trained during my day. This was a command sanctioned activity. In a military organization with an intact “chain of command”, it could not have been anything else. Somebody on this site recently asked, “Why don’t the former military people speak out?” Well, lots of us have. Nobody is listening. But I will tell you this. And believe me, I do know what I’m talking about. An atomic bomb will definitely get their attention. Elect Hillary Clinton, and there’s a chance you’ll find out the hard way. Lies fall apart. It’s just that simple.



    • Tristan
      November 2, 2016 at 01:17

      I’m sorry F.G. Sanford, but your reply would be much more easily read, consumed, if you were to form paragraphs. It helps the reader to more readily follow the points and thoughts of pertinence. Forgive me for editorializing.

    • Bill Bodden
      November 2, 2016 at 12:01

      and the bliss of ignorance makes it easier to get through the day.

    • Zachary Smith
      November 2, 2016 at 22:37

      Once the “Big Lie” could no longer be denied, Comey was brow-beaten into re-opening the case, probably with threats to leak the truth, thus ruining his “legacy”. The DoJ guy who has apparently been tasked with oversight of the re-look is Peter Kadzic, an old friend of John Podesta. Kadzic is the guy who also lobbied Bill Clinton through his Chief of Staff John Podesta for the pardon of Marc Rich, a notorious international finance criminal whose wife donated to Hillary’s senate campaign and the Bill Clinton Library. So, I don’t expect the re-opened investigation to get very far.

      Since I remain almost as much in the dark as I was when the Clinton investigation was reopened, all I can do is conjecture. So I’m going to agree with you that some FBI agents likely arranged matters so that Comey had no choice at all but to do something dramatic.
      Next point, that buddy of Podesta can surely tamp things down for a while, and that might allow the election of Hillary.
      Finally, the mere declaration the vast hoard of emails exists will make it impossible for them to be made to disappear again. (and would they have ever seen the light of day at all except for the Comey move?) This means that if Republicans control either section of Congress in 2012, some mighty detailed investigations are going to be made. It’s my opinion Hillary and Bill’s dealings can’t withstand such a spotlight. Again, resignation or impeachment unless the Democrats control both houses of Congress.

      So that’s my nearly uninformed but highly opinionated take on the matter.

  10. Rob Roy
    November 1, 2016 at 18:35

    I think something should be cleared up. Putin is seen through the eyes of our MSM as a bad person. It is accepted without question. He is not a bad person and there is plenty of proof of that. He turned his country around after the disaster of Boris Yeltzen, a drunken thug who the US called “democratic,” since he was “ours,” you know, the kind of patsy the US likes. Putin is always mentioned as being KGB. Truth is, he was a mid-level analyst, spending most of that time in Dresden. He refused a promotion when back in Moscow and moved to St. Petersburg to be deputy mayor to Sobchek, a progressive, democratic leader. Thanks to Putin, somewhat of a renaissance has been going on in Russia. He recently built a huge theater in Vladivostock for ballet, theater, opera, symphony, which just had it’s first annual 12-day Art Festival. He is offering any Russian a hectare of land in the east for free, in order to have more citizens living in the east. His 96% high rating by the people is for real. He is NOT aggressive, as the US press makes out. The US is the aggressor all over the world. How many bases does Russia have? How many does the US have? I’m sick of the propaganda that is accepted without question by Americans, as least those who do not find question it. Trump and Clinton are bad people. Jill Stein is the best candidate for president.

    • Sam
      November 1, 2016 at 19:23

      Yes, Stein and Warren and Gabbard are OK, but a vote for them is a personal statement without political effect, except to some hypothetical political party planner who might look at the vote counts instead of more accurate polls. I think that it would be throwing away a vote. We progressives are at the point of a Democratic gun, to vote for everything we despise (Trump) just to keep a traitor out of high office. The DNC will be remembered as the great destroyer of progressive causes, whoever wins.

    • November 2, 2016 at 04:53

      Rob Roy. You are absolutely correct. He’s done a great job for Russia. Check out his recent speech at Valdai. Show me a speech from some American politician like that. This man has an integrity second to none.

      Disclaimer: I speak as a former U.S. Naval Aviator, who patrolled the coast of Kamchatka during the Cold War, which is over by the way (I know that because I was in it -1956/59), with Migs on my wingtips. I am grateful that they did not shoot me down.

  11. LJ
    November 1, 2016 at 16:18

    I think Parry is right here. Hillary is a demagogue all the while playing an oppressed and innocent member of the fairer sex. Her tactics, the tactics of her team , are McCarthylike. Unfortunately we are a long way away from somebody having the gumption to stand up and say, ” Lady , (President Clinton) have you no shame ?”. We all know that the Clintons have absolutely none and the Democratic Party gives them a flyer on this kind of behavior. Anything goes. Besides it would be a perfect opportunity for Bill to interrupt and blurt out, “That’s no lady, that’s my wife.” All the Dems would laugh, it’s OK. Hillary rules.

    • evelync
      November 1, 2016 at 19:43

      yes McCarthylike.
      I thought so too during the Miami debate that she was red baiting Bernie Sanders close to the end of the debate:

      The segment starts here with moderator Salinas trying to catch Sanders off guard with a video clip from 1985 in which he showed compassion for the people of Central and South America and concern with our Monroe Doctrine enabled interventionist foreign policy in the region:

      “SANDERS: Sure. SALINAS: In 1985, you praised the Sandinista government and you said that Daniel Ortega was an impressive guy. This is what you said about Fidel Castro. Let’s listen.


      SANDERS: You may recall way back in, when was it, 1961, they invaded Cuba, and everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world. All the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro. They forgot that he educated their kids, gave them health care, totally transformed their society.


      SALINAS: In South Florida there are still open wounds among some exiles regarding socialism and communism. So please explain what is the difference between the socialism that you profess and the socialism in Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela.

      SANDERS: Well, let me just answer that. What that was about was saying that the United States was wrong to try to invade Cuba, that the United States was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, that the United States was wrong trying to overthrow in 1954, the government — democratically elected government of Guatemala.

      Throughout the history of our relationship with Latin America we’ve operated under the so-called Monroe Doctrine, and that said the United States had the right do anything that they wanted to do in Latin America. So I actually went to Nicaragua and I very shortly opposed the Reagan administration’s efforts to overthrow that government. And I strongly opposed earlier Henry Kissinger and the — to overthrow the government of Salvador Aliende (ph) in Chile.

      I think the United States should be working with governments around the world, not get involved in regime change. And all of these actions, by the way, in Latin America, brought forth a lot of very strong anti-American sentiments. That’s what that was about.

      SALINAS: Senator, in retrospect, have you ever regretted the characterizations that you made of Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro that way?

      SANDERS: I’m sorry. Please say that…

      SALINAS: In retrospect, have you ever regretted the characterizations of Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro that you made in 1985?

      SANDERS: The key issue here was whether the United States should go around overthrowing small Latin American countries. I think that that was a mistake…

      SALINAS: You didn’t answer the question.

      SANDERS: …both in Nicaragua and Cuba. Look, let’s look at the facts here. Cuba is, of course, an authoritarian undemocratic country, and I hope very much as soon as possible it becomes a democratic country. But on the other hand…


      …on the other hands, it would be wrong not to state that in Cuba they have made some good advances in health care. They are sending doctors all over the world. They have made some progress in education. I think by restoring full diplomatic relations with Cuba, it will result in significant improvements to the lives of Cubans and it will help the United States and our business community invest.

      SALINAS: Thank you, Senator. Your time is up on that.”


      They move on to questions about Puerto Rico and that country’s debt problems. And during Clinton’s response she interrupts the subject to red bait Bernie with her McCarthylike attack of his criticism of the U.S. Monroe Doctrine aggression.

      “Clinton…….And I just want to add one thing to the question you were asking Senator Sanders. I think in that same interview, he praised what he called the revolution of values in Cuba and talked about how people were working for the common good, not for themselves.

      I just couldn’t disagree more. You know, if the values are that you oppress people, you disappear people, you imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions, for expressing freedom of speech, that is not the kind of revolution of values that I ever want to see anywhere.


      SANDERS: Well, as I said earlier, I don’t believe it is the business of the United States government to be overthrowing small countries around the world. And number two, when you get to Puerto Rico, there’s an issue that we have not talked about. That little island is $73 billion in debt and the government now is paying interest rates of up to 11 percent.

      And many of the bonds that they are paying off were purchased by vulture capitalists for 30 cents on the dollar. And what I have said in talking to the leaders of Puerto Rico, we’ve got to bring people together. And it’s not the people of Puerto Rico, or the children or the schools.

      TUMULTY: Senator, OK

      SANDERS: But maybe some of these vulture capitalists who are going to have to lose a little bit of money in this process.

      TUMULTY: We need to move on to another topic.”

      Here’s the link and the video which reveals her anger.:Starting at 1:43:00 is the relevant segment:

  12. Jay
    November 1, 2016 at 15:11

    The NY Times did the same McCarthyte crap today.

  13. Ted Tripp
    November 1, 2016 at 15:01

    Fascinating! First, the propagandists probably spend years demonizing Putin, certainly with the aim to enact regime change (after all, he is an embarrassment to the neoliberal program), so that he exists as a convenient token to link to Trump, et al Republicans. Demonization instantly transferred, very convenient for Hillary et al Democrats to deflect hard questions. This is the gift that keeps on giving.

  14. Abbybwood
    November 1, 2016 at 14:49

    What is interesting about all this is that the FBI and the CIA and even the Pentagon are currently working WITH Russia on various levels!

    Not to mention the Space Station!

    I really think the planet will be better served with Donald Trump as President. I hope he beats Clinton in a surprise landslide next Tuesday.

    And this is coming from a lifelong Progressive Democrat (recently turned Green Party).

    • LJ
      November 1, 2016 at 16:52

      Abbybwood, I voted for Trump,. Since I started voting in 1976. In 20 national elections, plus all the primaries too I had only voted for Gerald Ford in 1976 and Tom Campbell running against Diane Feinstein. I would do so again. Trump was my third Republican. . I do not like him but Hillary has stated a Hawkish Foreign Policy position repeatedly , proudly campaigning on the Neoconservative platform of more war and aggression. Robert Kagan and the other neoconservatives including the Bush family support her. . She has beaten war drums against Russia, Iran and China consistently. (trade war drums on China) . I think foreign policy is where the President’s Administration has the most power. We have been fighting these Regime Change wars in Pipelinestan and the Middle East since 9/11. Sometimes against al-Qaeda but now along side of them. Whatever serves the policy of aggression. With Hillary we know this will continue, with Trump it may not.

    • Sam
      November 1, 2016 at 19:11

      I agree. Trump is an almost unmitigated disaster, but Clinton is even worse, a traitor serving Israel, Wall Street, the MIC, and anyone but the people of the US.

      I think that the DNC will be remembered as the great destroyer of liberal causes in 2016. It has truly betrayed its primary supporters, the people of the US, and the women it has deceived to vote for their worst enemy simply because she is a woman. What an utter travesty and tragedy.

      We the progressives are essentially at the point of a Democratic gun, to vote for everything we despise in politics, just to keep a traitor out of high office.

      • Bill Bodden
        November 1, 2016 at 23:53

        Trump is an almost unmitigated disaster, but Clinton is even worse, a traitor serving Israel, Wall Street, the MIC, and anyone but the people of the US.

        Clinton is not a traitor. She is a loyal member of the Democratic Party oligarchy, and it has been their role to serve the interests of Israel (since 1948), Wall Street (for generations) and the MIC (at least since the Civil War).

        I think that the DNC will be remembered as the great destroyer of liberal causes in 2016. It has truly betrayed its primary supporters, the people of the US, and the women it has deceived to vote for their worst enemy simply because she is a woman.

        The Democratic Party has a long history of betraying the American people, especially those who line up quadrennial charade after quadrennial charade and dutifully cast their votes for the latest con artist. How many more of these travesties do we have to go through before the people wake up and realize the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have nothing but contempt for the people? When millions of people are so gullible as to believe Hillary is “working for us” it is cause for despair for the future of these (dis)United States.

        We the progressives are essentially at the point of a Democratic gun, to vote for everything we despise in politics, just to keep a traitor out of high office.

        There is always the option of a vote for “none of the above” by voting for a protest candidate, a write-in, or no vote at all.

        • Sam
          November 2, 2016 at 05:01

          Yes, but that seems to merely register a preference, without influencing major parties, whose planners can find out more accurately what voters want than by looking at ambiguous polls. I give to the Greens but see no point in voting for them. If they had twenty percent already I would consider voting for them. Perhaps it affects third party growth toward a viable alternative.

          • Bill Bodden
            November 2, 2016 at 10:55

            Until the people rise in a formidable movement – Occupy on steroids, for example – nothing will change. The oligarchs of both major parties have long histories of crushing dissent and reform, and they will continue to do so as long as they can get away with it. That is why I endorse a vote for Jill Stein. It is a way for the people to say her policies are the policies I want. Unfortunately, the majority of the people lie down like doormats at the (un)Democratic and Republican Ministries of Truth so there is not the uprising we need to change course. The oligarchs of both major parties like the power they wield and are determined to keep it that way. That is why they work to defeat any reform candidates in their parties. Remember Obama abandoning the Democrats in Wisconsin and letting Scott Walker win? That is one way they do it.

          • Bill Bodden
            November 2, 2016 at 12:35

            Related: Can the American People Defeat the Oligarchy That Rules Them? by Paul Craig Roberts – http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/02/can-the-american-people-defeat-the-oligarchy-that-rules-them/

      • Peter Loeb
        November 2, 2016 at 07:36


        I agree with “Sam”. Years ago I was advocating for universal health care
        along with many others. Our primary enemy was President Barack
        Obama and his (then) henchman Rahm Emanmnuel who was Obama’s
        point man on health care. (Now Mayor of Chicago.)

        At one point Emannuel said, “Don’t worry about the liberals. They have
        no other place to go!”

        And so liberals and progressives are fighting like mad in support of
        the (Obama) Affordable Care Act. Among other things, this act
        made medicaid funds’ use optional for states and left
        the giant insurance companies (incidentally , prime contributors
        to previous Obama campaigns) with the ultimate say on what
        premiums will be. Based of course on their own
        “needs”…or is it “wants?

        So-called “liberal/progressives” were marginallized and
        indeed had “no other place to go”. Some became integral
        parts of the Affordable Care Act because there was
        “no other place to go”.

        Many of us fought like hell for Chairman Conyers
        bill introduced many times over the years
        in several sessions. Backed by physicians, labor unions
        who disappeared when pressure was exerted.

        —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

  15. backwardsevolution
    November 1, 2016 at 14:48

    I see the paid trolls are piling on here today.

    “Correct the Record, a super PAC coordinating with Clinton’s campaign, is spending some $1 million to find and confront social media users who post unflattering messages about the Democratic front-runner.

    Some experts on digital campaigns think the idea of launching a paid army of “former reporters, bloggers, public affairs specialists, designers” and others to produce online counterattacks is unlikely to prove successful. Others, however, say Clinton has little choice but to try, given the ubiquity of online assaults and the difficulty of squelching even provably untrue narratives once they have taken hold.

    “It is meant to appear to be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell of activism, when in fact it is highly paid and highly tactical,” said Brian Donahue, chief executive of the consulting firm Craft Media/Digital.”


    • Sam
      November 1, 2016 at 18:58

      It sounds as though the Clinton trolls’ claim to be “correcting” trolls, when they are themselves paid trolls, is as diametrically opposed to the truth as
      (1) their claims to be defending human rights in Aleppo while sponsoring terrorists there and planning a ten times larger urban warfare operation in Mosul;
      (2) their ridiculous claims that Trump is an operative of Russia while Hillary’s foreign policy consists entirely of taking orders from Israel for more wars of aggression;
      (3) their claims to be defending the working Joe while Hillary exonerated the banksters for ruining the economy for eight years;
      (4) their claims that Hillary established some kind of national health care while in fact raising rates and minimizing coverage;
      (5) Clinton’s claim of fighting terrorism in Libya when in fact destroying a successful anti-terrorist government and substituting mayhem and terrorism;
      (6) Clinton’s claim of fighting terrorism in Iraq in 2003 when in fact destabilizing the Hussein government and creating a vacuum in which terrorism has been the rule ever since;
      (7) Clinton’s claim to be fighting terrorism in Syria when in fact taking zionist campaign bribes to sponsor terrorism against the Assad govt;
      (8) endless more examples of Clinton lies and accusations of the innocent to cover up her crimes.

      Frankly I don’t think that anyone believes the Clinton crap. Her support is the same as that of Maine’s past and present Repub women senators: dumb Dem and Repub women who think that a woman is better even if she opposes absolutely everything they believe in. They will change their beliefs to whatever the woman candidate says. Of course we expect stupidity and selfishness from men, for example Trump, that is the primary lesson of history, but must we now repeat every disaster of history, only with women at the controls, to prove to the dumber women that sexual prejudice is dumb? The motto of both parties should be : “Never underestimate the power of stupidity.”

      • Kiza
        November 2, 2016 at 09:14

        Well said.

  16. backwardsevolution
    November 1, 2016 at 14:42

    Just visited Fred Hiatt’s opinion piece of October 27th at the WP. Wow, people are getting it. They’re slamming his crap piece with lines such as: “The WP is an extension of the DNC. Journalism used to be honest unbiased invstigations into our government in order to weed out corruption. The media lead by the WP have decided to throw those journalism principles out the window and develop an activist arm of the DNC providing biased reporting, distorting, distracting and accusing Trump and omitting damning info on (Hillary) the most corrupt politician since Al Capone.”


    “Way to go, WaPost!!! This time you’ve written something that rises almost to the level of the National Enquirer.”

    People ARE wising up.

    • Herman
      November 2, 2016 at 03:28

      “Though there are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose the eminently unqualified Donald Trump for President, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats risk setting in motion dangerous international forces with their promiscuous Russia-bashing.”

      That closing comment wipes out everything before it. If Trump is eminently unqualified, then what choice is there? It is probably unfair to reach such a conclusion, still I think that will be the justification for pulling the lever for Clinton and such characterizations are welcomed by Clinton supporters. Now that sounds like I am accusing the writer of aiding and abetting Clinton so best I stop before getting any deeper.

      A more searching question might be if you have two eminently unqualified candidates, who do you vote for. I will vote for the eminently less dangerous one although if he wins, his troubles with the “establishment” would just be beginning.

      • Mark W. Stroberg
        November 3, 2016 at 04:27

        There are three Presidential candidates on all 50 state ballots. You might consider voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson. He is inclined toward peace and limited government, and is much more of an adult than either of the two major party joke candidates.

  17. Vincent Castigliola
    November 1, 2016 at 14:42

    I appreciate your well thought critical comparison, and add.

    The only thing worse than a liar is a liar that’s also a hypocrite!
    Tennessee Williams

    I also suggest it is perhaps unfair to McCarthy to use his name to characterize the dangerous and deliberate falsehoods perpetrated as part of Secretary Clinton’s own conspiracies.

    During the McCarthy era, Communism had a significant presence here and Russia was part of a very powerful Communist Soviet Union which supported atheism and abortion, and opposed gender distinctions.

    Today, Russia has roughly 1/10 the GDP and military budget vs these US, In addition, as I hear it, Russia now supports Christianity, and opposes abortion and homosexual propaganda. The Clintonite/McCarthites do not strike me as anti communist nor do they otherwise support the values esteemed in the US during McCarthy’s time of influence.

    Perhaps it is not past time, to give Peace (and the Rule of Law) a chance.

  18. Bill Cash
    November 1, 2016 at 14:20

    I usually agree with you but not in this case. I believe there is a connection between Trump’s campaign, Russia and Assange. They are obviously working together. I don’t doubt Bannon made some agreement with Assange. Bannon is an anarchist who wants to bring down our government. Even Trump Jr said they received a lot of money from Russia. When American banks stopped loaning him money Russia is one of the countries he turned to. Why do you think Trump won’t give his tax returns?
    Hillary didn’t start that line, researchers are starting to see activity from a Trump server to Russia. Mother Jones (they are frequently reliable) reported:
    A former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former intelligence officer’s conversations with Russian sources, noted, “Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.” It maintained that Trump “and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.” It claimed that Russian intelligence had “compromised” Trump during his visits to Moscow and could “blackmail him.” It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on “bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls.”

    • Joe Tedesky
      November 1, 2016 at 15:57

      And you accused me of making assumptions…wow!

    • Joe B
      November 1, 2016 at 18:28

      Bill. such connections would be easy for the FBI to trace, and they would have said that long ago if it were true. The fact is that Hillary is getting much of her campaign money from Israel supporters, taking orders for more wars right from zionists, as mountains of evidence shows clearly, and hiding that by making ludicrous disloyalty accusations against Trump.

      Trump is a fool, and fools are not often very disloyal, although he has no other obvious qualifications. Hillary is loyal only to money and has no conscience or sympathy, a complete disqualification for high office. They are both disasters for the US.

    • Kiza
      November 2, 2016 at 09:09

      Let us mention the current blaming of Trump as a Russian/KGB agent (btw, KGB exists no more). Apparently, the Democrats found some Slate hack and some Democratic computer “experts” who claimed that they discovered a secret connection between a Trump email server and a Russian Alpha Bank:

      Trump’s marketing manager hired some online marketing company which used a Trump’s domain name to spam past visitors of his hotels, including some Alpha Bank employees who came to US on business and happened to stay in one of Trump’s hotels. I could not stop laughing: email spam as KGB secret communication with Trump. The Democratic Party officials keep regurgitating this “connection”, probably hoping that nobody would die laughing:

    • Kiza
      November 2, 2016 at 09:41

      Let us mention the current blaming of Trump as a Russian/KGB agent (btw, KGB exists no more). Apparently, the Democrats found some Slate hack and some Democratic computer “experts” who claimed that they discovered a secret connection between a Trump email server and some Russian bank called Alpha Bank.

      Trump’s marketing manager hired some online marketing company which used a Trump’s domain name to spam past visitors of his hotels, including some Alpha Bank employees who came to US on business and happened to stay in one of Trump’s hotels. I could not stop laughing: email spam as KGB secret communication with Trump. The Democratic Party officials keep regurgitating this “connection”, hoping that nobody would die laughing.

      PS I had links in my post, but got censored for them; this attempt to post is thus without links.

  19. Pat Goudey O'Brien
    November 1, 2016 at 13:56

    I think there’s a lot to be said for your article, but I do NOT think Democrats have piled onto Trump as disloyal and Russia-connected MORE than Republicans piled onto the president for his entire eight years in office as Manchurian Candidate somehow in the sway of some dark Muslim overlords. Your opinion is not a balanced look at the abysmal garbage thrown around in American politics today. I may err on the side of my own prejudices, but I think what Mr. Trump has been saying about his opponents, and since the conventions, about Secty. Clinton, has been equally if not more over the top. He doesn’t use the old Russia demon, but is that all that matters in this argument? That it’s the Russian connection being thrown out there? The tactics are the same, whether Russsia, Al Qaeda, or selling the government through the Clinton Foundation.

    • Joe Tedesky
      November 1, 2016 at 15:55

      You are a true blue Hillary supporter. Hillary supporters always change the focus of a conversation away from Hillary, and aim towards Trump or Putin. I guess this works out well for supporting lying Hillary, but it is overplayed and quite honestly I think most people see through it. Admit it, Hillary is not a good candidate, she never was. Time will tell, how after she stole the primary away from Bernie, she marched the Democrat’s towards what the Clinton’s do so well, and that is create scandals then lie about them to get over on the American people. For crying out loud it would be more patriotic to ‘not vote’ than to vote for this disgraceful person of deceit. The alarm bell went off a longtime ago, so wake up, and think before you vote this November 8th. You don’t need 4 to 8 years of this Clinton insanity, do you?

      • Kiza
        November 2, 2016 at 09:03

        Let us mention the current blaming of Trump as a Russian/KGB agent (btw, KGB exists no more). Apparently, the Democrats found some Slate hack and some Democratic computer “experts” who claimed that they discovered a secret connection between a Trump email server and a Russian Alpha Bank:

        Trump’s marketing manager hired some online marketing company which used a Trump’s domain name to spam past visitors of his hotels, including some Alpha Bank employees who came to US on business and happened to stay in one of Trump’s hotels. I could not stop laughing: email spam as KGB secret communication with Trump. The Democratic Party officials keep regurgitating this “connection”, hoping that nobody would die laughing:

        The US should have elections more frequently, it beats any comedy shows one can find. I am now awaiting a new movie Dumb, Dumber, Democrats (sorry if you still carry a membership card of these dangerous morons).

        • Enels
          November 2, 2016 at 12:42

          Let me edit the offending term, hint: (Carmen Maranda’s head gear contained it.)

          Hillary, the president of her college Republican club, and one time Barry Goldwater cheer leader, shows the Red Baiter Card. The paranoid ruthless up and comer drunk mentioned in the articles title… had one pretty effective lawyer on his team, who was made a movie of, he looked better in his movie than the late FBI directer did in his… But I guess they were both interpreted in the genre of ”Anti Heroes”.

          Come to learn that that same lawyer was a good pal of Donald the Trump. Well of course it’s a small world too…

          But is now the time to bring back witch hunting for commies?

          Has it been long enough yet has the dust settled, OK as long as you go after the ones that have been masquerading as Capitalists, morphing that into a Globalist transnational thing, more like what is was against, stifling freedom in many ways…

          Maybe some statement is useful.

          • Enels
            November 2, 2016 at 12:49

            “Maybe some (Understatement) is useful to make acceptable comments, was the term, that’s a good rule.

    • Steven A
      November 1, 2016 at 20:13

      There is actually a lot of evidence that U.S./NATO is presently in a de facto alliance with al-Qaeda in Syria (to borrow the accurate phrase from the title of one of Robert Parry’s recent articles), in pursuit of “regime change”, in accordance with the overriding aim of influential client states Saudi Arabia and Israel to undermine the Shia Crescent. Part of this policy is a many-million dollar information management operation (The Syria Campaign, White Helmets, the major western media, etc.) in order to disguise the actual facts, and the obvious motivations, substituting instead war propaganda for “humanitarian” intervention. Hillary Clinton has had her hands in every fraudulently sold war since her arrival on the national scene, several of which (e.g. Kosovo) have featured the arming of Muslim extremists while falsely presenting them as valiant fighters against pure evil. Hillary Clinton was a major architect of the human disaster that is Libya, including major crimes against its black population, at the hands of her jihadist allies, following false propaganda about “black mercenaries” raping and killing for Ghaddafi. Today she is a major proponent of a “no-fly zone” in Syria despite her awareness that such a policy will “kill a lot of Syrians” and the realistic likelihood that such a military action will lead to war with Russia and extension of ISIS control to e.g. der Ezzor.

      So while I agree that the charge that Obama is a secret agent of Muslim overlords, or the like, is generally ill-motivated, I think there is a rational case to be made that the Establishment which Hillary represents has often been involved in alliances of a most unsavory kind with wahhabi extremism. This matter deserves much more public attention than it has so far been getting.

  20. Zachary Smith
    November 1, 2016 at 13:48

    “Recognizing the terrifying potential of nuclear war, a more responsible course would be to tone down the rhetoric and address the legitimate questions raised by the email issues.”

    This isn’t going to happen. Instead there is a desperate ongoing effort to throw still more sacks of BS at the fan to keep things blurry until the election is over. Witness this excerpt from a fanatical Hillary supporter on a blog:

    “…the suddenly real possibility that Putin had the emails planted on Weiner’s laptop”

    Any more innocent explanation like a married couple sharing laptops, and when the wife moves to another device and leaves the laptop for the sole use of the husband she forgets that the laptop is still a designated destination for her emails. When the husband comes under investigation for his pervert activities, the Feds find the enormous cache of accumulated mail which had been quietly piling up on the machine and whose presence was unknown to everybody.

    No, they’ve got to keep chanting Putin/Putin/Putin. It may or may not work with the election so close, but as things stand now I doubt if Hillary will remain President for even a year. Assuming she is sworn in at all. That last possibility would be most reassuring to me.

  21. Joe Tedesky
    November 1, 2016 at 13:42

    The second Hillary turned on her private computer servers she broke the law. Now we discover Carlos Danger held 650,000 State Department documents on his personal laptop. Carlos just by his having these Classified State Department documents is a security breach, and since Carlos doesn’t have a ‘need to know’ anything about what our governments State Department is doing he too broke the law. In fact Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma should be investigated for spying. It isn’t as though Anthony isn’t vulnerable for blackmail, or he wouldn’t possibly be suspect for selling such secrets to a foreign government. Hillary should step aside, but she won’t, because she’s a Clinton.

    • Pat Goudey O'Brien
      November 1, 2016 at 13:58

      Where did you get the idea all the documents are State Department documents?

      • Joe Tedesky
        November 1, 2016 at 15:39

        Well then if there are no government documents to be found on Danger’s computer then Hillary is free of this accusation by the FBI. This would mean Comey was even more off base than some think he is now for notifying Congress about the investigation. If Hillary is innocent then my comment doesn’t count for much, but if she isn’t then she should be judged the same way anyone of us would be judged. Oh, her private email server is Okay then? I think not. This is where she broke the law in the first place, less we forget, and blame it on Putin.

        • Pat Goudey O'Brien
          November 5, 2016 at 20:01

          Actually, she didn’t “break the law” when she set up her own server. She used it for business communication, but — as far as my reading can determine — only something like 11 emails were even maybe secret, and they weren’t all properly labeled at the time, and — if reports are correct, a couple were classified AFTER the fact. It’s all quite a big mess, and no top secret info impinging on national security was hacked or disclosed.

          She used a different secure server for classified communications. And she should have used an OFFICIAL server for all the rest of her communication, but she didn’t, she used a personal one. Bit f-ing deal.

          I’m not a fan of hers. I would prefer she had used official channels at all times because that makes information more easily accessible to FOIA requests, etc. [The Bush White House used Republican National Committee servers — how partisan is THAT! — to avoid FOIA, and also misplaced or destroyed 22 MILLION emails, but let’s not quibble over who did what, who’s mad at whom for doing what, or “the law” here.]

          The FBI has a vendetta (shades of J. Edgar Hoover all over again, not only McCarthy).

          I agree all the Putin and Russia talk can very easily be trying to cast aspersions where no aspersions should be [though there IS a Russian connection among Trump’s advisors, but hey, it’s a big world and powerful people meet each other in it every day].

          But I think all this talk about Hillary’s email “scandals” is … well, bullshit.

    • Bill Cash
      November 1, 2016 at 14:22

      I believe we will find that most of those were Weiner’s personal emails. You are making a big assumption.

      • Joe Tedesky
        November 1, 2016 at 15:45

        When it comes to National Security documents assumptions are made all the time in order to widen the field of investigation. Sorry if I’m jumping the gun, maybe the emails do belong to Carlos Danger and only Carlos Danger, but at this point who knows. If it turns out there is no there there, then Comey is the worst of the worst. Talking about assumptions, wouldn’t blaming Trump to be in cahoots with Putin be a huge assumption?

      • Kiza
        November 2, 2016 at 08:43

        We have been making assumptions of more than that Clintons are corrupt since they stole the furniture and silverware from the White House. We have been making the assumptions that they are common thieves. It is just that Clintons’ paid supporters and assorted fools would be calling it all allegations all the way to the gallows or lamp posts for their leaders. Clintons are the historically leading crime family of the US, I am looking forward to their book one day entitled: How to Get Away Scot Free after Absolutely Any Crime.

  22. JRGJRG
    November 1, 2016 at 13:25

    Clinton reminds me of the Angela Lansbury character, Mrs. Iselin, in the Manchurian Candidate.


  23. Sally Snyder
    November 1, 2016 at 13:06

    Here is an email from the Podesta files showing who the Clinton camp believes is responsible for funding the Islamic State:


    It’s interesting to note that the same nations have put tens of millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation.

    • evelync
      November 1, 2016 at 18:52

      sorry if I’m stepping out of bounds of editorial comment here, whatever those bounds might be,
      BUT! after watching clinton dodging stuff now for the past year
      my radar on the video linked to in your link of Clinton on ABC asked about the Saudi Bill cried out loud and clear from her expression and body language. choice of words and the blank looks she gets when she goes on automatic pilot is that-

      • J. D.
        November 2, 2016 at 11:31

        I don’t think you are stepping out of bounds, nor is it incorrect to take the next step. One thing that Donald Trump has correctly said is that Hillary Clinton’s insane plan to impose a no-fly zone in Syria, and to prioritize “regime change” against Assad over collaborating with Russia to crush ISIS, is a blatant and dangerous path to war with Russia, a war that would rapidly become nuclear. Thinking that she will “tone down the rhetoric and address the legitimate questions,” is something that anyone following this campaign knows will never happen, as she is being given a free pass by the American media and much of our electorate to put humanity’s future in jeopardy.

    • Peter Loeb
      November 2, 2016 at 07:47


      Joe was real. My Dad was working for HST (Truman) in the
      White House and had to sign a “Loyalty Oath”.

      What those on the left persistently remain blind to are
      the many similar movements and responses within
      the Democratic Party. These include Alien Registration
      Acts, The “Red Scare” (Wilson), The Attorney General’s
      List(Truman), blacklisting, the essential reason for
      all of The Truman foreign policy (See Joyce and Gabriel
      Kolko, THE LIMITS OF POWER) and more.

      Jack Kennedy as Senator refused to vote for McCarthy’s
      censure of course. Such “profiles in courage!” Fortunately
      his vote was not needed as he hid from ;public view.

      I remember watching the Army-McCarthy hearings as
      a child, being taken down to view the “temporary” building
      on the mall in which the show was held. From outside,
      of course. Joe was a part of my life .

      He is, however, no easy excuse for those on the left to
      get themselves off the hook. A more profound analysis
      of the “Russians are coming” tendency in American
      political discourse has been written. Evidently no one
      has bothered to read it.

Comments are closed.