Hillary Clinton Blame-Shifts Her Defeat

Exclusive: While admitting unspecified shortcomings in her campaign, Hillary Clinton blame-shifted her defeat primarily onto Russian President Putin and FBI Director Comey, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Hillary Clinton’s explanation for her electoral defeat – putting much of the blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin – clashes with her own chronology of her campaign’s collapse in key Rust Belt states that put Donald Trump into the White House.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking at the Women for Women International conference on May 2, 2017. (Screen shot from YouTube)

In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour at the Women for Women International conference on Tuesday, Clinton stated that if the election had been held on Oct. 27, 2016, she would have won, but that her hopes were derailed on Oct. 28.

However, what happened on Oct. 28 wasn’t anything that Putin may or may not have done. It was FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that he was reopening the investigation into possible security violations related to Clinton’s use of a private email server as Secretary of State.

Then, just two days before the Nov. 8 election, Comey again injected the Clinton-server issue into the campaign by announcing that he was once more closing the inquiry.

In other words, Comey delivered what amounted to a double-whammy by reminding voters of a key reason why they distrusted Clinton (the private email server) and then creating the appearance that she was getting special treatment for conduct that might have put a “lesser” person in prison (by absolving her of legal guilt).

However, regarding Clinton’s chronology of her defeat and the supposed role of Russia in exposing Democratic emails, the timing doesn’t fit. WikiLeaks began publishing the purloined emails of Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta three weeks before Comey’s Oct. 28 announcement. The first batch was released on Oct. 7 and others were made public over the next couple of months.

Though those emails surely embarrassed the Clinton campaign – because they revealed the contents of Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street and some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation – there was no clear correlation between their publication and Clinton’s late drop in the polls.

As Harry Enten reported for FiveThirtyEight, a web site that specializes in electoral predictions, “Clinton’s drop in the polls doesn’t line up perfectly with the surge in Wikileaks interest. When Wikileaks had its highest search day in early October, Clinton’s poll numbers were rising. They continued to go up for another two weeks, even as Wikileaks was releasing emails.”

Indeed, on Oct. 7, The Upshot, The New York Times’ daily tracking of the election’s odds, gave Clinton an 82 percent chance of winning, a prospect that brightened to 92 percent by Oct. 27 before sliding after Comey’s announcement to 85 percent on Election Day.

In other words, Clinton’s chances continued to improve in the three weeks after the WikiLeaks’ publications and only dropped in the wake of Comey’s Oct. 28 announcement of the reopened server investigation.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Comey said he disclosed the reopened investigation on Oct. 28 because he had earlier informed Congress that he had closed the inquiry and that saying nothing would have required an “act of concealment.”

WikiLeaks’ Denials

Regarding the Podesta emails, there’s also the evidentiary question of whether Russia did, in fact, provide them to WikiLeaks, whose founder Julian Assange has denied getting the material from Russia. One WikiLeaks associate, former British Ambassador Craig Murray, indicated that the Podesta emails and an earlier batch of Democratic National Committee emails came from two different American insiders.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. (Photo credit: Espen Moe)

President Obama’s intelligence chiefs, however, asserted with high confidence – but without presenting specific evidence – that Russia was the original source, supposedly having hacked into the email accounts of Podesta and the DNC.

In her comments on Tuesday, Clinton treated the Russian hacking allegations as flat-fact and gave Russia and WikiLeaks top billing in explaining her defeat, even over Comey.

“Every day that goes by we learn more about the unprecedented interference by a foreign power whose leader is not a member of my fan club,” Clinton said in reference to Putin without using his name. “He certainly interfered in our election. And it was clear he interfered to hurt me and to help my opponent.”

But Clinton slid into conspiracy mode by suggesting that Putin, Trump or someone else somehow arranged to have the first batch of Podesta emails released on Oct. 7, 2016, to blunt the impact of that day’s disclosure of Trump’s 2005 hot-mic comments to Access Hollywood host Billy Bush about grabbing women by the “pussy.” (Regarding the timing of that release, NBC explained that a producer recalled the comment and dug the tape out of the archive, before it was leaked to The Washington Post, which published the lewd remark on Oct. 7.)

“Ask yourself this,” Clinton said on Tuesday. “Within an hour or two of the Hollywood Access tape being made public the Russian theft of John Podesta’s emails hit Wikileaks. What a coincidence!”

So, is the former Secretary of State suggesting that there was such direct collusion among Trump, Putin and WikiLeaks that they coordinated the timing of the Oct. 7 release to distract from the release of Trump’s “pussy” comment? U.S. intelligence agencies have cited no proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia regarding the email leaks.

But Clinton went even further, suggesting that Trump was coordinating his public statements with Putin. “If you chart my opponent and his campaign’s statements, they quite coordinated with the goals that that leader who shall remain nameless had,” Clinton said.

Yet, while primarily blaming Putin and Comey for her defeat, Clinton offered no specific examples of her own failings during the campaign. She responded to a question about her supporters’ disappointment and anger  by accepting blame only in general terms.

“I take absolute personal responsibility,” Clinton said. “I am very aware of the challenges, the problems, the shortfalls that we had. … It wasn’t a perfect campaign. There is no such thing. But I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey’s letter on Oct. 28 and Russian Wikileaks raised doubts in the mind of people who were inclined to vote for me but were scared off.”

While promising more specifics about her mistakes in an upcoming memoir, she avoided any references to problems that other analysts have cited, such as her controversial decision as Secretary of State to use a private email server; her acceptance of six-figure speaking fees from Wall Street and other special interest groups after leaving the State Department; her description of half of Trump’s supporters as “deplorables”; her hawkish foreign policy, including her support for the disastrous Iraq War and her key role in the botched Libyan regime change; her campaign’s lack of an inspirational or coherent message; her heavy reliance on negative advertising against Trump; her association with past scandals involving her husband, Bill Clinton; and her neglect of the traditionally Democratic states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, which gave Trump the electoral votes he needed to win.

A Passive-Aggressive Style

In contrast to President Obama who avoided pinning his political problems on race, Clinton pointed to misogyny as another reason for her defeat and depicted women’s rights as the premier issue facing the world.

Donald Trump speaking at the Iowa Republican Party’s 2015 Lincoln Dinner at the Iowa Events Center in Des Moines, Iowa. May 16, 2015. (Flickr Gage Skidmore)

“Women’s rights is the unfinished business of the Twenty-first Century,” Clinton said. “There is no more important larger issue that has to be addressed.”

As important as women’s rights are — and as popular as the line may have been to her audience — Clinton’s statement had a discordant ring since there are many other examples of “unfinished business of the Twenty-first Century,” such as global warming, endless warfare, nuclear weapons, racism, religious bigotry, poverty, lack of health care, etc.

It was also somewhat ironic that Clinton sat before a slogan, #SheBringsPeace, given her militaristic approach toward American foreign policy, including her infamous celebration of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s grisly murder in 2011, when she declared, “we came, we saw, he died” and clapped with joy.

Despite her off-putting passive-aggressive attitude for much of the half-hour interview, Clinton was at her best toward the end when she began discussing detailed domestic policies and the future challenges to the jobs of Americans from robotics and other high-tech developments.

Only then did the viewers get a sense of Clinton’s greatest strength, her wonky interest in the nitty-gritty of what the government can do for people, a favorable contrast to President Trump’s surprise at how complicated many of the issues are that land on the President’s desk.

But the bulk of the interview focused on blame-shifting her defeat largely onto Russia as she presented herself as a new fighter in the anti-Trump #Resistance. “I’m now back to being an activist citizen and part of the Resistance,” Clinton declared.

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).

195 comments for “Hillary Clinton Blame-Shifts Her Defeat

  1. May 7, 2017 at 22:33

    Thank G-d this awful WITCH. did not get in. Her “Confront Russia” platform Item could have destroyed all life… One of those crazy women out to prove they’re tougher than a man..

  2. evelync
    May 7, 2017 at 14:53

    Jimmy Dore’s critique of Hillary Clinton’s recent talk with Christiane Amanpour and her absurd proclamations that she’s part of the resistance and an activist citizen….

  3. mike k
    May 6, 2017 at 10:42

    Who would have thought the old gal had so much blood in her? And yet, will she stagger to her feet like some undead zombie to menace us all again?

  4. Texas Aggie
    May 5, 2017 at 20:08

    There were many different things that if one had been done differently, it would have put Clinton over the finish line despite the others. Comey was one of them. Her blowing off the rust belt was another. The Wikileaks didn’t help.

    But the basic reason that the election was even close is that Clinton and the people she represented were directly opposed to the voters who would have otherwise voted for her. Mr. Sanders shouldn’t have been able to gain the support he did because there shouldn’t have been a need for him. Clinton should have been there from the very beginning back when her husband was in the WH. She shouldn’t have supported Wall St. She shouldn’t have supported interference in other countries such as Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Ukraine, and Syria. She shouldn’t have supported the occupation of the West Bank by Israel. She shouldn’t have interfered with dealing with Iran. There are so many things she could have done and so many things that she shouldn’t have done that made it a close race to start with. If she had actually been a Democrat instead of a neoliberal on domestic items and a neocon on foreign affairs, there would have been open sailing and Mr. Sanders would have had no reason to insert himself into the picture.

    But she didn’t learn that lesson from Obama’s first run, and she still hasn’t learned that lesson as evidenced by the present composition of the DNC.

    • Skip Scott
      May 6, 2017 at 07:13

      You are basically saying that Hillary lost because she is Hillary. She did what she did, and does what she does, because that’s who she is. Starting with her hubby, the Democratic party was taken over by DINOS (democrats in name only). There are two factions of one party now, I’d call them the GCW (Globalizing Corporate Warmongers).

      • May 7, 2017 at 22:41

        I’m with you Scott.. Evil murdering horror show.. She seemed to enjoy Gadaffi’s assassination “We came. We saw. He died”…… And THEN She cackled like the WITCH she surely is..

        What a frigging WACK JOB…..!!!!!!!!!!

  5. susan_sunflower
    May 5, 2017 at 14:21

    Until the “Forward Together” program is better delineated, this cannot be considered a “declaration of war” against Sanders’ “Our Revolution” … but I bet it is … as best, it’s deliberate competition and an effort to keep their donor list “in the fold” and donating …
    There is such a profound malevolence in so much of what Clinton does … profound cynicism results … she needs someone to pick up her plane fare and hotel bills … and provide staff …

  6. Jay
    May 5, 2017 at 10:10

    Homer Jay:

    “How about exposing special access information via her private server, instructing her subordinates to declassify classified information before sending it to her. ”

    I’m not familiar with this accusation. Do you have links?

    I know that after the fact some of the emails were classified, but that’s different.

    And the private email server still wasn’t illegal, at the time. (It was stupid and she should never have used it, but that’s a different matter.)

    • Skip Scott
      May 5, 2017 at 12:31


      It is not the email that is or is not classified. If you mention classified information on an unclassified system, that is a violation of security protocol. It is the information that is classified. To say they were classified after the fact is misleading. They were discussing classified stuff on an unsecured system.

      From Comey’s original report:
      “From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.”

      As you can see, only the last 2,000 emails mentioned were up-classified after the fact. The others contained classified info at the time they were sent or received.

      Here is a link on the accusation to strip classified header and send on an unsecure system.


      • Jay
        May 5, 2017 at 19:19


        Read what I quoted from you and answer the question instead of redirecting elsewhere.

        You’ve neglect to present evidence of Hillary asking for the classification to be changed.

        • Skip Scott
          May 6, 2017 at 06:53


          Huh? What did you quote from me?

          The top email from the link is from HRC and it says:
          “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send non-secure.”

          She is instructing her subordinate to break the law.

          I worked as a Radio Operator shipboard, and am familiar with proper procedures for handling classified data. That’s why I responded to your question/post. When she tells him to strip the header (turn into nonpaper) and send on an unsecure line, I would say that is evidence.

          I’m not really quite sure where you’re coming from Jay. It seems like you’re trying to be an apologist for Hillary, or maybe you’re just trying to understand the issue better?

        • Skip Scott
          May 6, 2017 at 07:05


          I’m thinking maybe you meant what you quoted from “Homer Jay”. My response was trying to answer that.
          Possibly some of the confusion is in regard to the lingo. “Homer Jay” calls it “special access information”, by which I presume he means classified information, since controlling access is what classifying is all about.

  7. Curious
    May 5, 2017 at 00:06

    Good points all Mr Parry and thanks for reminding us of the timeline of the released emails. I find it astounding really that Hillary would now pull out the gender card (misogyny) as if that means anything these days. Given her history and bragging about Honduras, as well as the bloody points in the article, shows that gender is not necessarily different in the wars of the USA. When she brought out Madeline Albright to brag about the fact that killing 500,000 children was ‘worth it’ and combine that gender with Ms Nuland and her ploys in the Ukraine, and Ms Powers comments in the UN etc I think we can establish a case where gender is not, nor was, an issue, and throw in a bit of bomb, bomb Syria and it was a toxic presentation all around.

    Another reminder, and it’s been stated before, that after the release of the Vault 7 docs, it showed clearly the NSA could mimic any sender, or any country as source material in an email or a hack. Blaming Putin is just manic, and I like what Putin himself had to say, which paraphrased was ‘ is the US a banana republic? And if I actually played a roll in getting Trump into the government, how does that explain the wins in the House or the Senate? Did I do that too?

    Clinton should just stop now with the bs arguments. She has too much blood on her hands to be in any position of authority, along with her minions.

  8. akech
    May 4, 2017 at 23:54

    Nobody in his/her right mind would spend millions on a character, like David Brock, intimidating the supporters of a political opponent (Bernie Sanders) during primaries, then expect those same voters to tuck their tails between their hind legs, like frighten dogs, and come back to vote during the general election, no questions asked!
    The relentless advancement of the Russian and the Comey stories indicates that Hillary and those promoting her global agenda are : belligerent, condescending, hypocritical, deceitful, authoritative, arrogant , standoffish,…., to name only a few. From their high horses , these elites and their lap dog , Hillary, look at ordinary American people, the voting public, and treat them like imbeciles whose brains and ways of thinking must be molded by propaganda coming from the sequestered motor mouth Rachel Maddow!
    They raised $1.2 billion from their billionaire corporate constituents and instead of using that enormous cash to let voters know what potential Hillary’s administration would do for the voters, these elites embarked on attacking every defenseless constituent who would not swallow the garbage they were promoting on the sequestered MSM propaganda machines or by using David Brock!
    Scott Adams articulated this type of assault in the following link:


    They went as far as paying other people, including the homeless, to wreak havoc at Trumps campaign! Bob Creamer, mentioned in one of the video below, visited Obama’s White House over 300 times! What was he doing there?



    These elites do not want human beings to independently thinks and make decisions. They are not interested in helping anyone except those in their school of thought. THEY WANT TO CONTROL HUMAN THOUGHT PROCESSES!

    The Clinton’s and the elites who have promoted their rise to power since the creation of Democratic Leadership Council in 1985 are ABOVE ALL LAWS. And they treat Americans as imbeciles.

    If Americans believe that Hillary’s server setup was merely a mistake by unformed Secretary of State, then we are all in serious trouble!

    Obama’s presidency was a very unique arrangement by the masters of the universe, judging from the tons of lies he told his voters during his campaigns and policies he implemented on during his reign, particularly, in Africa after both he and Hillary ordered the sodomy of Gaddafi to death with a bayonet in broad day light!

    Obama/Hillary cabinet was predetermined by CITIGROUP in preparation for 2008 bailout!


    We have just learned that Goldman Sacks, George Soros and Peter Thiel have firm tentacle connection to Donald Trump through the his son-in-law , Jared Kushner; a billion $ loan connection which was not disclosed:



    Companies routinely check the credit background of new employees to ensure they are not compromised! Furthermore, why should anyone with a billion dollar debt take a job without pay? What is he getting in exchange and where is this benefit coming from?

    It is impossible for the snake to do away with the service of its forked tongue! Jamie Gorelick, the Clinton’s operative is Jared Kushner’s Attorney. Both GOP and DNC parties belong to the same network of players and they both manipulate the powerless public!


  9. mike k
    May 4, 2017 at 21:45

    Poor little rich girl Hillary just can’t believe she can’t have everything her little heart desires. She’s just going to pout and play the victim until reality yields to her wishes….

    • susan_sunflower
      May 4, 2017 at 22:50

      don’t forget … she’s gonna buy new friends and exert new $$$$ influence … a sort of auxiliary Democratic Party created in her image and funded by her loyal donors … oh yeah, won’t be seeing any change …

  10. May 4, 2017 at 21:23

    She lost because she’s a Witch.

  11. susan_sunflower
    May 4, 2017 at 21:10

    ##@@$%(*& Clinton has announced she is launching a “new group” … called “Onward Together” to fight Trump …

    Politico: Hillary Clinton to launch political group as soon as next week.

    Six months after losing the presidential election, Hillary Clinton is ready to wade back into politics.

    The former secretary of state is building a new political group to fund organizations working on the resistance to President Donald Trump’s agenda, spending recent weeks in Washington, New York City, and Chappaqua, N.Y., meeting with donors and potential groups to invest in, and recruiting individuals for the group’s board of directors, multiple people close to the two-time White House hopeful and people familiar with the group’s planning told POLITICO.

    She is looking to launch the group, expected to be called Onward Together — a nod to her campaign slogan, Stronger Together — as soon as next week, they say. Clinton’s spokesman declined to comment for this story.

    Clinton has been working with Dennis Cheng, her campaign’s finance director who was previously the Clinton Foundation’s chief development officer, to bring donors into the fold.

    yuppity do-dah .. it’s all about the benjamins
    (I’m beginning to wonder just how hollow a shell the Clinton Foundation is at this point)

  12. Daniel Slade
    May 4, 2017 at 16:35

    Dear Consortium . i absoltely love your site. I am wondering why you never talk about the work of Greg Palast, He is the fantastic investigative reporter who exposed Kris Kobachs Interstate cross check, a right-wing scheme to illegally take millions of voters off of the voting rolls in republican cotrolled states. THe republicans stole the white house and the senate by the use of cross-check. You can contact him through Greg Palast .com. He can give you all of the facts and figures this isn,t some conspiracy theory this is fact.. Theonly network that will cover it is Tom Hartmanns show on RTnetwork

  13. Stiv
    May 4, 2017 at 15:58

    Really don’t know why Parry continues to beat this dead dog. Who cares about what Clinton says? I want…demand a full investigation. Its not close to that point yet….if it ever will. But with the plethora of other pertinent issues out there, why continue the constant drumbeat? Seems lazy to me…

    • susan_sunflower
      May 4, 2017 at 16:16

      I don’t think so… it’s not clear at all that Clinton will be stepping back, away from continuing to be the figurehead of the Democratic with her DNC team “in charge”

      Read one way, Clinton’s stark tone is a result of the fact that she now knows she will never seek office again and can speak her mind without considering the political fallout.
      Read another, Clinton’s comments on Tuesday were a call to arms — a pledge to resist Trump and the agenda he represents at every turn. That’s just the sort of thing someone who might actually be mulling another presidential bid in 2020 would do.

      Sanders is attempting to build alternatives … but it sounds to me as if Clinton is going to continue to cry TINA (there is no alternative) … Which is part of why Sanders’ efforts are important (even for those disappointed and/or disillusioned) … Perez got the nod … and as far as Clinton is concerned “the fat lady” hasn’t sung.

    • Jay
      May 4, 2017 at 18:28


      Parry brings up Hillary Clinton because she appeared at a public forum on Tuesday and spouted yet more BS excuses for her failures, she did this on ABC TV, it was immediately repeated by the NY Times and Salon, those are just the two examples of spreading around the crap that I know of.

      • Realist
        May 5, 2017 at 00:55

        Exactly. She’s more like the undead Vampira than a dead dog.

  14. Realist
    May 4, 2017 at 15:48

    Breaking News (from RT): Obama interferes in French election. Can you imagine the outrage if Putin offered an opinion?

    “Former US President Obama endorses Macron in French campaign
    Former US President Barack Obama endorsed centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron for France’s presidential election on Sunday in a video message in which he praised Macron for appealing “to people’s hopes and not their fears.” The French election “is very important to the future of France and the values that we care so much about,” Obama said in the message, distributed by Macron’s camp. Macron “has stood up for liberal values… He is committed to a better future for the French people,” the former president said. “I am supporting Macron to lead you forward,” Obama said, concluding his statement with the French title of Macron’s party “En Marche!” (Onwards!) and “Vive la France!.” (Reuters)”

    • susan_sunflower
      May 4, 2017 at 15:51

      yes, and Germany and the EU are “interfering” in the British June 8 election by discussing Brexit and the emotionality of players …. or negotiators … and false-promises / misrepresentations being made to the British people …. this is “fake news” stuff is fun

  15. susan_sunflower
    May 4, 2017 at 14:51

    I’m still waiting for someone to confront Hillary on her truly disastrous decision to withhold dirt on Trump (while name-calling him continuously) until AFTER the convention. The pussy-grab tape might have knocked him out of contention if aired when received (iirc around April/May), see also Gloria Allred’s half-dozen complaintants … and then there’s the dog that didn’t bark in the night, Trump’s long-standing mafia ties … crickets …

    She might well have derailed Trump’s bid for the nomination, but she had only herself and her victory in mind and she thought it would be easier to beat Trump than one of the other contenders — so much for her arsenal of arguments as to why she was THE superior candidate …

    She is still refusing to address her “negatives” … well known, well documented and quantified before, during and after the election … pro-tip: When you are considered less-than-truthful, stonewalling and denigrating “doubters” is the wrong tactic …

    Like Gore in 2000, but so much worse, the election was Clinton’s to lose, and she managed to do just that despite an opponent immeasurably worse than George Bush and a billion dollar war chest and a battle-ready “team” of operatives and consultants … the WikiLeaks e-mails and a few fake news stories about poor health did not “turn” this election …

    Fivethirtyeight’s analysis was that Comey’s letter cost Clinton 3% … at a moment when she had an 85% prediction of winning … (and I think Clinton Campaign’s hysteria conveyed a suggestion of “consciousness of guilt” for many as they cried — a week before the election that Comey had cost her presidency) … so much verbiage to obscure the monumental unforced errors and self-harm committed — imagine if Comey’s announcement had been handled in a cool, calm, business-like fashion … why was that not done? why was that better response not chosen? the specter of another 4 years of self-inflicted Clinton scandals made me shudder … but that wasn’t why I didn’t vote for her.

    • susan_sunflower
      May 4, 2017 at 15:39

      I also want to know when the Clinton campaign became aware of the contents of the dossier (was it also back in the spring when it was still a work-in-progress?) Did that also affect their strategy to promote Trump as the frontrunner “to beat” believing they could and would be able to sand-bag him.

  16. Bob In Portland
    May 4, 2017 at 14:04

    H. Clinton was the most disliked, least trusted Democratic candidate to be nominated for President. The DNC ran an unfair and possibly illegal operation to keep Sanders from the nomination. All of this was known to the public by last summer. Nothing in the wikileaks shocked me.

    However, the timing of the wikileaks is peculiar. If you haven’t already, I suggest you read my Caucus99 essay from April 4: https://caucus99percent.com/content/okeydoke-americans-were-supposed-get

    The entire hack story has the scent of a CIA false flag operation. Remember that this is not the first time that our intelligence services threw out claims of “enemy” hacking (Chinese attacking Sony et al). In real life the Iranian nuclear program was hacked and damaged by an attack by the Stuxnet virus, most likely by Israel or the US or by the two in concert. Not only are western intelligence services capable of hacking others, they are culprits. And because of the difficulty in demonstrably proving who hacked what, the proximate weight of the current bluster directed against Russia is based on the number of talking heads repeating the same story, not on proven facts.

    When the DNC spokespeople first announced that they had been hacked last summer, they refused to let the FBI investigate. This at the least means that the DNC saw the FBI as politically out of line with the DNC’s goals. And Clinton’s war agenda was precisely what the Deep State has been peddling the last several decades. Instead the DNC brought in the private firm CrowdStrike, which turned out to have a very anti-Russian bias. Meanwhile, Alexandra Chalupa and others at the DNC were gathering oppo research with the intent of linking Trump and Russia. The linkages between CrowdStrike and supporters of the old anti-Soviet “rockback” theory of foreign policy are there to be seen.

    So when the DNC initially announced that they had been hacked, they already knew what they wanted the results to be. In my essay I propose that the timing of the Russia hack oppo research/CIA investigation et al had been timed to help build a case for war against Russia. In current circumstances it has been used to negotiate Trump into falling into line with the war agenda.

    I ask interested people here to please read the essay. I think it provides some insight into what official Washington has been doing since the election ended.

    As far as H. Clinton, she was an awful candidate, she ignored the Democratic base and ignored signs of losing the Rust Belt while fundraising in New York CIty. What’s more, since Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been in control of the DNC progressive Dem candidates have been primaried out by heavily-monied DNC candidates and money, and overall the DNC’s strategy has lost the House, the Senate, most governorships, state legislators, etc. It was as if the new status quo was supposed to be Republican control of legislatures to keep progressives from passing actual positive changes for working class Americans. Clinton, and future corporatist Dems, would help protect healthcare and other plans and thus ensure a purpose for the Democratic Party among the working class. Enough voters saw through the okeydoke.

    • susan_sunflower
      May 4, 2017 at 15:23

      one of the bad timings wrt to the DNC hacking story was that the Clinton campaign was insisting vehemently that her private server had never been hacked (something that I gather cannot be “proven” … the absence of a leak NOT qualifying as “proof” of anything) … at a time when they were trying hard to pretend that not only had the WikiLeaks leak been the fruit of hacking (or phishing) but that that phishing had consisted the entirety of all-possible-hacks on the DNC (when again this was something like a “null hypothesis” that cannot be proven) — particularly as they STUDIOUSLY ignored various claims that the WikiLeaks files had been simply downloaded by individuals with authorized access to the system (i.e. disgruntled insiders) …

      The refusal to deal with these ambiguities and contradictions is still part of the subtefuge that allows the empty Russia-gate claims to be endlessly repeated and embellished. ..

      The DNC’s personal James Bond, Steele, apparently has been discovered to have done similar work for a pro-Russian, anti-sanction group … to defame Trump …. doncha love it.

      John Bachelor: Russian agent Fusion GPS hired MI6 veteran Christopher Steele to compile a dossier to defame Trump. @thadmccotter.

      Steele was elsewhere, laughably, claiming he had been badly used/double crossed with the release of the dossier (which he admitted was almost entirely unsourced). I still want to know if the folks shopping the dossier to the journalists and handing it to the FBI (months before John McCain’s courier run to London to obtain a copy in late November) got anyone’s permission to disseminate this bought-and-paid for by someone dossier of oppo research …

      Regardless, we know (I think) that both Carter Page and Paul Manafort (even likely Flynn) have all been “under investigation” for a rather long time, probably a very long time, having nothing to do with Trump or the election … my guess is that there’s no fire under all that smoke … unless we really want to believe that the FBI is so partisan as to repeatedly “protect” “Russian operatives” … lordhavemercy… and managed to keep the criminal activities secret.

  17. Dr. Ibrahim Soudy
    May 4, 2017 at 14:02

    Do people still believe that Race, Gender, Religion, or whatever makes a difference for those who play in the circles of power in the West and America in particular?! Is there a difference between Dubbia and Obama?! Is there a difference between Obama and Hillary? Is there a difference between Cheney and Condi Rice?! If Jesus Christ himself came to D.C. and wanted to be part of it, he will be turned into CORRUPT JESUS CHRIST……..

  18. cmp
    May 4, 2017 at 13:22

    It was a long time coming, but Obama did get one thing right, and that was his last minute clemency for Chelsea Manning. The last I knew, Chelsea’s release is scheduled to be May 17th. (.. yeah – yeah – yeah… all right!!!)

    Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, in my view, have given me the most factual view into the truth of “my” democracy, and, these facts are more than any other individuals in my lifetime. .. And, I would love to see world wide protests and global contributions from every country for petitions of their local governments that would be in support of pardons for these two individuals.

    Somehow, in the monopoly owned dynasty of our airwaves, you know, the one’s that do such “A Great Job” in creating a Totalitarian State of Political Opinion & Action, for the world’s greatest examples of legal forms of fiction – this finding seems to have “missed” there radar for fair and balanced news reporting – last February.:

    * * * * *
    On 5 February 2016, the United Nation’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that Julian Assange had been subject to arbitrary detention by the UK and Swedish Governments since 7 December 2010, including his time in prison, on conditional bail and in the Ecuadorian embassy. According to the group, Assange should be allowed to walk free and be given compensation.

    The UK and Swedish governments rejected the claim. UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Philip Hammond, said the claim was “ridiculous” and that the group was “made up of lay people”, and called Julian Assange a fugitive from justice. UK and Swedish prosecutors called the group’s claims irrelevant. The UK maintained it would arrest Assange should he leave the Ecuadorian embassy. Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association, stated that the finding is “not binding on British law”.

    .. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein has said that the finding is based on binding international law.

    The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is a United Nations mandated body of independent human rights experts that investigates cases of arbitrary arrest and detention that may be in violation of international human rights law.
    It was established in 1991 by the former UN Commission on Human Rights as one of the “Special Procedures” created to monitor human rights violations, and is currently under the purview of the UN Human Rights Council. In September 2013, its mandate was extended by the Council for another three years.

    After verifying information from a variety of sources, including non-governmental organizations, inter-governmental agencies and victims’ families, the Working Group issues opinions on the compliance with international law and sends urgent appeals to governments to ascertain the whereabouts and condition of those allegedly detained. It can also conduct fact-finding visits to countries that have extended an invitation to the Working Group.

    The current members of the Working Group are:
    Seong-Phil Hong (Chair-Rapporteur) South Korea, 2014-2020
    José Antonio Guevara Bermúdez (First Vice-Chair) Mexico, 2014-2020
    Sètondji Roland Adjovi (Second Vice-Chair) Benin, West Africa, 2014-2020
    Leigh Toomey Australia, 2015-2021
    Vladimir Tochilovsky Ukraine, 2010-2016

  19. Ted Tripp
    May 4, 2017 at 12:22

    Three unmentioned factors for my disgust with Hillary: her Department’s support of the Honduras coup, its instigation of the Ukrainian coup, and her embrace of neoliberalism in general. Indeed, she has some good qualities, but her warmongering and belief in the technocratic elites condemn her.

    • LJ
      May 4, 2017 at 22:43

      She was an International advocate of fracking as Secretary of State and a relentless arms merchant and a constant solicitor / l fund raiser for the Clinton foundation. Don’t leave those out. Grist for the mill…..,

    • Jay
      May 5, 2017 at 19:49


      The Ukraine coup was 12 months after Hillary left the State Department.

      You could relate the coup to Hillary through Victoria Nuland, whom Hillary appointed, but John Kerry was Sec. of State.

  20. d forb
    May 4, 2017 at 11:50

    I held my nose and voted for her because her opponent would have been worse. Pox on both your houses.

  21. onno
    May 4, 2017 at 11:50

    I am only amazed how Washington has the nerve to accuse Russia of interfering in the US presidential election.The USA got only a taste of their own medicine since they have been interfering in elections of sovereign nations worldwide since WW II. Washington goes even a step further if the election results is not according to the wishes of USA, head of state s are murdered or like we saw in Ukraine a coup carried out, and just to mention a few but many more like Nicaragua, Chile and more recently Argentina and Brazil. Even IF Russia was involved in the US election, which I doubt, because they’re not so dumb it wouldn’t make a difference anyhow since Clinton won the popular vote, but investigations proved the ballots were rigged and I didn’t hear Clinton asking for a re-count either which would probably have opened a can of worms, anyhow!

    • Joe Tedesky
      May 4, 2017 at 12:45

      You are right onno. Our American media purposely ignores the reporting of the Seth Rich murder, and it’s apparent link to the Wikileaks’s Hillary email disclosures. This is the same media who titles the Assad government as it being a ‘terrible regime’, but never a mention of our CIA smuggling arms through Turkey to equip the ISIS combatants who we are said to be trying to eliminate. After all this lying when or if the American public gets the real news it will be a sudden shock as much as a slap in the face that who knows what will come of it…probably nothing, but all in the same the truth will really hurt.

  22. Bob Van Noy
    May 4, 2017 at 10:49

    Another pertinent, knowledgeable discussion on Consortiumnews, thanks to all. I think… The Clintons cannot give up at this point because they are fighting an existential battle within the Powers That Be. We will never be completely able to describe who that is, (TBTB) until we build a massive and public forum, aside from Government, that can expose the real Goings On. I first came to this understanding by reading every theory about who Lee Harvey Oswald was and realized that we could never completely understand him until a total and massive investigation finally revealed who he was working for, and what their motivation was… Thanks to Kiza and Abbywood for trying to keep us focused.

    By the way, Oswald did not kill President Kennedy.

    • Joe Tedesky
      May 4, 2017 at 12:35

      Bob I’m with you on the Oswald single bullet theory, and how wrong it is. If we use the ‘Oswald did it’ official narrative as a barometer of what our media lacks in it’s delivering diverse and honest news we can learn a lot to how bad we are lied too.

      I would like to see a media who is owning to no one, and small enough that it may represent good responsible and honest reporting, as it’s first allegiance to delivering the news. I don’t care about extravagant tv news sets. No give me reporters reporting from the old news room. Give me reporters who serve no agenda to serve other than their commitment to deliver all the news as it happens.

      Here Bob is a piece I got from a reference that came from consortiumnews from awhile back. I’m referencing this as something to consider in regard to assessing the JFK assassination, this isn’t an endorsement of what I believe in total, but the author does make some pretty good points all the same.


      • Bob Van Noy
        May 4, 2017 at 13:53

        Yes indeed Joe! As we have learned from this site and Robert Parry, it is possible to have a forum that is secure, properly managed, open, where discussion is encouraged and protected, the commentary would be unfettered so that we could decide for ourselves who is truly adding to the conversation etcetera. The many JFK Forums have been brilliant at fostering education and the Marry Farrell Data Site and the Sparticus Educational Site provide notable examples.

        Thank you Joe, you’re the best…

        • Joe Tedesky
          May 4, 2017 at 15:43

          Yesterday Paul Craig Roberts gave his opinion of comment sections, and in his opinion comment sections only degrade the authors. All the while reading of what PCR had to say about comment sections I kept thinking of this sites comment section, and noticing how consortiumnews comments are not anything near what PCR was criticizing.


          • Skip Scott
            May 5, 2017 at 07:44

            Hi Joe-

            Yeah I read that one too from PCR. I think there is a lot of truth in some of the stuff he writes, but I think he gets a bit touchy about the Reagan years. I once asked him if he thought there was any connection between Reagan’s October surprise, the Iran-Contra scandal, and previous and later conspiracies. He basically said that there was no way of knowing if the October surprise and Iran Contra were even real conspiracies, or made up by someone with an axe to grind. I don’t know if he really believes that deep inside.

            I suppose he gets tired of dealing with commenters, and some of them can sure be tiring. All in all PCR is a good man.

          • Joe Tedesky
            May 5, 2017 at 10:54

            Yeah Skip, one could make an argument over the importance of comment sections, but for me I love reading what people think. I lose interest in the troll type condemnations, but when comments get too stupid I just stop reading them. As you can tell I love reading, and writing on this sites comment board. PCR is great to read, but he at times seems to be a little high strung. In all fairness though I respect PCR and his position in the world of finance, and political commentary. What PCR should know is that I discovered him many years ago from a link I found in a comment section.

          • Kiza
            May 6, 2017 at 01:06

            Joe, I may be wrong but I got an impression that PCR may be struggling a little financially, because he is spending too much time writing and not enough time managing investments and similar. If he is truly making sacrifices and then gets attacked by people he is supposed to enlighten, he does get touchy. Perhaps he is not quite clear that many of his trolls are professional trolls who reinforce his brand online – their personality attacks strengthen the credibility of his writing.

    • cmp
      May 4, 2017 at 14:28

      Great Stuff, You Two!!

      If I could take this opportunity to make a plug for Emile de Antonio and Mark Lane. These two individuals collaborated in 65 – 66, to make a film to coincide with the releasing of Mark’s book, “Rush To Judgment.” The film is called, “Plot To Kill JFK – Rush To Judgment.”

      In the film, Mark states, “That the most damning piece of evidence against the government’s case, is the fact that the recovered fragments from the magic bullet actually weighed more than that of a single Carcano bullet itself.”

      The film also interviews many eye witnesses that were present in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd; as well as several other eye witnesses who observed some of the connected post assassination events.

      It is a very hard film to find, but it was released on vcr tape back in 1986. .. I have since converted my copy to dvd (..smile..).

  23. Jay
    May 4, 2017 at 10:18


    “Secondly there’s the question of Hillary’s health. She suffered severe brain damage a few years ago which forced her to quit as Secretary of State.”

    Simply reposting unfounded right wing rumors doesn’t help your case.

    Also Hillary Clinton likely left State in the calculation that being out of the Cabinet would allow her to start checking off boxes and then campaigning for the presidency. (She stupidly then thought she could earn millions in speaking fees during that time, and it wouldn’t matter.)

    • Brendan
      May 4, 2017 at 16:25

      Jay, the details of Hillary Clinton’s illness are not just rumors. They became public in December 2012 within days of reports that she would quit as Secretary of State.

      According to U.S. officials, she suffered a concussion after she fell and struck her head when she fainted due to a stomach virus. Two weeks later, her doctors said that she suffered a blood clot in a vein connected to her brain, and this was apparently related to the earlier concussion.

      The New York Times had hinted that she might quit in an article on 8 December, just two days before Clinton canceled a trip to the Middle East because of a ‘bug’. About a week later, after the diagnosis of the concussion, there were media reports that John Kerry would replace her as Secretary of State. At the end of that month, the blood clot was reported.

      The fact that all these things happened so close together is very unlikely to be a coincidence.

      • Jay
        May 4, 2017 at 18:25


        “Jay, the details of Hillary Clinton’s illness are not just rumors. They became public in December 2012 within days of reports that she would quit as Secretary of State.” Not really.

        “The fact that all these things happened so close together is very unlikely to be a coincidence.” Bet she was planning to leave at the end of Obama’s first term all along.

        Learn about the fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc” reasoning.

      • BannanaBoat
        May 4, 2017 at 21:26

        I would guess a drunken fall. There are at least two different occasions she was caught on video collapsing. Also a video of her constant companion doctor holding a siringe at the ready.

        • Jay
          May 5, 2017 at 19:13


          Again: Learn about the fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc” reasoning.

  24. Jay
    May 4, 2017 at 10:01

    Joe T:

    Yes, Hillary should drop out of the public eye for a while.

    But clearly she wants to say, publicly, that “really I won, or would have”.

    And the likes of ABC News and the NY Times give her an hustings.

    I suspect she has delusions about running again in 2020, no matter what the book “Shattered” claims she told Obama in the early hours of Nov. 9th, 2016.

    • Joe Tedesky
      May 4, 2017 at 10:30

      You know Jay, I did give some thought to how Hillary is good for tv ratings. Maybe someone should write about our scripted news media, and how we all are living inside of a made for tv world. Real important news we should be hearing is preemptively replaced with this gossipy world of I got ya reality tv news. All real reporters are replaced by good looking model type script readers, and our public conversations are reduced to the most trite trivia of personality gaffes that we are blinded to what we should observe the most. World leaders who are not accepting of U.S. dominance are demonized down to being silly little cartoon caricatures, while anything intelligent delivered by these renown people is ignored for fear of substance. So Jay, I would like to put Hillary along with our MSM as them being a product of a sorry excuse for a well informed public.

      • Jay
        May 4, 2017 at 16:20


        The ABC series “Marvel’s Agents of Shield” currently has the main characters trapped in a Nazi (modern) computer generated matrix, but only 2 of the characters remember the real world–and none of the main characters can get out. Their normal character traits have been altered too. (This would be the end of season 4, if you’re looking for it in the future.)

        I’d not thought Hillary good for TV ratings, look at how many people she couldn’t manage to get to come to her re-announcement of her presidential candidacy after announcing online first. (I’m referring to the March 2015 Roosevelt Island event in New York City). No one cares. No one really cares to watch her on TV, or read about her in the NY Times in 2017. Sanders got far more for his announcement in Burlington Vermont in early May 2015. We were just told not to think of him as a serious candidate. (I’m sure you know this.)

        The book “Shattered” looks pretty good. I’ve skimmed it. It’s a bit conventional, and sells the B.S. Russian hacking idea. “I can’t give it away on 7th Avenue This town’s been wearing tatters (shattered, shattered)”

        • Joe Tedesky
          May 4, 2017 at 19:34

          Jay as you already well know it’s all about the noise. I’m not real sure how well Hillary’s Amanpour interview went in so far as her ratings, but our media does know how by interviewing Hillary it keeps them on the same vein as one they are now currently on…rehashing the 2016 presidential election, and keeping the pressure on the Russians. I saw headlines where Morning Joe was all into talking about Hillary. It’s a shame that our American news is basically a personality contest similar to us all being in high school or college in our Freshman year. Nice conversing with you Jay …Joe

  25. Jay
    May 4, 2017 at 09:54

    Skip Scott:

    538 doesn’t do polling, therefore there’s no 538 polling to back up the claim.

    Now true, Sanders would likely have easily beaten Trump. But we got a highly compromised candidate instead. It’s not Bernie supporters who didn’t elect her, it’s that her support was real thin. There’s a difference. No matter what the “blame Sanders” types want to say.

    • d forb
      May 4, 2017 at 11:53

      In the election she wasn’t running against Sanders.

      • Jay
        May 4, 2017 at 16:02


        You know that she ran against Sanders for the nomination, and likely lost?

    • Skip Scott
      May 4, 2017 at 13:56


      I checked and you’re technically right, they analyze other polls and rate their validity.


      I’d say that’s splitting hairs.

      • Jay
        May 4, 2017 at 16:04


        No, it’s you making up facts to suit an end you want.

        There is no polling to back up your claim.

        And if the 538 claims that Sanders cost Hillary the election, they are fools. (As far as I know the 538 does NO such thing.)

        • Skip Scott
          May 4, 2017 at 20:28


          Perhaps you misunderstood my first post, or perhaps you just enjoy being contrary. 538 analyzed other polling sites, and then made numerous predictions of a Hillary victory over Trump based on their analysis of those polls. That is one step removed from doing the actual polling. My point was that all polling is flawed, and the talking heads (and the polls) are often wrong. So asking for polling data to back up a claim is, in my humble opinion, engaging in sophistry. I am claiming (not 538) that the DNC cost the democrats the presidency by sandbagging Bernie and promoting Hillary during the primaries. You yourself said that Bernie probably would have beaten Trump. Sander’s didn’t cost Hillary the election. But the utterly corrupt DNC and the evil Queen of Chaos cost the Democrats the White House, and are responsible for the coronation of His Royal Orangeness.

          • Jay
            May 5, 2017 at 18:50

            On the day of the election Silver, who runs 538 said: “Trump could win this, it is not a lock for Hillary.”

            There was no significant drop in Hillary’s polling numbers in Michigan or Wisconsin after the release of the Comey letter. That’s polls the public is allowed to read.

            If you read the book “Shattered”, you’ll see that as of the evening of Nov. 8th Hillary thought she was to win Florida and North Carolina, she won neither of course. And both were called by the networks, the AP and the NYTimes very soon after the polls closed, so she didn’t lose by small numbers in those states.

            I opened the webpage of the NY Times at 9:30PM eastern and saw the electoral college count was some thing like 202 for Trump and 138 for Hillary. Clearly she was likely, not assured, to lose at that point.

            You are correct that the corrupted DNC likely helped elect Trump in a big way. (That Trump is of course far more corrupt, but never having held office he’s an “outsider”, is immaterial.) So I certainly think we agree here.

  26. Patricia Victour
    May 4, 2017 at 09:19

    I did not see the Clinton interview, only heard the sound bytes that are also included in this article. I was wondering. While she’s “championing” women’s rights, did she happen to say anything about the irony of her head-chopper, women-hating pals, the Saudis, being elected to the UN Commission on women’s rights? I doubt it. If she, her supporters, and the rest of the party elite don’t stop whining about her loss and actually do some soul-searching on what the purpose of the Democratic Party should be, the Dems are not going to reclaim many seats in 2018-2020. Please, please, please, Hillary, don’t run for President again; for the sake of the party, just step away completely – that goes for Obama, too. Three times will not be the charm!

    • F. G. Sanford
      May 4, 2017 at 10:12

      Exactly. She can’t hobnob with the Sheiks of Araby, take their money and ship arms to their barbarian hordes, then claim to stand for women’s issues. Out of touch, and out to lunch. She’s a mess any way you slice it.

  27. Brendan
    May 4, 2017 at 07:46

    There are a couple more reasons why the Clinton campaign lost the election, and they have to do with the candidate, not Trump or Putin.

    Even to people who have little interest in politics, Hillary Clinton often seems very creepy. This is especially true when she tries to force a smile and ends up looking like a scary clown. The plastic surgery and/or botox don’t help either. To many people, Hillary just ain’t human. Even Trump looks like a safer choice to have his finger on the nuclear button.

    Secondly there’s the question of Hillary’s health. She suffered severe brain damage a few years ago which forced her to quit as Secretary of State. I think that the official reason for her quitting was to concentrate on her election campaign, but even Bill Clinton admitted that it took her months to recover. But she still hadn’t recovered at the start of 2016 when she was seen needing help just to walk down a few steps.

    And less than two months before the election, when she left the 9/11 ceremony early, she collapsed trying to reach her car and needed to be held up. When she came round later and appeared in public, she said it was “a great day to be in New York”. It seemed from that remark that the poor thing’s brain must have been fried by the September heat. Apparently she didn’t remember why she was in New York on that day and what happened there exactly fifteen years earlier.

  28. Deschutes
    May 4, 2017 at 06:39

    I didn’t bother to read this article. Why? Because I don’t give a f&ck what Hillary Clinton thinks about why she lost! I also don’t give a f#ck what the author of this article thinks about what Clinton thinks about why she lost! Honestly, who cares?

    Face it: it’s over. She lost. Face it. Get over it and move on.

    Stop giving this witch the undeserved attention she craves, so she can bitch and whine and ridiculously blame Putin for losing! Jesus Christ what pure stupidity. Reflects badly on Parry that he would write at length about such an already overdone, stupid topic as this.


  29. ian shepherd
    May 4, 2017 at 05:44

    Where is the mention of the e-mails showing that the DNC rigged the nomination against Sanders?

  30. susan_sunflower
    May 4, 2017 at 03:57

    I suspect the fix is in … Obama, a young man with a vast future ahead of himself, will settle down to do his library and his memoir and rake in the bucks, leaving the Democratic party wide open for Hillary Clinton to helm, uncontested, as “elder statesman” … This was probably all agreed upon years ago … before she ran (during Obama’s 8 years in the Oval Office) and before she lost … why should losing change anything???? except for the ridiculous spectacle of a two-time loser doing out advice to the young’uns …
    What’s winning go to do with it? Clinton’s in love with her own mythology and the foundation (somehow) got spoiled …
    As per Solomon from yesterday, they’re hoping to ride Russia-gate all the way through to 2020 … with Hillary Clinton as their poster child / victim exemplar … Gawking at the motion train-wreck to come will have its moments, but I’ve never (not ever) been a fan of schaudenfreude … mostly it will be depressing and cringe-worthy. I’m doubtful “Bernie can save us” … Clinton thinks seems to think that “never taking no for an answer” is courageous …

  31. Virginia Jones
    May 4, 2017 at 02:20

    She ignores completely that women have risen in Germany and Britain to the highest posts. The US is not the only country in the world. She is just such a phony….and at the end, interested really in only Clinton.

    • Realist
      May 4, 2017 at 03:01

      Countries like India, Burma, the Philippines, South Korea, Argentina, Brasil and Pakistan (!) have had women chief executives, not just the “enlightened” West. Not sure the likes of Thatcher, May, Merkel, and Meier were the best choices either. Notice that many of these were quite authoritarian, to say the least.

      The American Deep State definitely wanted Hillary for the job so they could check that off the list whilst she did their bidding. They miscalculated when they assumed that Donald Trump, the palooka they arranged to oppose her, was more loathsome than she.

      I fear that by 2020, Trump’s itch will have been scratched, he will not stand for re-election and the Queen of Chaos will give it yet another go. All this B.S. is an early start on her rehabilitation tour.

  32. annamissed
    May 4, 2017 at 01:07

    I think Hillary should do like the other losers did:

    let her hair grow hippy length

    put on some weight

    grow a beard

  33. May 4, 2017 at 00:47

    She could also have blamed Goldman and Beyoncé, who didn’t do it for her, and the
    American voters who were smarter than she thought.

  34. Mike X
    May 3, 2017 at 23:39

    Kind of surprised that no one has mentioned as the principal factor in Hilary’s loss (see Nate Silver’s series on why she lost the election): a class (counter-) revolution by the non-college-educated white males who had been ravaged by globalization, opioid addiction, 12 million illegal immigrants (what self-respecting country could let that happen notwithstanding the huge contribution immigrants make?), free trade, etc. Percentage of participation by these males in the work force is going lower and lower. What are these “Americans” supposed to do: enroll at Stanford for a degree in computer science? Robotics, automation and artificial intelligence will cull millions of more jobs from this threatened class: Hilary sort of got this in her interview. Same factors led to Brexit and account for support of Marine Le Pen and right-wing populists in the Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, Italy, Greece and, very disturbingly, the Alternative for Deutschland in Germany. Time for some clear-thinking as opposed to conspiracy theories and hate campaigns, but, as for me, I am totally stumped!

    • Joe Tedesky
      May 4, 2017 at 02:27

      Hillary’s problem is when she should be listening to the people Hillary’s too busy talking about herself.

  35. onno
    May 3, 2017 at 23:22

    Finding excuses for her loss in the presidential election campaign is typical for her. She affair will never acknowledge that her Benghazi affair, the fact that she used her personal PC for highly for secret documents, her dismissing of Saunders at DNC, her poor health and most of all her insane behavior made those Americans with some intellect decide in favor of Donald Trump. But again this woman is back on the stage and trying to do as much damage as possible to President Trump proving again that her personal ambitions are more important to her than the interests of the Nation and the American people. And that were the major reasons she lost her election, thank God!

  36. May 3, 2017 at 22:25

    We have read your comments before, Mr Doe, but you have not noted that it was not Trump who was favored, but that it was Clinton who was disfavored?

    • J'hon Doe II
      May 4, 2017 at 00:40

      What does that mean, Jessica K- in the face of the destruction Trump is wrecking on Americans and the world at large?
      Breitbart-ism is alternative history annunciated by the history Imbecile Trump displayed in his recent Andrew Jackson moronic tweet.

      How can any “intelligent” American tolerate such vapid stupidity from a United States President? !!

      How can you not see autocracy in his Full Speed Ahead in the destruction of so-called “American Values” of ‘we-the-people’ in the clear and unobstructed favor of the ravenous 1%?
      Are you in the disharmony with those whom presume to be “Real Americans”? If so, you’re poisoned and disillusioned as to Trump’s promised land.

      We can only hope this disturbed man will be removed from office before all resemblance of Civility be lost and Kimmel’s tears not be lost by a confuted tweet/retort from the megalomaniac POTUS, with the portrait of the 20$ bill slaver posed over his right shoulder.

      I just can’t fathom how disillusioned you Trump followers are.
      It’s a shameful spotlight on so-called “american values” the way you so easily and willingly surrender to the arrogant stupidity of this perverse scoundrel of a man.

      Hillary’s loss/ Hillary’s beat-down will be insignificant in comparison to the deprivation and derision that awaits at the end of this man, Trump’s, reign of terror on lower and middle class Americans.

      — I sincerely hope you, Jessica K, aren’t in that mix.

      • Brad Owen
        May 4, 2017 at 13:53

        All hail President Pence, let Armageddon now commence. Be careful what you wish for.

        • Brad Owen
          May 4, 2017 at 13:58

          Now there is some real, high-grade, “Dominionist” poison.

        • Brad Owen
          May 4, 2017 at 14:13

          EIR has some interesting things to say about Dominionism, AKA Christian Reconstructionism. Apparently there is some tie-in with Synarchism (I could have guessed that though…those 25 Dynastic families and all). EIR just cuts to the quick and calls them Satanists; ironic, in your picking of the Stones song. Better off with the orange-haired, clownish, bumbling character that Coyote-Trickster favored (He told me so one morning with a Knowing Look, standing by the Interstate, at O’dark thirty, while on my way to work; and at the time I figured no way what-so-ever)…He sees hidden, unintended, wisdom, where we can only see manifest foolishness. I only sense vaguely what I’m talking about.

          • LJ
            May 4, 2017 at 22:38

            That’s for sure. Lay off the oils.

          • Brad Owen
            May 5, 2017 at 03:54

            LJ says “stay between the lines. The lines are our friends” . Never try the road less-traveled.

          • LJ
            May 5, 2017 at 13:50

            I can only speak personally of course but the lines are what keep me together. I have to remind myself of them after I brush my teeth every morning in front of the mirror so they won’t fall out of my face onto Mr. Pavement which might piss him off in which case he may rise up an finish the job. That would never work because i have to stay pretty for the photographers. Cross the t’s dot the i’s.

  37. J'hon Doe II
    May 3, 2017 at 22:05

    To all of you who favor His Majesty Trump over Mrs. Clinton, I offer you this Malthusian inspired lyric from Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones. Have fun in your Foolish Folly.

    Sympathy for the Devil
    The Rolling Stones
    Album Beggars Banquet

    [Verse 1]
    Please allow me to introduce myself
    I’m a man of wealth and taste
    I’ve been around for a long, long year
    Stole many a man’s soul and faith
    And I was ’round when Jesus Christ
    Had his moment of doubt and pain
    Made damn sure that Pilate
    Washed his hands and sealed his fate

    Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name
    But what’s puzzling you is the nature of my game

    [Verse 2]
    I stuck around St. Petersburg
    When I saw it was a time for a change
    Killed the Czar and his ministers
    Anastasia screamed in vain
    I rode a tank, held a general’s rank
    When the Blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank

    Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name
    But what’s puzzling you is the nature of my game

    [Verse 3]
    I watched with glee while your kings and queens
    Fought for ten decades for the gods they made
    I shouted out, “Who killed the Kennedys?”
    When after all, it was you and me
    Let me please introduce myself
    I’m a man of wealth and taste
    And I laid traps for troubadours
    Who get killed before they reach Bombay


    Oh yeah, get down heavy!

    [Guitar Solo]

    [Chorus – Variation]
    Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name, oh yeah
    But what’s confusin’ you is just the nature of my game

    [Verse 4]
    Just as every cop is a criminal
    And all the sinners saints
    As heads is tails, just call me Lucifer
    Cause I’m in need of some restraint
    So if you meet me, have some courtesy
    Have some sympathy, and some taste
    Use all your well-learned politesse
    Or I’ll lay your soul to waste

    Pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name
    But what’s puzzling you is the nature of my game
    Mmmm-mean it, get down


  38. May 3, 2017 at 21:31

    The only resistance HRC is in, is to herself not having been crowned POTUS. She cannot, will not understand that most Americans have had enough of Clintons and also understand very well what she and her husband did to middle class Americans by pushing globalization, repeal of Glass Steagall, welfare reform that threw millions of poor people, especially Blacks, into further poverty, and even more to turn the Democrat Party so far right that it cannot be recognized as a party of the people (and I doubt its resuscitation by Tom Perez and Bernie Sanders). She has power lust so pronounced that she will probably be haunting us until 2020. She has all the characteristics of a psychopath, acting as though she is eminently qualified while she isn’t, lying, blaming others for her own mistakes, inability to empathize while pretending to care about others, and lack of remorse.

    The best title for her was tweeted by Julian Assange today, in response to her whining and blaming Wikileaks, Putin, and Comey, sitting in front of that sign “She Brings Peace”, when he called her “The Butcher of Libya”.

    • Joe Tedesky
      May 4, 2017 at 13:00

      You are so right Jessica. Hillary and Bill are living in the shaky house of cards that they both so cleverly built. I’m sure that Hillary’s freak out moment was seeing a Socialist Bernie, who isn’t even a Democrate, be able too whip the people up to such an exciting a point that Hillary could never do. I just wish the media would lose interest in Hillary, but there again all that matters to our media is ratings.

  39. Taras77
    May 3, 2017 at 21:00

    Agree on both but especially for albright, the odious warmongering neo con. Take a check in the balkans as to how they feel about her.

    And of course, hillary needs to step up to resposibility for the destruction of libya but that will never happen.

    • Taras77
      May 3, 2017 at 21:02

      This was a reply to pablo diablo above re: albright and clinton.

    • susan_sunflower
      May 3, 2017 at 21:13

      yes, it’s hardly worth mention at this late date, but Rice and Clinton both lied (fibbed) about Benghazi and then doubled-down to lie some more … for political reasons … because there was a election just around the corner and they needed the American people to buy some story in which the heavy-weapon well-coordinate Benghazi attack was some spontaneous “Crazy Muslim thing” about a (bad) movie … while Libya had been off the front page and falling into chaos for months … two weeks or more of shameless doubling down followed … just appalling.

  40. CitizenOne
    May 3, 2017 at 20:57

    The reasons for Hillary’s loss were as follows:

    1. Gaffes like calling half of Trump Supporters “Deplorables”. It was a Mitt Romney moment calling half of all voters who paid no Federal Income Tax those people he didn’t care about.
    2. Actions by the DCC, Obama and DWS to block Sanders at every opportunity which pissed off a lot of Democrats who would not vote for her because Sanders had not been dealt with fairly.
    3. Evangelical Christian organizations who would support Satan over the baby killing Hillary baby murdering monster.
    4. James Comey and his October Surprise by reopening a closed investigation.
    5. Trump’s populist speeches which appealed to the blue collar working class.
    6. The media which gave Trump three billion dollars in free advertising to extort money from Republican Super PACs
    7. Decades of gerrymandering by republicans which ensured that the local vote results at the district level favored republicans and district results determines the state vote.
    8. Decades of Hillary bashing from the right on every main stream media outlet.
    9. Her own demeanor and her conduct in the election as being a superior human being to Trump rather than addressing policy.
    10. Millions of people nursed through the years on a steady diet of the number one cable fake news outlet Fox News.
    11. People fearing that their right to own guns would be taken away.
    12 People who believed the election was on Wednesday.
    13. Black box voting which has zero accountability or scrutiny and with the vacuum of no news coverage at all means there is something surely up with that system of tallying votes.
    14. Racists and the Alt Right energized by Trump
    15. A whole lot of folks that just vote republican no matter what.
    16. The beliefs of a whole lot of folks that Obama was destroying America and also Democrats were destroying America and concluded that Hillary would also destroy America.
    17. The limp wristed one arm tied behind their backs style of campaigning that democrats are famous for.
    18. The no holds barred below the belt campaign tactics the republicans are famous for
    19. The overwhelming support of republicans by people who have a lot of money and donate to republicans.
    20. The surprising amount of small donations to Trump based on his populist campaign strategy which shattered the small donor totals of former republican candidates.
    21. Voter purges and Jim Crow laws such as Voter ID initiatives and the allegations of widespread voter fraud which energized republicans and discouraged democrats.

    You get the idea.

    Things that had no effect on most voters:

    1. The Russians
    2. Wikileaks
    3. The Supreme Court
    4. The Electoral College
    5. Healthcare
    6. Education.
    7. The military.

    In the end three things stand out. Gerrymandering, Comey’s October Surprise and a decades long assault onby the media in the form of endlessly obsessing on allegations and innuendos against the Clintons.

    Black Box voting fraud is also strongly suspect but there is little reporting on it and the facts have never been explored so there is no way to tell how the vote gap was stable and in favor of Clinton and then suddenly narrowed and then closed and then a wide margin for Trump appeared at approximately 9:pm EST. It was like the election suddenly inverted over the course of an hour.

    Russia gate was and is just a giant smokescreen to divert attention away from real reasons for the election. It is all too easy to blame some foreign power wash hands and walk away from the mess created by all the real reasons like gerrymandering etc.

    We wouldn’t want folks to know the real reasons would we? That would let the cat out of the bag.

    Nobody in power wants to give away the secret bag of tricks they have up their sleeves to stay in power no matter how badly they serve us as Public Servants.

    They are corporate servants anyway. Why would they care about people in the gilded age. They never ever have and they sure won’t now.

    • Bill Bodden
      May 3, 2017 at 22:56

      At last, a commentary recognizing there were more reasons than one that spared the nation and the world another Clinton presidency.

    • Michael Hoefler
      May 3, 2017 at 23:14

      Very well spoken!! Thank you for taking the time to do this.
      And I agree with Bill Bodden on his assessment as well.

    • Realist
      May 4, 2017 at 02:43

      Okay, that’s your short list. Now flesh it out a little.

    • May 4, 2017 at 06:12

      Your comment is one of the best ever written (in my opinion) on CN I would like to add just one more to your list: David Bossie and Citizens United. How come no one ever mentions it on this site?

      In reply to Citizen One.

    • Jay
      May 4, 2017 at 10:21


      Not sure I follow how point 7 leads to Hillary losing various states. Unless you’re implying that the control provided room for fraud.

      • CitizenOne
        May 5, 2017 at 21:16

        Yes. You are right. Not sure what I was thinking when I said the military had no influence on the election. Of course they didn’t. Good old military. Gotta love em. Couple of centuries of democracy and not one military influenced election. Kudos to our armed forces for wielding all the military might in the World and restraining it in service to our Democracy and our freedoms and our citizens. Let’s take a break this Memorial Day and put aside the craziness. People died for our right to be here. Lots of people. Myself, I am going to raise the flag and attend a parade and go visit a veterans memorial park. I’m going to read the names of the brave folks who fought for freedom, think of the futures they might have had and the life I might not have had in an epic battle where bravery was often rewarded by death, courage was a key and sacrifice was a daily currency to pay for war and all of this to preserve our nation and our freedoms for folks they didn’t even know.

        The military didn’t influence the election. They helped to ensure we would have one.

    • Texas Aggie
      May 5, 2017 at 20:21

      The best response on this site.

  41. Taras77
    May 3, 2017 at 20:56

    The woman hilary needs to shut up but that does not necessarily mean it will happen with my view of her as a demented psychopath.

    In a study of hypocrisy and cynicism, it is my understanding that mook and podestra sat down after the loss and devised a campaign of “russian meddling” hysteria and ran with it-of course, helped all the way by those such as rachael maddow.

    David Axelrod had a quote that comey did not tell her not to go to wisconsin to campaign nor michigan-she is so far in denial, either by intent or psychological, that no one seems to fathom her ability to deflect all blame for a lousy campaign run by a horrible candidate.

  42. Jessejean
    May 3, 2017 at 20:45

    So I guess I’m gone. If she’s in the Resistance, it will surely fail, ground up in the meat grinder of Clinton lying, shaming, blaming, insinuation and snark. You think the women’s movement went down to inglorious defeat in the 80’s, wait’ll you get a load of Killary Resistance. She does have Jupiter at her back for the next year, just like Bernie had that good luck planet in his sun sign when he ran against the demon Dems. So she’ll make headway in her ridiculous claims about Wikileaks and Russians under the bed, but when she’s done, the demon Dems will lie in ruins and the good luck planet will move on to T-ump. Run away.

    • J'hon Doe II
      May 3, 2017 at 21:00

      Good Golly Miss Mollie!
      Mean spirited/war-monger Hillary would’ve been WORST than the Andrew Jacksonite, Alabama born&bread Attorney General? — and that’s only the beginning of his LET’S FALL BACK IN TIME agency appointments.

      You want MAGA? – You got make america ignorantly Racist again.
      I hope you’re satisfied, u know what I mean… ?

      • Sam F
        May 4, 2017 at 09:00

        Progressives should stop the blaming and comparisons of bad and worse. No cautious observer liked either candidate, and neither DemRep party is to be trusted now.

        Let’s agree on the massive reforms needed, and found new parties that honestly represent their supporters, not play with identity issues manipulated by the DemReps to maintain the oligarchy.

        The place for anger is at the barricades and in the destruction of mass media and oligarchy.

  43. David Brown
    May 3, 2017 at 20:43

    Thanks again Robert for another insight articule. Well the reality show that is the Democratic Party was more than amply revealed by ‘ their’ election of Tom Perez, don’t believe me? Simply listen to the man amazing how tone deaf he / they are.

    People, we are living in interesting times I live in Texas and the bloodlust that’s emoting from Austin is insane …Lol.
    I’m ready, Molly Ivins is with me in spirit.. Bring it, peace

  44. Mick Davey
    May 3, 2017 at 20:40

    What a LOSER! Clinton cannot believe that people see through her. Ask those on Capitol Hill or the military about her. What an A…hole!

    • Realist
      May 4, 2017 at 02:41

      Maybe she caught some shrapnel in the brain whilst dodging those snipers in Sarajevo and it’s affected her thinking ever since.

  45. Steve
    May 3, 2017 at 20:25

    I always find Robert Parry to be soft. Why is he quoting the NYT absurd daily tracking percentages of 82% and 92% without blinking an eye, when they obviously had nothing to do with reality. But then…Hey, I heard a Pulitzer Prize is going to be shared this year. Yeah, that’s right, between the New York Times and the Washington Post. Yup, and I also heard that for both publications, the best fiction can be found on the front page above the fold. Personally I think they deserve to be recognized for their creative writing skills.

    • Sam F
      May 4, 2017 at 08:51

      Mr. Parry takes a “soft” line because it is more persuasive among the unconvinced; knowledgeable readers have good cause to be patient. He likely quotes the NYT percentages as more persuasive in argument against their point, to their own audience.

      Indeed NYT and WaPo seem to do creative writing rather than reporting, although I see far more truth in fiction than in their articles. They and the Pulitzer are zionist controlled, as is nearly all publishing.

  46. Zachary Smith
    May 3, 2017 at 20:25

    “Women’s rights is the unfinished business of the Twenty-first Century,” Clinton said. “There is no more important larger issue that has to be addressed.”

    The sheer stupidity of this statement boggles the mind. The only comparable quote is that by Tom De Lay – “Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes.” .

    Despite her off-putting passive-aggressive attitude for much of the half-hour interview, Clinton was at her best toward the end when she began discussing detailed domestic policies and the future challenges to the jobs of Americans from robotics and other high-tech developments.

    Domestic policies? The horrible woman had already said this was going to outsourced to Bill “Monica’s Boyfriend” Clinton. In my reading of the transcript she was simply babbling some prepared talking points to fill the air with words.


  47. David Smith
    May 3, 2017 at 20:10

    Hillary Clinton’s grandiose political ambition appears like an ancient Greek stage play. She is arrogant, entitled, and is both lifted up and slapped down by the invisible “hand of the gods”. The script starts with her conniving a partnership with a man of true political genius, she hopes to ride his coat tails and ascend to the throne. At first it works, she gets public visibility and the “hand of the gods” lifts her into the Senate in 2000 where she begins her conspiring. The “hand of the gods” even gift her with George Bush II as President whose bungling is a perfect foil, it is a certainty that in 2008 the President will be a Democrat. But “the hand of the gods” turn against her, and in a cruel humiliation the gods deliver out of nowhere a guy nobody has ever heard of, and he snatches the nomination. She can’t even complain because the bastard is Black, sort of….She chokes down the humiliation and takes the consolation prize, Sec State, and more humiliation, Bengazi- style. Oblivious, she quits State and starts her Presidential campaign in 2012, she spends four years running it looks like she’s gonna glide into the White House. But the gods have a wicked sense of humor. Once again, out of nowhere, a man appears. He has never held political office, the media viciouly smears him as a buffoon. All the media and the polls say he will lose. Hillary is cocky, arrogant, savoring victory. Then, BOOM she is shot out of the sky, blubbering in her hotel room. I am surprised the political pundits have failed to see the story line.

    • Joe Tedesky
      May 3, 2017 at 21:38

      David very good description of Hillary’s Greek stage play…I enjoyed it.

      • David Smith
        May 3, 2017 at 22:44

        I left out “a guy outa nowhere” that wrecked HRC’s dream: Bernie Sanders. Obama was the first. Sanders was second. Trump was third, and the big one.”Third Time Is The Charm”. “Bad Things Come In Threes”. Spooky.

      • Realist
        May 4, 2017 at 02:37

        Indeed. A job worthy of a professional political pundit. It’s the kind of piece you’d like to see on the editorial page of the NYT, if the newspapers ever decide to go back to describing the real world.

    • LarcoMarco
      May 4, 2017 at 03:32

      Deus ex machina

    • Brad Owen
      May 4, 2017 at 11:38

      Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad with power. It must be especially irritating to lose to the least qualified, clownish, “Coyote Trickster”-type of character.

  48. David F., N.A.
    May 3, 2017 at 19:25


  49. Pablo Diablo
    May 3, 2017 at 19:10

    There is a special place in Hell for Madeline Albright AND Hillary Clinton. Both are “mass murderers”.

    • fuzzylogix
      May 6, 2017 at 11:44

      They are war criminals, like the rest of the bunch.

  50. Molly Ball
    May 3, 2017 at 19:04

    Here comes Hillary on her whine tour…that’s not wine as in grapes…that’s whine as in sour grapes. A good leader takes responsibility for their loss. Hillary is NOT a good leader. .

    • Michael Hoefler
      May 3, 2017 at 23:03

      Spot on with the whine tour assertion!! She needs to accept that she blew it against Obama and she and her machine cheated the guy who should be president right now out of his rightful nomination in 2016 – Bernie – then went and blew it again. I heard that she and Bill had a heated argument about her campaigning in WI, MI, and PENN before the election – the 3 she lost to put Trump over the top. Bill allegedly was so angry that he threw his phone off the top of the Clinton building in Arkansas – where they were arguing.

      Her ads did not tell what she stood for or what she would do. Her “I’m with her” – IMO – is a sexist remark that says nothing about her presidential skills and most likely pisses off voters who are skeptical of voting for a woman anyway. She needed to be pushing forward what she would do as president – how qualified she was – how she was the best person to lead this country and the world into the next decade. She also needed to stop showing everyone how tough she was. A good leader looks for ways to promote peace and to find peaceful solution to situations as they arise. She laughed at that. I wish she would have had to go through boot training with the Marines. That might have taught her a few things.

      I held my nose and voted for her as I did not want the alternative with Trump. I see he is doing the things that he said that he would not do. We have a helluva crisis in this country. A crisis of leadership and willingness to put the country and its people first and the oligarthy down the line.

      • Michael Hoefler
        May 3, 2017 at 23:05

        There are some very qualified women in this country I hope will run for the top spot. Hillary is not among them. I would put my money and support behind Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. She has guts and very good judgment. She also has been in the military and is a young woman.

        • Lin Cleveland
          May 4, 2017 at 12:23

          I didn’t know until now about Tulsi’s military career so I checked with Wikipedia. She volunteered to serve in an illegal war of aggression. Me? I’m more concerned with AGW than regime change in another nation.

          • Skip Scott
            May 4, 2017 at 13:50

            Hi again Lin-

            We all learn as we age. I don’t know about you, but I’ve learned quite a bit since I was Tulsi’s age.
            I think her foreign policy stance is a direct consequence of her experiences.

    • Lin Cleveland
      May 4, 2017 at 12:14

      I’ve been a grown-up for a long time now. Why do we need a leader?

  51. mike k
    May 3, 2017 at 18:44

    Now she reveals herself to be an even more pathetic fraud than she has been all along. Disgusting. If she had any sense she would drop out of the limelight, and go hide in some rich has-been’s hideout. Those who think they have been hot stuff rarely get over it though.

    • susan_sunflower
      May 3, 2017 at 19:03

      I think, having failed to become president, she’s decided to to pretend she’s Madeleine Albright … and looks presumptuous and small in comparison. I can loathe the warhawk (and I most certainly do) and be damned impressed by Albright’s curriculum vitae and life-story …

      • Bill Bodden
        May 3, 2017 at 19:28

        … and be damned impressed by Albright’s curriculum vitae and life-story

        Susan: Are you aware that Madeleine Albright said of the estimated half million Iraqi children who died because of sanctions maintained on Iraq by the Clinton administration, of which she was an accomplice, “We thought it was worth it.”? She and the Clintons and all others involved in this crime against humanity should have a place in hell reserved for them.

        • susan_sunflower
          May 3, 2017 at 19:37

          I’m all too aware of it … and that Albright was Clinton mentor … that does not make Albright’s life story any the less remarkable … In photos I saw, Clinton reminded me strikingly of Albright with her suddenly older-woman posture and (probably carefully market-researched) new “style” … I reminded me of Clinton’s largely forgettable term in the same office — except for Libya of course — and much less accomplished, in reality, Clinton was next to Albright …
          That’s one of Clinton’s arrogances — her presumption of all the dues she believes she has already paid in “public service” … sacrifices already rendered — it’s part of her rule breaking …

          No, she’s had her very own dedicated staff for most of the last 40 years …

  52. Bill Bodden
    May 3, 2017 at 18:43

    … [H]er acceptance of six-figure speaking fees from Wall Street and other special interest groups after leaving the State Department

    She, and Obama, got and will get those six-figure speaking fees because they earned them – the old fashioned way for services rendered. They have a long way to go though to match Reagan’s $2-million payment from Japan.

    • FobosDeimos
      May 3, 2017 at 20:47

      As reported in rhe media last year (this is from The Hill):

      “Bill and Hillary Clinton made a combined $153 million off of paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary launched her presidential bid in 2015, according to a CNN report.

      During that time, the couple gave 729 speeches for an average payout of $210,795 each. Of those speeches, at least 39 were given to big banks, who paid the couple $7.7 million”

      That is 729 speeches in 14 years, or 52 bribe-disguising rounds of chats for every one of those 14 years, which is equivalent to ONE SPEECH A WEEK, almost like a regular mass or religious service, but in this case devoted to worship of power, guns and Wall Street. The career of this pathetic couple is unparallaled in modern history.

      • TS
        May 5, 2017 at 10:30

        “The career of this pathetic couple is unparallaled in modern history.

        – Oh really? To give only one First-World example, I suggest you check out the sources for the millions and millions Tony BLiar has raked in since leaving office.

    • Marc
      May 4, 2017 at 11:32

      Thanks for bringing that up. Helps to put things into perspective. What is the value of the $2MM in today’s $$?

  53. susan_sunflower
    May 3, 2017 at 18:38

    Today’s surprise (to me at least) is that Huma Abedin forwarded classified e-mails to her husband’s unsecured laptop …. so he could print them out for Hillary Clinton convenience (and I’m guessing Abedin’s as well, since he was apparent at home with the printer … and how those hardcopies then got into Clinton’s hands is unexplained … one might guess they were not — but could have been — simply faxed, or even printed to fax … if proper security/encriptions were in place**


    ** It sounds to me as if Clinton either not able or unwilling to take print outs (she requested) off the printer or fax machine …

    Little mention has been made of Comey’s centrality in this matter having been necessitated by Lynch’s recusal after the gotta-be-brain-dead tarmac confab with Bill …

    Clintonistas really need to be reminded just how much leniency and accommodation (and coverup) was provided Hillary Clinton in what must have been a nightmare of an investigation… about which the right-wing Hilllary haters (and apparently any number of the investigators) were already livid had not resulted in anything more than Comey’s July “tongue lashing” … (about which Clinton supporters remain outraged) …

    The woman should have recused herself … I’m suddenly reminded of her trying repeatedly to blame Colin Powell until the very very last moment … For me, unforgivable was cackling over Gadhafi’s murder … all this other stuff, but particularly the blame-shifting, repeatedly convinced me she was simply untrustworthy …

    If that subpoena had remained secret until after the election — and she had won — her legitimacy would have been questioned x100.

    • Skip Scott
      May 4, 2017 at 06:17


      The proper security/encryptions would be impossible to place on Abedin’s laptop. That in itself is a violation of security protocol. Classified info goes through it’s own servers. All computers with access are registered. Chain of possession is logged. Hillary’s entire set-up was illegal. She did it for the very purpose of avoiding accountability. Even if they couldn’t have proven “intent” in court, she was obviously guilty of “gross negligence”, which is all that is required for prosecution. But the laws are just for us “little people”.

      • Lin Cleveland
        May 4, 2017 at 12:05


        I do not understand why so many of us “little people” insist that those who “serve” in government must keep secrets from us “little people.”

        * i placed quote marks around “serve” because I feel that politicians from both parties serve the interests of Wall Street. According to the “of the people, for the people and by the people” mission statement, we “little people” own the government.

        • Skip Scott
          May 4, 2017 at 13:44

          Hi Lin-

          I agree completely that there is little place for classified information in a free and open society that is not at war. The whole system is used to hide things from the public that they would never condone. However, as I stated in an earlier comment stream, I would love to have an informed debate with the likes of Ray McGovern or William Binney. It’s possible that I’m being a bit naive, and they could give examples that would change my mind. In wartime, I can see a need for classified information to keep troop/asset movements secreted from the enemy. Technical capabilities for various weaponry/armaments should probably be classified as well.

          That said, when Hillary took the job and received her clearance to be read into classified material, she agreed to abide by the rules. She didn’t violate those rules as a matter of conscience, like Chelsea Manning, she violated them because she thinks of herself as above the law.

      • fuzzylogix
        May 6, 2017 at 11:42

        I read that Hillary is technically challenged and did not know how to install a printer on her laptop so she diverted it to other laptops for viewing as hard copy printouts.

        As Secretary of State she was not only required to abide by the security rules, she was expected to enforce them as well.

  54. Mel
    May 3, 2017 at 18:37

    She didn’t get the job partly because she’s a woman? When men don’t they have to face up to the failure. They don’t have a catch-all ointment to fetch relief to the soreness. But, maybe, that’s good because it can stimulate greater effort amongst the determined ones. Clinton shamelessly played the woman card and if (IF) that caused a man-card backlash (as did Les Deplorables) she has no grievance and the causes of women (whatever they are these days) have not been furthered. Play with a two edged sword…don’t complain. It’s remarkable how, even now, her arguments and strategies are so clumsy and counter-productive. Old dog…new tricks.

    • Kiza
      May 3, 2017 at 22:54

      If she lost because she was a woman, shouldn’t she and her party then be supporting another woman who is facing an election – Marie Le Pen? Yet they are openly and strongly supporting her male chauvinist opponent. Inconsistent, as always.

      • John k
        May 8, 2017 at 23:15

        No, no. Perfectly consistently supporting their paymasters, the banks and other corporations.

  55. May 3, 2017 at 18:32

    Another good Robert Parry article. Unfortunately tho, his listing of Hilary negatives omitted
    her most egregious flaw of all: the fact that she’s a compulsive, sociopathic liar.
    Her blaming the evil Putin&Comey conspiracy is beyond ludicrous, and her failure to realize she’s
    one of the most hated personalities in US Political History is beyond our understanding.

    • Bill Bodden
      May 3, 2017 at 20:38

      …her most egregious flaw of all: the fact that she’s a compulsive, sociopathic liar

      To the contrary, Eldiem, the dead, maimed, and displaced because of the policies she promoted and supported take precedence ahead of all other deficiencies.

  56. Pablo Diablo
    May 3, 2017 at 17:57

    While promising more specifics about her mistakes in an upcoming memoir, she avoided any references to problems that other analysts have cited, such as her controversial decision as Secretary of State to use a private email server; her acceptance of six-figure speaking fees from Wall Street and other special interest groups after leaving the State Department; her description of half of Trump’s supporters as “deplorables”; her hawkish foreign policy, including her support for the disastrous Iraq War and her key role in the botched Libyan regime change; her campaign’s lack of an inspirational or coherent message; her heavy reliance on negative advertising against Trump; her association with past scandals involving her husband, Bill Clinton; and her neglect of the traditionally Democratic states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, which gave Trump the electoral votes he needed to win.

    And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV_PLCC6jeI
    to fill in more shady details. Once again her hubris blinded her. There is a reason 90 Million registered voters DID NOT vote. This “lesser of two evils” evil has got to stop.

    • Abbybwood
      May 3, 2017 at 22:35

      God! Wouldn’t it be great to give this WITCH! some truth serum??!

      (No offense to “good” witches!)

      Let’s go back…..you are feeling sleepyyyyyy……very sleepyyyy….Tell us all about the Mena Airport cocaine CIA operation with your husband….White Water? Travelgate?? Dirty deals with Obama to become SOS?? Is your daughter the spawn of Webb Hubbell? Tell us the details of Vince Foster’s “suicide”. Why did you set up a secret server as SOS? Why were you TRULY so interested in Qaddafi being executed to the point of you being gleeful? Etc. Etc. Etc.

      You get the idea.

      Wouldn’t it be GREAT to be able to ask questions of The Queen of Chaos KNOWING all the answers would be the TRUTH and not just legalistic BS??!!

    • Oxycontin Addict
      May 6, 2017 at 10:29

      Bill and Hillary Clinton are the only corrupt politicians in america.

  57. Jay
    May 3, 2017 at 17:50

    I think it’s pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is trying to deflect, not new I know, from the revelations in the book “Shattered”, which was out of stock nationwide until yesterday, May 2nd.

    Of course she’s lying about misogyny, but what else, besides fake claims of Russian hacking, can she yell but “sexism”.

    I see that this Greg Sargent piece, opinion, in the Washington Post addresses some uncomfortable facts that Hillary and her defenders would rather ignore and pretend don’t exist.

  58. Rob Nichols
    May 3, 2017 at 17:49

    Ironic to me that Hillary Clinton declares herself part of “the resistance” when she so thoroughly embodies what is in need of resisting – Wall Street backed elitist Democrats who have abandoned the people they should be representing, in favor of $325,000.00 speeches, war mongering, being a lousy, uninspiring, inauthentic candidate with a lousy campaign that spent so much time trying to scare voters into choosing her because she wasn’t Donald Trump. And now, in all her self-righteousness, still blaming everyone but herself. She needs to fade away and quit ruining the Democratic party. With her and her ilk we will still be saluting Hair Drumpf in 2020.

    • Bill Bodden
      May 3, 2017 at 18:29

      She needs to fade away and quit ruining the Democratic party.

      The Democratic party was a corrupt disgrace long before Hillary Clinton came along and made herself at home there.

      • Rob Nichols
        May 3, 2017 at 19:22


      • May 4, 2017 at 08:44


      • Miranda Keefe
        May 4, 2017 at 16:24

        Yes, she is a puppet and has been at least ever since the puppet string holders recruited her in 1999 to be their Senator from New York. That doesn’t change the fact that she is evil and I blame her for all the evil she has done. They didn’t take her heart our her chest- she ripped it out and gave it to them freely. (That’s a shameless “Once Upon A Time” reference.)

    • Abbybwood
      May 3, 2017 at 22:22

      Watching Hillary Clinton grovel her BS is like watching the US claim it “won”
      the War in Vietnam.

      No. It did NOT.

    • evelync
      May 6, 2017 at 09:30

      I think she’s trying to co-opt any spark of political energy for herself.
      I may be paranoid but when I read that one of her foot soldiers was helping to organize the women’s march I didn’t want to be part of that and didn’t go…..

      I hope Bernie refuses to give her his contact list. I know I don’t want my name turned over to the current configuration of the DNC with Clinton/Obama/Biden’s guy Tom Perez running it.

  59. William
    May 3, 2017 at 17:47

    This woman is ‘the devils’ mistress’! She should be under a prison somewhere!! I saw the video of her ‘speech’ and just about puked. Why is this beast still walking free??? That is the 6 billion dollar question!!! Unbelievable to imagine her running for president in 2020. She is living in another world and it’s dark and foreboding! How many more people have to die before this beast pays the price?

    • Jay
      May 3, 2017 at 17:51

      Willam what crime do you think Hillary Clinton guilty of?

      • Bill Bodden
        May 3, 2017 at 18:26

        Willam what crime do you think Hillary Clinton guilty of?

        How about her complicity when she was co-president with Slick Willie and the war in the Balkans and the sanctions on Iraq that cost an estimated half million Iraqi children their lives? How about voting for the war on Iraq that was in violation of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the Nuremberg Principles? How about pushing for the overthrows of Gaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Read “The Queen of Chaos” by Diana Johnstone for the details and more.

        • BannanaBoat
          May 3, 2017 at 19:19

          How About pressuring O to accept the Honduran coup ? Berta said H fomented the Coup then within two weeks Berta was assasinated. Maybe Seth Rich and Shawn Lucas.

          • BannanaBoat
            May 3, 2017 at 19:28

            Oh forgot, largest arms deal in history to Saudi after email acknowledgement that Saudi government financially supports Da-esh, Yemen? Lyban arms to Syria

          • Bill Bodden
            May 3, 2017 at 20:35

            There is a long list to add to her rap sheet.

          • Homer Jay
            May 4, 2017 at 21:16

            How about exposing special access information via her private server, instructing her subordinates to declassify classified information before sending it to her. As a federal employee I can tell you that if I did a fraction of what she did, I would definitely be thrown in jail. For more detail see the article VIPS put on this site regarding her server.

        • exiled off mainstreet
          May 4, 2017 at 02:42

          The newest statement by Assange correctly labels her “the Butcher of Libya.” The whole email thing was to cover up her influence peddling for her foundation while she acted as US Secretary of State. War crimes and fraud are significant reasons she should rot in jail. Even though I’m against giving the state the power of the death penalty, the Libya thing objectively merits such punishment. Finally, my political decisionmaking in 2016 was just like Abbybwood: voting for Sanders, then voting for Trump even though I knew he had no chance of carrying California simply because he appeared sounder on the war crimes and survival issue. I still think even with Trump’s sellouts to the power structure we are more likely to survive his stint on the throne compared to what would have happened with her. As an aside, I thought Sanders’ post defeat actions were disgraceful and destroyed his reputation, particularly in light of the evidence which emerged that the whole nominating process was gamed against him.

        • Jay
          May 4, 2017 at 16:01

          Okay, Bill:

          Those war crimes are real, however, is Bill being prosecuted for them, or Obama?

          • Miranda Keefe
            May 4, 2017 at 16:17

            In a just world they all would.

          • Jay
            May 4, 2017 at 18:20


            Not really my question and you know that.

          • BannanaBoat
            May 4, 2017 at 20:54

            If one criminal gets away, you do not prosecute the next? People have been executed for the same crimes USA presidents comment, such as wars against the peace, torture, bombing civilian infrastructure and civilans. The USA happily bombed North Korean dams because the rest of the nation had been flattened by USA bombers.

          • BannanaBoat
            May 4, 2017 at 20:56

            most likely spiritually. One must start enforcing the Constitution at one point in time.

          • Jay
            May 5, 2017 at 10:17


            The problem remains that Hillary was subordinate to Obama, and that she was not in the government in the 1990s.

            Mean if you prosecute Hillary for Libya (a war crime) you’ll also have to prosecute Obama.

          • BannanaBoat
            May 5, 2017 at 11:35

            correct all war criminals should be prosecuted. i doubt they are passed statute of limitations.

          • Jay
            May 5, 2017 at 18:14


            Okay, that will of course take some effort arresting so may of the W and HW administrations, Hillary will seem like a minor foot note in there.

          • Miranda Keefe
            May 5, 2017 at 21:39

            Jay wrote, “Miranda, Not really my question and you know that.”

            It seemed to me you were saying that those who say Hillary should be prosecuted for war crimes weren’t saying that for Obama and Bill Clinton. So I said I thought they all should be prosecuted.

            If you were saying Hillary gets unfair treatment (maybe because she’s a woman) I was pointing out that is not the case.

            Now if you are actually saying the real issue isn’t whether they should be prosecuted but whether they WILL BE, well, duh, that’s never going to happen until there’s a revolution.

            As to why we’re talking about HRC’s crimes and not Obama’s? It’s because she is the disgusting POS who just ran for president due to her overarching egomaniacal selfishness sense of entitlement and gave us Trump by doing so with the cooperation of a tame media taking orders from her campaign to pump up Trump and now she’s spouting this nonsense, of which this article is about.

            But in another article where Obama, a world class POS and sociopath mass murderer, was critiqued for taking massive six figure bribes from Wall Street, I wrote about how terrible he was and what he really deserves.

      • incontinent reader
        May 4, 2017 at 07:40

        Jay – How about the following offered by a former federal prosecutor:

        18 USCA 201 Bribery

        18 USCA 208 Acts Affecting a Personal Financial Interest (includes Recommendations)

        18 USCA 371 Conspiracy

        18 USCA 793(f) Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information – gross negligence in handling or knowledge of illegal
        removal (the elements of which were misinterpreted and misapplied by FBI Director Comey and rubber-stamped
        by Attorney General Loretta Lynch and/or her staff)

        18 USCA 1001 False Statements

        18 USCA 1341 Frauds and Swindles (Mail Fraud)

        18 USCA 1343 Fraud by Wire, Radio or Television

        18 USCA 1349 Attempt and Conspiracy (to Commit Fraud)

        18 USCA 1505 Obstruction of Justice

        18 USCA 1519 Destruction (Alteration or Falsification) of Records in Federal Investigations or/and Bankruptcy

        18 USCA 1621 Perjury (Including Documents Signed under Penalties of Perjury)

        18 USCA 1905 Disclosure of Confidential Information

        18 USCA 1924 Unauthorized Removaal and Retention of Classified Documents or Material

        18 USCA 2072 Concealment (Removal or Mutilation) of Government Records

        18 USCA 7201 Attempt to Evade or Defeat a Tax (Use of Clinton Foundation Funds for Personal or Political Purposes)

        18 USCA 7212 Attempts to Interfere with Administration of Internal Revenue Laws ?(Call to IRS on Behalf of UBS not Turning over Accounts to IRS)

        [ALSO: RICO ACT VIOLATIONS re: the Clinton Foundation Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act – 18 USC 1961-1968]

        That’s just for starters. The more serious crimes being war crimes and crimes against humanity, for which her emails alone provide strong evidence.

        • Jay
          May 4, 2017 at 18:22

          incontinent reader:

          Most of those would be a stretch.

          And the war crimes are things that Obama, W, and Bill are much more guilty of.

          Ya gotta stop just reposting right winger hate Hillary lists.

          • BannanaBoat
            May 4, 2017 at 21:03

            There is no defense for any mass murders.

          • Jay
            May 5, 2017 at 18:35


            Most of the list has nothing to do with war crimes, and is in fact exactly what I said, rightwing rumor mongering.

    • Abbybwood
      May 3, 2017 at 22:19

      The REAL question is this:

      Why isn’t the justice system BLIND???

      Because it is clearly BIASED!!

  60. Zim
    May 3, 2017 at 17:22

    The main reason she lost is those who supported Bernie stayed home or voted for Stein. That’s what you get when you steal the primary. Bernie would have stomped Trump no doubt. What goes ’round, comes ’round.

    • Jay
      May 3, 2017 at 17:53


      Got polling to back that clam up?

      Johnson far out polled Stein and most liberal and democrats won’t vote for someone like Johnson who’d destroy Medicare and Social Security.

      Now true, voter turn out was lower, but Trump was off-putting too.

      • Skip Scott
        May 3, 2017 at 20:01


        Polling like what was done by 538? Anybody can make up meaningless poll numbers. I drove across country a few times last year, and I can tell you I never saw a single Hillary sign or bumper sticker until I hit the coast. I saw Trump and Bernie signs galore, but no Hillary signs. Not One. Bernie had a lot of enthusiastic supporters that refused to vote for Hillary, including me. Some went for Trump, some went for Stein, and many stayed home. And don’t forget all the independents who were disenfranchised during the primaries, many of whom would have gone to Bernie. The DNC shafted us, and now they are flailing about for any excuse (like the evil Ruskies) rather than taking a good look in the mirror.

        Hillary is pure evil. She is owned by the MIC and Wall St. The public found her out (thanks to wikileaks), so she lost. End of story.

        • Kiza
          May 3, 2017 at 22:44

          A commenter on zerohedge put it the best:
          “The worst presidential candidate in American History lost to the Second worst presidential candidate in American History.”

        • Kiza
          May 3, 2017 at 23:14

          Why are we still talking about this?

          The only worthwhile question is – will this woman be a candidate again in 2020 to give the lying scumbag another four years in the WH?

          • Joe Tedesky
            May 3, 2017 at 23:44

            As much as I recognize Robert Parry staying relevant to this weeks news cycle, I don’t take issue with Parry’s writing about Neoreporter Amanpour’s Hillary’s interview, but I do take issue to Clinton’s not letting her failed attempt to win the presidency go. At least Richard Nixon, and Al Gore, had the decency to fade out of view for a while, and allow Americans to adjust to their newly elected leader. Whereas Hillary seems to want to ruin things so bad for her once presidential rival that she is willing to lead the charge against of all country’s Russia.

            Also with all of what should be discussed, we the people and our government are dwelling on such things as we should let go….really Senate hearings digging in deep to Russian interference in our U.S. Election process? Hey congressional dummies Americans need clean drinking water, senior citizens need help with the rising cost of drug prescriptions, the world needs peace, and the list of things to do goes on and on, but first we must investigate why Hillary isn’t our now sitting president.

            Certainly Hillary Clinton has her first amendment right to analyze publicly why she loss her bid for the presidency, but does she deserve the sympathy and the attention all the while she fabricates the reasons for why she loss? Honestly, can’t her supporters see what a liar she is? Why even in her account of why she loss, Hillary is still very Clintonian for the mere fact that with her telling of this past elections events are all told by her with a lie. Which proves she didn’t learn anything, because her loss wasn’t Putin or Comey’s doing, as much as it was the voters who got hip to all her lying.

          • Kiza
            May 4, 2017 at 00:04

            Joe, I was not commenting about Mr Parry, then about the Democratic Party and their media.

            The only way for Trump to win another presidential election is that Hillary be his opponent again. I do not think that the Democrats could find a worse one in the land.

          • Joe Tedesky
            May 4, 2017 at 02:24

            Kiza sorry it sounded that way. My point was Hillary should quit with here campaigning, but Robert Parry is doing a good job of staying relevant….bad writing sorry Joe

          • Peter Loeb
            May 4, 2017 at 07:38

            WHY, INDEED!!!!

            Thanks Kiza for your remarks.

            Our task today is not to regurgitate views of last year’s
            electoral failures (for the Democratic Party) except as they
            reflect on where we are now and where we are going.

            I still believe that both parties created the Trump
            victory in the sense that millions were suffering economically
            (layoffs, reduced earnings, debt etc.). In the case
            of the Democratic Party it went to the right (“center”, “center-right”?)
            on “free trade (NAFTA), tax cuts for the wealthy, big fundraisers for
            big donors, billionaires in cabinet positions. As Jack Rasmus
            has called it: “recovery for the few”.

            Eventually the millions who lost jobs (not all blue-collar) tired
            of promises. The candidate they elected (Donald J. Trump)
            could have had another name, another personality.)

            Of course he campaigned on promises on which he cannot
            deliver . But for many, it sounded good. Very good.

            Where do we go from here?

            —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

          • Miranda Keefe
            May 4, 2017 at 16:07

            Hillary Clinton is a megalomaniac. (I’m not saying this as a mental health profession, this is not a diagnosis; I’m saying this as a citizen who has observed her for 25 years.) She doesn’t really care about anything except her ego and her having power. She’s a real world, female Lex Luthor.

            She is responsible for anyone who loses their healthcare if that happens with Trumpcare. Every vote for HRC in the primary brought us here and her cheating, lying, stealing, manipulating, and selfishness gave us Trump.

            I will never forgive her.

            As neither will the millions dead due to her war mongering and their families.

            I blame every simpering, selfish, ‘the world can go to hell as long as my identity politics is celebrated here’, Neo-Liberal and tame Democrat who voted for her in the primary, especially the super delegates.

            Is she stupid or a fool or she just doesn’t care? Doesn’t she know every time she spouts this stuff she is reinforcing Trump’s base to vote GOP in 2018 and 2020? Especially if she runs again.

            I despise this woman. As far as I’m concerned she needs to go away and never be in public again.

      • evelync
        May 6, 2017 at 09:11

        Most but not all :)
        In Texas it didn’t matter who I voted for. I voted for Bernie in the primary. My protest vote was for Johnson – I don’t agree with much of the Libertarian political view but Johnson got my vote because he didn’t know where Aleppo was and he said no more regime change wars. I thought that was a big improvement over having an attitude to remake the world by bombing the shit out of it….

    • Abbybwood
      May 3, 2017 at 22:14

      I voted for Bernie in the California primary (which I think, had all the votes
      been counted, he won).

      Then I voted for Trump in the general because he was not for regime changes, wanted to put America First, wanted to deal with illegal immigration and because he declared that the repeal of Obamacare would bring a better health care solution for the American people.

      He also vowed to “Lock her (Hillary) up!” which I cheered!

      The main reason I voted for Trump was to shut her out. I see her as an opportunistic war criminal.

      After the way the DNC treated Sanders I probably would have voted for a slug in my garden over The Witch.

      Ef her AND her daughter (obviously Web Hubbell’s spawn!), who is looking to run for Nita Lowey’s seat when she retires from the House. Bill and Hill already bought her and her husband the house next door for them to “conveniently” move into.

      I just pray to God that some handsome hunk like JFK, Jr., who is a smart progressive with roots in the area (unlike the carpetbagger Chelsea Hubbell Clinton!, runs against the witch junior and WINS!!!

      Piers Morgan is right when he says of Hillary (and her spawn): Just shut up and go away!!!!

      • Sam F
        May 4, 2017 at 08:20

        Agreed. Not sure one would send JFK jr against copycat assassins; rather let him endorse.

      • Miranda Keefe
        May 4, 2017 at 16:12

        As you can tell from my earlier comment I despise HRC.

        But I would ask you not to use the term “witch” as a derogatory term because 1) It is a term only used to denigrate women, 2) thousands of innocent people were executed in early modernity for being accused of being witches, and 3) some of my friends are modern witches and they are good people. Thank you.

        • Knot-Keane
          May 6, 2017 at 10:21

          It is good to know that you care so much about other people’s careless use of a word like “witch”. Your use of “despise”, “megalomaniac”, “female Lex Luthor”, “cheating, lying, stealing, manipulating, selfishness”, and attribution of blame to Hillary Clinton for america’s health-care racket, trump himself, “the millions of dead” (Does anyone remember w bush?), and your public declaration that some of your friends are witches shows that you, and most americans, have everything in proportion and a keen sense of reality. America leads the world.

          • Miranda Keefe
            May 7, 2017 at 23:47

            I have no problem with being critical. All the terms of disgust I use are specific to the individual I am critiquing and not indicative of attacking a group of people. The term I asked not be used is a term that has connotations of attacking a group of people, which is why I just asked the poster to consider not using that term.

            You write, ‘Your use of “despise”, “megalomaniac”, “female Lex Luthor”, “cheating, lying, stealing, manipulating, selfishness”, and attribution of blame to Hillary Clinton for america’s health-care racket, trump himself, “the millions of dead” (Does anyone remember w bush?), and your public declaration that some of your friends are witches shows that you, and most americans, have everything in proportion and a keen sense of reality. America leads the world.’

            Yes, I do blame HRC for Trump being president and thus being able to get the House to pass this horrid bill. I think it is clear that her cheating in the Primary and the bias of the DNC kept a candidate, Sanders, who would have defeated Trump from being the nominee. She couldn’t see (or didn’t care if she did see) that this was not a time for an establishment candidate who ran on “American is Already Great.”

            Yes, she is responsible for the deaths of millions, as is George W. Bush. However, this discussion wasn’t about George W. Bush.

            I don’t understand your statement about my having friends who are modern witches leads to your sarcastic statement which obviously is meant to deny I have things in proportion and do not have a keen sense of reality. Nor do I get how that, in your mind, makes me like most Americans and how it leads to an entitled view of America leading the world. It seems to me most folk do not share my thinking: most do not despise both Clinton and Trump, most do not hate the American Imperial Project and blame both parties, and most do not think that one of the smallest religious communities, NeoPagans, are good people. So I surely do not get you.

            Care to explain more?

    • MichaelangeloRaphaelo
      May 4, 2017 at 12:29

      Better government begins in Congress: 100% of Peoples’ House of Representatives & 1/3 Senate can be replaced 2x in NOV 2018 & in NOV 2020
      By Cheating @SenSanders the DNC lost
      The Progressive & Independent Voter Base

      DNC & Hillary “Blame-Shift” her defeat
      On Russia and Wikileaks to retain
      The remaining small DEM base of followers

      What happens When a Mass Exodus of
      Donors and Voters abandon DNC/DEMs

      No Voters/No Dollars=NO DNC/DEMs

      Bye Bye DNC/DEMs and hopefully

      Thanks to Trump’s Shape-Shifting
      Bye Bye RNC/GOP

      Presidents Come and Go
      New Enemies are created
      New Promises are made
      But Nothing Ever Changes

      No One Is Coming to Rescue the USA

      When Enough People demand Change
      The People Will Vote For Real Change
      Changes will be made from the ballot box
      Voters will Clean Out Sychophants in Congress

      Better government will begins with Congress

      In less than 4 Years
      100% of Peoples’ House of Representatives
      & 1/3 Senate can be replaced 2x in
      NOV 2018 & in NOV 2020

      Only then America will be Made Great Again

      • Knot-Keane
        May 6, 2017 at 10:23

        Most americans are too distracted and deluded to bother voting.

        • susan sunflower
          May 6, 2017 at 20:42

          On the news last night, someone in France mentioned that French election turnout averages around 80% because “they take the responsibility of voting seriously” … Clinton probably would have benefited substantially if more people had voted … certainly the country would have benefited by having more than 58% turnout. IMHO, there’s too much “boy who cried wolf” hysteria repeated each cycle and too little discussions of issues and options …
          Oh, and apparently in Macron “proved his mettle” (gave as good as he got) in the French debates where the two candidates actually speak and respond TO each other, rather than to an audience.

    • May 4, 2017 at 14:14

      Not true- Zim- I voted for her in the general- Bernie was out there campaigning for her- Bernie was extremely generous- Until the Country-Club Democratic Party- known as CCDP– and The Third-way- looks into its soul and realizes it must return to its roots, i.e. Unions and working people– and yes- real progressives, it will continue to lose elections it should have won- AND it will be YOUR fault.

      • Texas Aggie
        May 5, 2017 at 20:13

        And that is the core of the problem.

    • rosemerry
      May 4, 2017 at 15:45

      Studies have shown that in some of the close voting, Trump’s numbers were almost the same as Romney in 2012, but Clinton’s share was vastly less than Obama had received-people stayed home rather than vote for her. Blaming Russia was a tactic her gang concocted.

      • Miranda Keefe
        May 4, 2017 at 16:15

        Yes, rosemerry.

        But they started the tactic of accusing Russia when they still thought they’d win the election. The primary purpose always was, and still is, to ratchet up antagonism against Russia so the Imperial Project has the support of the American sheep when they engage in aggression with Russia.

Comments are closed.