Hillary Clinton Sees Russian Assets Under Her Bed

[Flanders]

Saul Alinsky taught Democrats to accuse opponents of the very thing they are guilty of. As it turns out Hillary Clinton remains Alinsky’s star pupil. Hillary Clinton has been Putin’s most valuable asset since she was secretary of state. The Uranium One Deal proved it.

NOTE: Then-First Lady Hillary Clinton became the U.N.’s greatest asset on the day they began grooming her for the presidency. Putin saw it and turned it to Russia’s advantage.

2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said this week that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, is likely being groomed by Moscow as a third-party candidate for the 2020 race.

In an interview on the podcast of former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Clinton expressed her concerns about possible Russian interference in 2020.

“They’re also going to do third-party again,” Clinton said. “I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.”

While Clinton didn’t mention Gabbard by name, no other female candidates currently running in the primary — Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar and spiritualist author Marianne Williamson — have been accused of having ties to Russia.

Clinton also labeled Jill Stein, who ran for president in 2016 as a Green Party candidate, as “a Russian asset.”

“And that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset,” said Clinton. “Yeah, she’s a Russian asset — I mean, totally. They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate. So I don’t know who it’s going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most need it.”

Clinton’s team didn’t back off the claim on Friday.

“If the nesting doll fits,” Clinton spokesperson Nick Merrill told CNN. “"This is not some outlandish claim. This is reality. If the Russian propaganda machine, both their state media and their bot and troll operations, is backing a candidate aligned with their interests, that is just a reality, it is not speculation."

Gabbard has not ruled out a third-party run but defended herself against the charges that she was a Russian asset at Tuesday’s primary debate.

“Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I'm a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears,” said Gabbard. “This morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I'm an asset of Russia. Completely despicable.”

2020 Vision: Hillary Clinton thinks Russia will back Tulsi Gabbard to help Trump stay in power
Yahoo News
Dylan Stableford and Christopher Wilson
Oct 18th 2019 3:44PM

https://www.aol.com/article/news/201...ower/23841561/

Tulsi Gabbard is the only Democrat that can make the run for the roses in 2020 an interesting race albeit a losing run. In short: Democrats better find an interesting candidate because the other Democrat wannabes are circus clowns beating each other over the head with rubber chickens.

By the time the Democrat Party convention comes around Joe Biden will be sucking pablum thru a straw in an assisted living facility. Bernie Sanders will be hooked up to a life support device, and Cherokee Warren will be back on the reservation performing rain dances to earn a few bucks.

I thought it ludicrous when Hillary Clinton singled out Tulsi Gabbard for the idiotic claim of Russian Asset. Exactly what in hell does the smartest woman in the world think Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are?

Finally, I concluded Hillary is jealous of Gabbard because she is young. To make matters worse T.G. is attractive and likeable —— prime political assets Hillary always lacked.

[PostmodernProphet]

Hilliary has lots of Russian assets, but she keeps them in her off sea accounts.......

[Flanders]

Hilliary has lots of Russian assets, but she keeps them in her off sea accounts.......

To PostmodernProphet: Right on.

She infamously presented a "reset button" to Russian foreign secretary Sergey Lavrov, expressing the Obama administration's effort to "reset" America's relationship with Russia.

Obama, meanwhile, was caught on camera telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in 2012 he would have "more flexibility" to work with Russia after his next election.

Hillary 'closing in on 'end-stage TDS''
Social media erupts over suggestion Russia will back Gabbard as 3rd party candidate
By WND Staff
Published October 18, 2019 at 3:00pm

https://www.wnd.com/2019/10/hillary-...end-stage-tds/

[Gonzomin]

Alinsky, Uranium one., offshore Russian bank accounts? Rightys live in a land of conspiracies.
Stein was in Russia sitting at Putin's table. That was shocking. It made one wonder but I am not prepared to claim her as a Russian agent. Especially since Russia was interfering in our elections to help Trump. Third-party votes do hurt the Dems.
I can see why Putin would help her but what is her payoff?

[Flanders]

VIDEO ▼

https://video.foxnews.com/v/60960347...#sp=show-clips

Tulsi Gabbard is the only Democrat that can make the run for the roses in 2020 an interesting race albeit a losing run.

T.G. will rise to the level of fascinating if she clarifies Hillary Clinton’s wars for global government and this country’s necessary wars of self-defense. If T.G. takes the plunge she will be first wannabe that ever did it.

Gabbard will blow Hillary away if she comes out against membership in the United Nations.

A few words against the Democrat Party’s democracy movement will send Hillary screaming to the nearest psychiatrist couch while it will help T.G.’s fund-raising efforts immensely:

From the riffs of outrage coming from the Democrats and their demos over “our democracy” betrayed, infiltrated even destroyed—you’d never know that a rich vein of thinking in opposition to democracy runs through Western intellectual thought, and that those familiar with it would be tempted to say “good riddance.”

Voicing opposition to democracy is just not done in politically polite circles, conservative and liberal alike.

For this reason, the Mises Institute’s Circle in Seattle, an annual gathering, represented a break from the pack.

The Mises Institute is the foremost think tank working to advance free-market economics from the perspective of the Austrian School of Economics. It is devoted to peace, prosperity, and private property, implicit in which is the demotion of raw democracy, the state, and its welfare-warfare machine.

This year, amid presentations that explained “Why American Democracy Fails,” it fell to me to speak to “How Democracy Made Us Dumb.” (Oh yes! Reality on the ground was not candy-coated.)

Some of the wide-ranging observations I made about the dumbing down inherent in democracy were drawn from the Founding Fathers and the ancients.

A tenet of the American democracy is to deify youth and diminish adults. To counter that, I’ll start with the ancients.

The Athenian philosophers disdained democracy. Deeply so. They held that democracy “distrusts ability and has a reverence for numbers over knowledge.” (Will Durant, “The Story of Philosophy,” New York, New York, 1961, p. 10.)

Certainly, among the ancients who mattered, there was a keen contempt for “a mob-led, passion-ridden democracy.” The complaint among Athenians who occupied themselves with thinking and debating was that “there would be chaos where there is no thought,” and that “it was a base superstition that numbers give wisdom. On the contrary, it is universally seen that men in crowds are more foolish, violent and cruel than men separate and alone.” (p. 11)

Underground already then, because so subversive—anti-democratic thinking was the aristocratic gospel in Athens. Socrates (born in 470 B.C.) was the intellectual leader against democracy and for the even-then hated aristocratic philosophy. Socrates’ acolytes, young and brilliant, questioned the “specious replacement of the old virtues by unsocial intelligence.”

The proof of the foolish, violent and cruel nature of the crowds is that the crowds, not the judges, insisted on making Socrates the first martyr of philosophy. He drank the poison at the behest of the people.

No wonder Plato, Socrates’ most gifted student, harbored such scorn for democracy and hatred for the mob—so extreme that it led this controversial genius to resolve that democracy must be destroyed, to be replaced by his planned society; “the rule of the wisest and the best, who would have to be discovered and enabled.”

Plato’s “Republic,” seconds the Economist, “is haunted by the fear that democracies eventually degenerate into tyrannies” (June 22, 2019). To libertarians, Plato of the planned society was wrong. However, the fear reverberating throughout his “Republic” is righteous.

A democratic utopia of freedom cannot come about because of the nature of man, thought Plato. Men “soon tire of what they have, pine for what they have not, and seldom desire anything unless it belongs to others. The result is the encroachment of one group upon the territory of another.” (“The Story of Philosophy,” p. 19.)

Plato agreed, that “the diversity of democracy’s characters … make it look very attractive.” However, “these citizens are so consumed by pleasure-seeking that they beggar the economy”; so hostile to authority that they ignore the advice of sages, and so solipsistic and libertine that they lose any common purpose.

Most agreeable to libertarian thinking was Aristotle, who ventured that democracy is based on a false assumption of equality. It arises out of the notion that “those who are equal in one respect (under the law) are equal in all respects. Because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.” (P. 70)

Tocqueville, too, was not sold on the new American democracy. He conducted “his extensive investigation into American life, and was prepared to pronounce with authority [about what he termed the new democracy].” (Russell Kirk, “The Conservative Mind,” Washington D.C., 1985, 205-224)

The American elite, Tocqueville observed, does not form an aristocracy that cherishes individuality, but a bureaucratic elite which exacts rigid conformity, a monotonous equality, shared by the managers of society.” (p. 218) Remarking on “the standardization of character in America,” Tocqueville described it as “a sort of family likeness” that makes for monotony. (p. 210)

What menaces democratic society … [is] a tyranny of mediocrity, a standardization of mind and spirit and condition … The mass of people will not rest until the state is reorganized to furnish them with material gratification.”

“Pure democracy makes libertarian democracy impossible,” posited Tocqueville. (p. 213) “In America, the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within certain barriers, an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them … his political career is then over, since he has offended the only authority able to defend it. … Before making public his opinions, he thought he had sympathizers, now it seems to him he has none any more, since he revealed himself to everyone; then those who blame him criticize loudly, and those who think as he does keep quiet and move away without courage. He yields at length, overcome by the daily effort, which he has to make, and subsides into silence, as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth.” (p. 218)

Consider that Tocqueville was writing at a time so much smarter than our own.

Tocqueville in the 19th century, and Solzhenitsyn in the 20th, noted that conformity of thought is powerfully prevalent among Americans.

This column, now in its 20th year, can attest that writing in the Age of the Idiot is about striking the right balance of banality and mediocrity, both in style and thought, which invariably entails echoing one of two party lines and positions, poorly.

Let us not forget Friendrich Nietzsche (admired by H. L. Mencken, whose genius would have remained unrecognized had he been plying his craft in 2019).

Born 39 years after Tocqueville, Nietzsche saw nothing good in democracy. “It means the worship of mediocrity, and the hatred of excellence. … What is hated by the people, as a wolf by the dogs, is the free spirit, the enemy of all fetters, the not-adorer, the man who is not a regular party-member. … How can a nation become great when its greatest men lie unused, discouraged, perhaps unknown … Such a society loses character; imitation is horizontal instead of vertical—not the superior man but the majority man becomes the ideal and the model; everybody comes to resemble everybody else; even the sexes approximate—the men become women and the women become men.” (“The Story of Philosophy,” p. 324.)

For their part, America’s founders had attempted to forestall raw democracy by devising a republic.

In his magisterial “Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government,” constitutional scholar James McClellan noted that universal suffrage and mass democracy were alien to the Founders: “They believed that a democracy would tend toward mediocrity and tyranny of the majority.” Writing about the first state constitutions (penned between 1776-1783), McClellan attests that, “A complete democracy on a wide scale was widely regarded throughout the colonies as a threat to law and order.”

Why, Pennsylvania became the laughingstock in the colonies when it “abolished all property qualifications for voting and holding office. This confirmed the suspicions of many colonial leaders that an unrestrained democracy could drive good men out of public office and turn the affairs of state over to pettifoggers, bunglers, and demagogues.” A conga-line of those you witnessed at the CNN/New York Times Democratic debate, the other day.

“The Founders wanted representation of brains, not bodies,” observed McClellan, noting that, at least “for a number of years, the best minds in the country dominated American politics.” No more.

Watch ilana mercer’s entire address, “How Democracy Made Us Dumb,” on YouTube.

How democracy made us dumb
By Ilana Mercer
Published October 17, 2019 at 7:43pm

https://www.wnd.com/2019/10/democracy-made-us-dumb/

[Gonzomin]

Yes, the founders were elitists who did not trust the people. However, that was before universal education. Those on top always ascribe their success to their talents and intelligence, ignoring how opportunity and luck factor in a person's success.
Trump is the accidental president who owes his "success" to a very rich father who saved him over and over. Trump thinks he is a genius. Can you imagine that?

[rjhenn]

Alinsky, Uranium one., offshore Russian bank accounts? Rightys live in a land of conspiracies.
Stein was in Russia sitting at Putin's table. That was shocking. It made one wonder but I am not prepared to claim her as a Russian agent. Especially since Russia was interfering in our elections to help Trump. Third-party votes do hurt the Dems.
I can see why Putin would help her but what is her payoff?

It's all just attempts to divert from Trump's actual status as a Russian asset.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[rjhenn]

Yes, the founders were elitists who did not trust the people. However, that was before universal education. Those on top always ascribe their success to their talents and intelligence, ignoring how opportunity and luck factor in a person's success.
Trump is the accidental president who owes his "success" to a very rich father who saved him over and over. Trump thinks he is a genius. Can you imagine that?

Trump doesn't live in the real world. In his world, he is a supreme genius, smarter than anyone else, and his wealth is due to his hard work and genius, not his talent for conning people. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a lying scumbag. He's also the God Emperor of the world.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Gonzomin]

What do people who worked in his admin think of him?
Tillerson.. a fucking moron
Kelly an idiot
Bannon He is like an 11-year-old child
Cohn An idiot surrounded by clowns
McMaster an idiot and a dope
That is what rightys think is presidential

[Flanders]

This could turn out to be a lagniappe for Trump if Tulsi decides to shove Hillary Clinton’s idiotic accusation down her throat by actually running on a Third Party ticket:

https://www.americanthinker.com/imag.../216813_5_.png

October 25, 2019
Tulsi Gabbard announces she is not running for re-election to House of Representatives
By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...entatives.html

Neither Trump nor Gabbard need Russia’s help to defeat Hillary.

Tulsi Gabbard is the only Democrat that can make the run for the roses in 2020 an interesting race albeit a losing run.

Should Gabbard run on a Third Party ticket this will be the finish in the general election:

1. Donald Trump wins with a 70 percent blowout.

2. Tulsi Gabbard comes in second with 29 percent.

3. Hillary Clinton finishes third with 1 percent.

In fact, Clinton runs the risk of finishing behind the usual assortment of write-in votes cast in every presidential election. Hell, Hillary might even decide not to run if Tulsi makes it a three-horse race.

[Gonzomin]

This could turn out to be a lagniappe for Trump if Tulsi decides to shove Hillary Clinton’s idiotic accusation down her throat by actually running on a Third Party ticket:

https://www.americanthinker.com/imag.../216813_5_.png

October 25, 2019
Tulsi Gabbard announces she is not running for re-election to House of Representatives
By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...entatives.html

Neither Trump nor Gabbard need Russia’s help to defeat Hillary.



Should Gabbard run on a Third Party ticket this will be the finish in the general election:

1. Donald Trump wins with a 70 percent blowout.

2. Tulsi Gabbard comes in second with 29 percent.

3. Hillary Clinton finishes third with 1 percent.

In fact, Clinton runs the risk of finishing behind the usual assortment of write-in votes cast in every presidential election. Hell, Hillary might even decide not to run if Tulsi makes it a three-horse race.

Clinton is a retired politician. Your fanciful scenarios are amusing only to you and the dumb rightys who do not know better. Hillary was a far better candidate than Trump was and she got more votes, The people agreed. Trump is the accidental president. He shows us why we have to ask more from our presidents.
Tulsi has been running as a Dem from the beginning and has made it up to 1 percent. She has been on stage in the Debates. She has not been cheated,she just failed to get a following.

[Gonzomin]

I do not accept the thread premise. I do not believe Trump is under Hillary's bed. He would not fit.

[Flanders]

Democrats better find an interesting candidate because the other Democrat wannabes are circus clowns beating each other over the head with rubber chickens.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c5/3c...b776ca3fc3.jpg

Mighty Mikey Mouse comes to the rescue.

[Gonzomin]

The founders thought that if we were in a position where only one man was in power, and only he could make the decisions, then we are not living in America anymore.
Trump has often said the only one that matters is him.
Rightys are so insecure that they seek a dictator.

[Flanders]

In fact, Clinton runs the risk of finishing behind the usual assortment of write-in votes cast in every presidential election. Hell, Hillary might even decide not to run if Tulsi makes it a three-horse race.

This is a nice turn of events:

Earlier today, a lawyer representing Tulsi Gabbard wrote to Hillary Clinton accusing her of defaming Gabbard by calling her a Russian asset and demanding a retraction:

A letter from the Gabbard campaign’s legal counsel insisted that Gabbard is not a Russian asset, and that Clinton knew the statement was untrue when she said it.

It is almost impossible for a public official like Tulsi Gabbard to win a defamation case under existing law, but Clinton’s claim was so ridiculous that Tulsi might have a shot.

Posted on November 11, 2019 by John Hinderaker in 2020 Presidential Election
Gabbard v. Clinton, Continued

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...-continued.php

Hillary Clinton losing the civil suit is incidental. Finally getting her under oath in a real court where she runs the risk of being charged with perjury is a consummation devoutly to be wished.