In his New York Times column yesterday, Paul Krugman did something that he made clear he regarded as quite brave: He defended the Democratic Party presidential nominee and likely next U.S. president from journalistic investigations.
Having long ago dated an attorney, I know that much in the way of their career success comes down to mastering the art of acting. But was there also a course in how to play the scapegoat in order to render one's actions beyond scrutiny?
It seems that the Clintons have a long history of attracting attention for double-dealing. Yet what tends to happen is sympathy surrounds the Clintons like a giant cloud and it fogs up the nature of their actual actions.
Krugman's summary dismissal of the Clinton Foundation's moneymaking tactics, who it breaks bread with, and for what purposes the quid-pro-quo arrangements operate ... is not only repugnant, it's dangerous.
Instead of trying to paint Mrs. Clinton as a saint whose conduct is beyond reproach, REAL journalists ought to be rebelling against a SYSTEM that props up either a clown-fascist or a very passionate supporter of endless wars as well as (Fracking) the War against Nature.
The pair represents NO choice... that is, if citizens intend to live out natural life-spans and preserve this planet!
Nothing in the campaign compares to Trump’s deport-11-million-people or ban-all-Muslim policies, or his attacks on a judge for his Mexican ethnicity, etc.
What's frustrating here is the way that any previous Kissingeresque episodes, much like her objective legal transgressions, manage to once again evaporate into thin air, ready to coalesce again at any moment they're needed.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Clinton Campaign in serious trouble , while at the same time those of the establishment that wanted her as President will do all in their power to ensure she prevails.
Even after the mainstream media changed the way it read the polls so as to make it look like Ms Clinton had overwhelming support with the electorate , those modified polls now show that support eroding. She is speaking to empty halls. Journalists are being fired for suggesting she has health issues. She is claiming that Russia might "fix the elections" and her cadre of supporters are trying to suggest any that are not in favor of Ms Clinton must be supporters of Mr trump.
The fact is this. There is much corruption around Ms Clinton, be it the way the DNC rigged the elections in her favor, to that Clinton foundation, her Email issues which will not go away and all of her hobnobbing with the rich for their money that it simply impossible to keep a lid on it. Any time a person like Krugman tries to plug one leak, another springs forth and the campaign has not even started in earnest yet. There more to come from Assange. Krugman is like the little Dutch boy plugging the leak on the dike with his finger.
This is desperation.
Having followed Krugman during the Bush years and then watching him mostly go missing in action when Obama pushed his version of austerity convinced me that Krugman is a hardcore Democrat loyalist, first, and an economist, second. Definitely off my radar screen until his attack on Sanders and now this recent article of his and, yes, I read it. Have to wonder if he is fishing for a Clinton cabinet position.
Krugman is definitely on Clinton's short list to be considered for her first POTUS press secretary. They could add a Secretary of PR position if they want to create a Cabinet position for him.
LOL Krugman saying "I felt like it was a moral duty" (to write the column).
Anybody defending Clinton or Trump is not demonstrating moral behavior, by any metric.
You got it! GREAT Post!!!!!
This shows how the media on board with not wanting to discuss the coughing fits sufferred by Ms Clinton.
You realize their speaking fees go directly into their pockets?
Just as they were content to allow Reagan's Alzheimer's to float through his Mondale Debates.
In my view, Glenn Greenwald's ongoing work proves that telling the truth during our time has become, indeed, a revolutionary act.
It is a curious read as it indicates more and more how unpopular Clinton is with right and far left on any issue. It is almost on subliminal level; picking and twisting and creating faux "hero-gates" far left is joining republicans in negative attacks on Clinton or anyone who speaks for her. How did Greenwald leap from "reluctant to write" to mockery of a "brave stance" is beyond me, but it is clear that he dislikes anything supporting Clinton.
Corruption presumes some kind of personal gain or benefit. What is Clintons personal benefit from foundation? I have not seen any evidence so far, zero. Yet it is labeled as corruption.
Today Gwen Ifill of the Propaganda Bullshit Service, formerly--very formerly--known as PBS, mebbe before David Koch bought it out--actually kept a straight face asking Tim Kaine softball questions about Clinton vs. Trump. Kaine dutifully spouted the Clinton canard about how she cares about "children and women and families." It was hard not to gag or even hurl. What a choice the electorate gets to make in November! Can we sink any lower?
It is a farce played out on a national stage between the misanthropic malevolent bigot and the neoliberal warmonger Global Fracker in Chief bought and paid for by EVERYONE with a big checkbook. Don't you fret: neither one will lift a finger to stop the egregious rape of Native American land and water; they are too busy raising money and spewing venom.
I generally like Greenwald, but I'm reserving judgement until I hear what Lrx has to say about this.
Never fear, Suspira, there's always Diebold.
Do you always use extremist right wing tea party websites to make your points?
And, dear Canuck, maybe you need to butt out of our elections.
Personal gains: The Clinton Foundation IRS tax form 990 (from 2011-the latest on file) show the main beneficiaries of the Foundation are the Clintons. It's an eyeful.
Strange that you left out the CENTRAL player: The CIA & Pentagon & Arms developers.
You are very much like your Patron saint Ms Clinton who tries to pretend that the information revealed about the DNC working to ensure a Clinton victory not material when it reveals all of that corruption , instead trying to pretend that if Assange leaked it than it must be the Russians at work.
Oh and Mr Assange is an Australian. I am sure there many people in the USA grateful to him for revealing those truths given CNN would never have just as I am grateful for the truths Mr Snowden revealed about Canadian Government spying.Unlike you , I do not think the truth should end at a Countries borders.
Either the article is true or ir is not. You can not dispute the fact that there was no high pollen count in Ohio when the press claimed there was so resort to other tactics. Attacking the source is a cheap ass tactic used by people who can not dispute the facts.In essense, in your attacking the site the article carried on , you are suggesting the only source of truth about that high pollen count must be the mainstream media which openly lied about it.
I will comment on ANYTHING I wish. The people of the USA deserve the truth and if it has to come from outside then so be it because it obviously not going to come form the likes of the DNC , the mainstream media , or from yourself. At least I am not doing what your Patron St Ms Clinton has done , that is supply arms to persons in other countries so as to overthrow elected Governments and sponsor coups in the same.She can not keep her nose out of others elections and I should?
Is this American Exceptionalism at work?
The Clinton Foundation gives less than 10 percent of it's cash intake to charity. The remainder goes to overhead, which includes much of Bill and Hillary's day to day living expenses, plus even donations to some of their friends' for-profit interests, which is illegal, since the Foundation is registered as a non-profit.. Currently, the foundation has about $1,600 million in cash.
Please watch the following movie that was shown at Cannes on May 16th; and, became available to movie theaters on July 24th. It is based on the 2015 New York Times bestseller, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer.
Clinton Cash Official Documentary Movie (Full) (this is streaming from YouTube)
“Clinton Cash’s” investigative findings have been essentially confirmed by the investigative units at several mainstream media outlets, including The New York Times, [The] Washington Post, the New Yorker, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, MSNBC, FOX News, CNN, and several others. Supposedly, FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton are required to read “Clinton Cash” as a backgrounder.
One of the most controversial deals Hillary made as Secretary of State was the her transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Putin’s Russia as nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
In addition to the Foundation cash, Bill Clinton also personally received millions of dollars for speaking fees that appear to be tied to Secretary of State decisions made by Hillary. Abby Martin reported on these apparent conflicts of interest in the following documentary expose of Hillary that also streams directly from YouTube:
Hillary should be charged with treason, convicted, and sent to prison for a very long time. And, Bill should have a little cell of his own.