Hillary says Tulsi Gabbord is a Russian spy.

[Toni]

Why Mrs. Clinton would speak about ms. Gabbard is a mystery to me.

The most logical speculation would point towards being an asset of the military complex. Or perhaps she is just senile.

Speaking of being an asset, Clinton never mentioned Gabbard at all until Gabbard started publicly declaring that Clinton named her. The strategy of Gabbard going after Clinton has been effective in two ways: it’s gotten Gabbard some free publicity and it gives republicans cover if they decide to ditch the GOP—or say they will—for someone who has is running a campaign against Hillary. Never mind that Clinton isn’t running.

 

[Horatio Parker]

An asset doesn't have to be a spy or even a cooperator. If they are judged by the Russians to be favorable to their interests, they're an asset.

FWIW here's what HRC said:

Plouffe: “So [Trump’s] gonna try and drive the people not to vote for him but just to say, ‘you know, you can’t vote for them either.’ And that seems to be, I think, to the extent that I can devine a strategy, their key strategy right now.”

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

“They’re also gonna do third party again. And I’m not making any predictions but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up. Which she might not, ‘cause she’s also a Russian asset.”

"They" are the Republicans, until the Russians are mentioned. Subsequent "theys" refer to the Russians.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

An asset doesn't have to be a spy or even a cooperator. If they are judged by the Russians to be favorable to their interests, they're an asset.

Hillary Clinton lost the election to Trump. Had she run a better campaign, she would have stopped him. Trump being in power helps Russia. Therefore, Hillary Clinton is a Russian Asset. See how easy this game is?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Everyone who has ever opposed Hillary in any way is a Russian Asset, Russian Agent, or Russian Spy. Hillary is the only person in the United States political class who can possibly save us from the Russians.

 

[Toni]

An asset doesn't have to be a spy or even a cooperator. If they are judged by the Russians to be favorable to their interests, they're an asset.

Hillary Clinton lost the election to Trump. Had she run a better campaign, she would have stopped him. Trump being in power helps Russia. Therefore, Hillary Clinton is a Russian Asset. See how easy this game is?

Sure. Anybody with half a brain could have countered all of the pro-Trump and anti-Clinton propaganda that Russia has put out.

I guess we're all stupid because Russia is still pulling strings.

 

[Horatio Parker]

An asset doesn't have to be a spy or even a cooperator. If they are judged by the Russians to be favorable to their interests, they're an asset.

Hillary Clinton lost the election to Trump. Had she run a better campaign, she would have stopped him. Trump being in power helps Russia. Therefore, Hillary Clinton is a Russian Asset. See how easy this game is?

Nonsense is indeed easy. But keep your day job...

No, Trump is the asset. He favors Putin and generally weakens US world standing.

But who is or isn't an asset is only significant if that interest, Russia e.g., has a troll bot presence in US social media.

 

[laughing dog]

Everyone who has ever opposed Hillary in any way is a Russian Asset, Russian Agent, or Russian Spy.

Wow, I would have never thought that the Libertarian party was a Russian Asset or Agent or Spy. Thanks for the admission.

 

[zorq]

Hillary now says Tulsi is a Russian spy just like Trump is. Hillary Clinton always knows everything and always tells the truth. Therefore if we dont believe that Tulsi and Trump are Russian agents, then everyone who thinks Hillary is full of shit is a conspiracy theory idiot needing a tin foil hat.

https://youtu.be/5ktOunMSzzw

Did Hillary say "Russian Spy" or are you making things up? Or are you just blindly regurgitating some exaggerated bullshit that someone else said?

I gave you three options, which is it?

Whatever exact verbiage Hillary used about Tulsi and her relationship with Russia, we can assume it did not sit well with Tulsi. So much so, that Tulsi has hired a defamation lawyer. It is clearly discussed in the video I posted above. And you can review the exact comments for yourself.

You wrote the OP to this thread and the words "Russian Spy" twice without even knowing what Clinton even said???

You just proved that YOU are full of shit. Not Clinton.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Just be happy that she isn't president.

Ever noticed that the mainstream Democrats never make anything of the fact that that Tulsi is a "woman of colour" or that she is Hindu? Minority stuff that they'd be pushing hard if she fell in line with the Hillary crew. But since she's not with them, its never mentioned.

It’s almost as if being a woman, or a person of color or a Hindu are not actual policy positions or qualifications.

Yes. And they shouldn't be considered. But let's not pretend even for a second that the Hillary Clinton Democrats wouldn't be pushing Tulsi's race and gender and religion and any other identity politics angle they could exploit if she was aligned with them. It is not a valid point to push, but they would if she was with them. They'll ignore it since she's not.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The suggestion that Gabbard is a Russian asset has been out there for months prior to Gabbard trying to ignite any spark in her campaign by claiming (falsely) that Clinton is calling her a Russian asset.

Nothing false about it. That is what Hillary said. She beat around the bush a bit, refering to Gabbard as one of the women running for the Democrat nomination. Everyone knew who she means and her agent confirmed it. "IF the nexting doll fits".

Hillary also specifically named Jill Stein as a Russian Asset who would have to "give it up" in order for Gabbard to become the main one. Stein was rather surprised by this, as she isn't even running for any office whatsoever in 2020. Hillary attacked two different women, declaring them "Russian Agents" and providing absolutely no basis for it when she did. It was pure character attack, likely out of spite because Stein ran against her for the Greens and Gabbard quit the DNC after seeing how it was being run, claiming it to be shady, and likely also because she then backed Sanders.

Gabbard had it made in the DNC and could have shut up and sad down and had quite a nice career for herself. Instead she stood up against what she was as corruption, and I don't think Hillary can let it go. Her snide remarks backfired though, as they gave Tulsi a small bump in the polls.

Frankly if my only choices were Trump or Gabbard, I’d pick Trump because his health isn’t so good and I don’t think he’ll make it another 4 years in office even if he were re-elected. Do I think either or both are Russian assets? Sure. Do I think that either or both are smart enough to know they are assets? Nope and I don’t think either care.

Lets get to the heart of this "Russian Agent" thing, especially if you are going to equate her to Trump.
I've not yet seen anyone on this forum outline why they think she's one, other than that she's against the wars, having been a soldier in them herself. What exactly do you imagine her to be if you think she's on par with Trump? Is she just a dupe? is he? Or are they both secret agents of Russia doing Russian's bidding as outright spies?

Have you been watching a lot of Rachel Maddow by chance? Its like Fox News but reverse.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

An asset doesn't have to be a spy or even a cooperator. If they are judged by the Russians to be favorable to their interests, they're an asset.

Hillary Clinton lost the election to Trump. Had she run a better campaign, she would have stopped him. Trump being in power helps Russia. Therefore, Hillary Clinton is a Russian Asset. See how easy this game is?

Nonsense is indeed easy. But keep your day job...

No, Trump is the asset. He favors Putin and generally weakens US world standing.

But who is or isn't an asset is only significant if that interest, Russia e.g., has a troll bot presence in US social media.

One could argue that Trump is an asset because he refuses to criticize Putin, or because he has business dealings in Russia, etc. Its a conspiracy theory that would need some significant fleshing out before it should be taken as truth, but it could be. But how about Gabbard? How about Jill Stein? As noted about, everyone who opposes Hillary seems to suddenly be found out to be a Russian Asset. Only she can save us!

 

[Horatio Parker]

Nonsense is indeed easy. But keep your day job...

No, Trump is the asset. He favors Putin and generally weakens US world standing.

But who is or isn't an asset is only significant if that interest, Russia e.g., has a troll bot presence in US social media.

One could argue that Trump is an asset because he refuses to criticize Putin, or because he has business dealings in Russia, etc. Its a conspiracy theory that would need some significant fleshing out before it should be taken as truth, but it could be. But how about Gabbard? How about Jill Stein? As noted about, everyone who opposes Hillary seems to suddenly be found out to be a Russian Asset. Only she can save us!

Opposes Hillary? Wtf are you talking about?

Gabbard and Stein are assets because of their potential to split the Dem vote. Trump is lagging in the polls and using a third party candidate is a logical tactic.

 

[zorq]

The suggestion that Gabbard is a Russian asset has been out there for months prior to Gabbard trying to ignite any spark in her campaign by claiming (falsely) that Clinton is calling her a Russian asset.

Nothing false about it. That is what Hillary said. She beat around the bush a bit, refering to Gabbard as one of the women running for the Democrat nomination. Everyone knew who she means and her agent confirmed it. "IF the nexting doll fits".

Hillary also specifically named Jill Stein as a Russian Asset who would have to "give it up" in order for Gabbard to become the main one. Stein was rather surprised by this, as she isn't even running for any office whatsoever in 2020. Hillary attacked two different women, declaring them "Russian Agents" and providing absolutely no basis for it when she did. It was pure character attack, likely out of spite because Stein ran against her for the Greens and Gabbard quit the DNC after seeing how it was being run, claiming it to be shady, and likely also because she then backed Sanders.

Gabbard had it made in the DNC and could have shut up and sad down and had quite a nice career for herself. Instead she stood up against what she was as corruption, and I don't think Hillary can let it go. Her snide remarks backfired though, as they gave Tulsi a small bump in the polls.

Frankly if my only choices were Trump or Gabbard, I’d pick Trump because his health isn’t so good and I don’t think he’ll make it another 4 years in office even if he were re-elected. Do I think either or both are Russian assets? Sure. Do I think that either or both are smart enough to know they are assets? Nope and I don’t think either care.

Lets get to the heart of this "Russian Agent" thing, especially if you are going to equate her to Trump.
I've not yet seen anyone on this forum outline why they think she's one, other than that she's against the wars, having been a soldier in them herself. What exactly do you imagine her to be if you think she's on par with Trump? Is she just a dupe? is he? Or are they both secret agents of Russia doing Russian's bidding as outright spies?

Have you been watching a lot of Rachel Maddow by chance? Its like Fox News but reverse.

Now you are saying that Clinton called these women "Russian Agents." But she did not. Trump used those words, but Trump is never right about anything.

An asset is not an agent OR a spy, that's why it has its own word. Is this a problem with English or just too much propaganda pollution? The context of Clinton's quote makes it clear that she thinks these women are the "useful idiots" classification of an asset. Useful idiots are NOT agents NOR spies.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

He knows. He has a job to do.

 

[RVonse]

Now you are saying that Clinton called these women "Russian Agents." But she did not. Trump used those words, but Trump is never right about anything.

An asset is not an agent OR a spy, that's why it has its own word. Is this a problem with English or just too much propaganda pollution? The context of Clinton's quote makes it clear that she thinks these women are the "useful idiots" classification of an asset. Useful idiots are NOT agents NOR spies.

She could have said useful idiots if that is what she really meant. In the case of Trump, I would think an impeachment hearing would be based on much more than someone being a useful idiot as well. But that would be expecting too much from Nancy Peloci.

Like Jolly said, only Hillary can tell any of you whether Russia is so bad because you are partisan loyalists, your brains have shut down, and have stopped thinking for yourselves.

 

[zorq]

Now you are saying that Clinton called these women "Russian Agents." But she did not. Trump used those words, but Trump is never right about anything.

An asset is not an agent OR a spy, that's why it has its own word. Is this a problem with English or just too much propaganda pollution? The context of Clinton's quote makes it clear that she thinks these women are the "useful idiots" classification of an asset. Useful idiots are NOT agents NOR spies.

She could have said useful idiots if that is what she really meant. In the case of Trump, I would think an impeachment hearing would be based on much more than someone being a useful idiot as well. But that would be expecting too much from Nancy Peloci.

Like Jolly said, only Hillary can tell any of you whether Russia is so bad because you are partisan loyalists, your brains have shut down, and have stopped thinking for yourselves.

My brain has shut down? Why is it that you can't tell the difference between the word "spy" and "asset?" If anything it is YOUR partisanship that is making you hallucinate words that were never said!

Oh, and PS. It sounds like your partisanship has also prevented you from understanding what this impeachment is about. Trump's impeachment isn't about him being a "useful idiot." Right now it is limited to extorting an illegal campaign contribution from a foreign power using taxpayer money. But it might likely expand out into tax fraud and obstruction of justice. We'll just have to wait and see.

Oh, and PPS. It is obvious that Russia has no interest in a successful US. Nothing Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton could say would change the facts regarding public Russian foreign policy goals.

 

[barbos]

I was under impression that she used expression "Russian asset", not "spy". Having said that, Hillary&neocon gang which is 90% of democratic party are really overdoing this "Russia, Russia, Russia!" thing.
To me it's really simple, Putin correctly concluded (yes, I am talking about that infamous sex video) that Hillary was behind his troubles with opposition protests and passive aggressively let Hillary know that he does not like her. Unfortunately for Putin, it backfired - Hillary lost and now Democratic Party and especially Hillary hate him unquestionably. I think if Putin was smart he would have openly supported democratic candidate against Trump in this election. Of course that could piss off republicans but Putin can always say "Trump again? Really?"

In short, it's a bit disingenuous for Hillary to push this Russia thing after she tried to overthrow Putin first.

 

[barbos]

Oh, and PPS. It is obvious that Russia has no interest in a successful US. Nothing Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton could say would change the facts regarding public Russian foreign policy goals.

Come on, you are being ridiculous, It's US foreign policy, not Russian. Russian foreign policy is to counteract this US policy.

 

[Toni]

The suggestion that Gabbard is a Russian asset has been out there for months prior to Gabbard trying to ignite any spark in her campaign by claiming (falsely) that Clinton is calling her a Russian asset.

Nothing false about it. That is what Hillary said. She beat around the bush a bit, refering to Gabbard as one of the women running for the Democrat nomination. Everyone knew who she means and her agent confirmed it. "IF the nexting doll fits".

Hillary also specifically named Jill Stein as a Russian Asset who would have to "give it up" in order for Gabbard to become the main one. Stein was rather surprised by this, as she isn't even running for any office whatsoever in 2020. Hillary attacked two different women, declaring them "Russian Agents" and providing absolutely no basis for it when she did. It was pure character attack, likely out of spite because Stein ran against her for the Greens and Gabbard quit the DNC after seeing how it was being run, claiming it to be shady, and likely also because she then backed Sanders.

Gabbard had it made in the DNC and could have shut up and sad down and had quite a nice career for herself. Instead she stood up against what she was as corruption, and I don't think Hillary can let it go. Her snide remarks backfired though, as they gave Tulsi a small bump in the polls.

Frankly if my only choices were Trump or Gabbard, I’d pick Trump because his health isn’t so good and I don’t think he’ll make it another 4 years in office even if he were re-elected. Do I think either or both are Russian assets? Sure. Do I think that either or both are smart enough to know they are assets? Nope and I don’t think either care.

Lets get to the heart of this "Russian Agent" thing, especially if you are going to equate her to Trump.
I've not yet seen anyone on this forum outline why they think she's one, other than that she's against the wars, having been a soldier in them herself. What exactly do you imagine her to be if you think she's on par with Trump? Is she just a dupe? is he? Or are they both secret agents of Russia doing Russian's bidding as outright spies?

Have you been watching a lot of Rachel Maddow by chance? Its like Fox News but reverse.

Clinton didn't say that Gabbard was a Russian asset. As I've said before, I read that months ago, not that long after Gabbard announced, and from multiple sources. Gabbard decided to make as much political hay as possible out of Clinton's remarks since Clinton is well known and Gabbard.....is not.

Gabbard has taken anti-gay stances, including working for her father's anti-gay group, Alliance for Traditional Marriage. Yes, she was young at the time but she took a pretty strong anti-gay stance. Maybe she's changed her mind....

She's been endorsed by David Duke, Steve Bannon and Richard Spencer. She's rejected their endorsements but it's a little telling that these men have endorsed her based on her performance.

As far as being anti-war, she criticized Obama for not bombing Syria. She later met with al Asad and has aligned herself with Egyptian el Sissi and weirdly enough, was at the same time closely aligned with India's Modi. She seems to have the same thing for dictators as Trump. But maybe she's just showing her bipartisan chops: for Muslims/against Muslims.

Oh, and she's excused torture as well.

Pretty anti-war of her.

My take is that she's all over the spectrum because she's just trying to see what sticks with whoever will support her.

 

[barbos]

My take is that she's all over the spectrum because she's just trying to see what sticks with whoever will support her.

Well, Hillary is certainly guilty of that too. I remember during her campaign she was asked some question and did not really have a straight answer so she said something to the extent of "I will do whatever people like me to do"