Yesterday, Hillary Clinton - in widely publicized comments - voiced grave accusations against 2 women (Jill Stein & Tulsi Gabbard) without a shred of evidence, accusing them of being "Russian assets," which would be disloyal & criminal. Count how many Dems have denounced this.
Casually accusing critics of the Democratic Party (even when they're Democrats!) of being Kremlin assets is a serious pathology in Democratic Party politics. So few prominent Democrats (if any) condemned Hillary because they don't recognize it as wrong: it's their prime tactic.
Yes, Russia favors candidates who advocate peace, rather than conflict, with them. Putin & Medvedev openly favored Obama over Romney in 2012 for that reason. That didn't make Obama a "Kremlin asset": dw.com/en/russia-root…
The US also interferes in other countries' elections to support candidates they believe best serve US interests. Obama endorsed both Macron & Trudeau. And then there's the CIA which, you know, subverts or overthrows governments it dislikes & replaces it with more pro-US tyrants.
But whatever else is true, there should be no place in US politics or US discourse for voicing accusations against people with no evidence. And the graver the accusation is (treason, Kremlin asset), the more contemptible it is to do it without evidence.
Kudos to @VanJones68 and @ErinBurnett for unflinchingly explaining on CNN last night how reckless and despicable Hillary Clinton's accusations are against Tulsi Gabbard (should also include the ones against Jill Stein). Let me know any prominent Dem has the integrity to do this:
@VanJones68 @ErinBurnett Here's how @VanJones68 and @ErinBurnett concluded their discussion: "Hillary Clinton is playing a very dangerous game" by "smearing people casually". It's easy for Big, Bad, Brave journalists to denounce Trump; this takes actual courage:
