Corruption, empire watch, latest, USA
Comments 6

Are Both Trump and Sanders Falling for a Dirty Trick from Clinton?

by Eric Zuesse

On Saturday, I provided a transcript of a remarkable allegation by a gifted private investigator who has a background not only as a crackerjack reporter about political dirty tricks in both Parties, but formerly as Richard Nixon’s top dirty-trickster himself, and who has recently turned against the Republican Party’s establishment and become a Trump supporter: he hates both Hillary Clinton and the Republican Establishment candidates, because he has become rabid against their shared hypocrisies, which know no Party (and that is certainly true). He said, alleging his inside sources (which he really does have, and which has made him so formidable in the past), that Hillary Clinton worked with George Soros and the son of Peter Lewis, and one unnamed member of Congress, to arrange for black supporters of Bernie Sanders in Chicago and elsewhere, to go violent at Trump rallies, so as to draw public contempt upon both Hillary’s current opponent, Sanders, and her general-election opponent Trump. It’s a brilliant tactic, if it is the real explanation for those incidents, but, shockingly, both Trump and Sanders are playing along with it — even if Hillary’s team aren’t  behind it (in which case, they’d both be unprincipled, not merely stupid, for not condemning anyone at any political rally who incites violence at any political rally — which neither of them has yet clearly done).

The reporter alleging this scheme is Roger Stone, a man loathed by all progressives, and I cannot yet say whether or not his allegations are true. Judge them for yourself (his allegations are again linked-to there), as to whether or not they are. But, the rationale that Stone lays out for it in his presentation is certainly true: These incidents are enormously helpful to Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning both the Democratic nomination, and then the Presidency: she is the sole beneficiary of them.

This raises the even more puzzling question as to why both Sanders and Trump are simply ignoring even the possibility  that the Clinton campaign is behind these violent protests: each of the two is flat-out blaming the other for them.

Are both of them so stupid they don’t even care enough to investigate before accusing each other of what might possibly be instead a truer and deeper explanation of what produced these violent demonstrators disrupting a Presidential candidate’s rallies?

Whatever one might happen to think of either Sanders or Trump, I am puzzled, first, that Sanders did not at the outset condemn anyone who disrupted a candidate’s political rallies, and, second, that Trump is now so stupid as to threaten to do the same to Sanders’s rallies. Frankly, the responses of both — not condemning anyone who goes violent against any political rally — aren’t merely condoning violations of other people’s free-speech rights, and therefore unprincipled, but make extremely poor political sense (and that’s true regardless of whether or not Clinton is behind this).

Clearly, the FBI should be charging everyone who has been involved in these violent actions, in order to plea-bargain them to answer, under oath, where the idea to do this originated, and whether they’d received any support from higher-ups, and, if so, from whom, and to allow the FBI access to their communication-records, or, if that cooperation is denied, for court-warrants to be sought in order to obtain such records. However, there is no indication that such essential FBI actions have been taken; and the question therefore arises: why not? Is it to throw a Presidential election to the incumbent’s favored successor?

I have asked a certain crackerjack Silicon Valley lawyer to help to find an appropriate FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) specialist to determine whether there’s a possibility whether the White House might be cooperating with the Clinton campaign by blocking FBI agents from interviewing leaders of those protests, such as Ja’Mal Green, and Nathaniel Lewis, in order to find out whether those organizers had ever received encouragement from Move-On or other entities to organize these incidents. He replied:

I agree that the whole thing is very disturbing.  It is obviously organized — it’s happened at a number of Trump rallies across several states — Illinois, Ohio, Kansas, etc. — and is indeed changing the campaign dynamic on both sides.

In addition, MoveOn more or less admitted in an email (are you on their mailing list) that they helped organize protesters to Trump rallies.  Very disappointed … I applauded MoveOn for endorsing Sanders, but condemn them for organizing protesters to the other guy’s rallies … especially while things are still in the nomination stage!

I’ll reach out and see if I can get a FOIA expert interested.

That attorney also just now sent me the link to this, in which the old Chicago Obama-friend Bill Ayres helps hype-up Trump’s alleged evil in this matter. Is he a participant in an Obama-Clinton operation; and, if so, is it knowingly, or instead only as a sucker who was brought into the operation by Soros or others?

Any appropriate attorney is welcomed to leave an email address in a reader-comment to this post, and I shall get back to that person to discuss the matter further. Time is very short to do this, but if the White House is participating in hiding the actual organizers behind these incidents, then the public needs to know about that ASAP.

Right now there are only very reasonable questions. But they must be answered very fast.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

 

6 Comments

  1. Seamus Padraig says

    I suspected as much myself as soon as I heard about what happened last week in Chicago. On another forum, I commented:

    “What if the protesters were really sent by the Hillary campaign in the hopes that Trump supporters would retaliate at a Bernie rally? That way, Hillary could pose as the ‘uniter’, the only one capable of ‘bringing us all together again’. It worked for Nixon in ’68. Back then, many people believed that Nixon was a washed up, establishment politician who had already lost too many races to be taken seriously. But after the Democratic Party convention, he was able to turn his boring, establishment image to his advantage, convincing people that he could restore ‘law and order’. That–and the fact that both BLM and MoveOn.org are Soros-outfits–is how we know that the protesters were working for Hellary.

    And also:

    “How long do you think it will be before some fanatical pro-Trump people decide to launch ‘retaliatory strikes’ at Bernie rallies? Clearly, Hellary would stand to gain from a scenario where supporters of Sanders and Trump start beefing. Not only does this help to strengthen the Trump-as-thuggish-klansman narrative, but it also ensure that most of Bernie’s supporters will not defect to Trump if Hellary wins the nomination. There will simply be too much bad blood for that to happen.”

    I’m not at all surprised that an ex-Nixon-man came to the same conclusion!




    0



    0
  2. Alan says

    Although there may be basis in such accusations, given Mrs Clinton’s horrendous record to date, allied with Mr Sander’s silence upon such a record and Mr Trump’s diversionary theatrics, a wider conspiracy appears afoot. The US (not American) elections will yield the already chosen US (not American) President.




    0



    0
    • Shelly says

      The election was meant to be Jeb Bush vs Hilary Clinton. Things are definitely going wrong for TPTB and they are resorting to desperate (and dangerous) tactics.

      Our ‘democracies’ need people to vote for policies that will ultimately hurt them. Lots of people voted for Thatcher’s ‘sell of the national assets for a fraction of their true value’ policies. Even now when it should be clear to everyone that these policies were a very bad idea the people who voted for them (and in many cases their children) can’t admit that they got it wrong. Psychologically people just can’t accept that they have failed their children and grandchildren. This is re-enforced by a society which blames individuals for failure and tries hard to ignore wider social causes (in this case people voted against their families long term interests in part because they were lied to by the media).




      0



      0

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole