Whoa! Jill Stein:

[Kingofalldems]

Link to tweet

[PragmaticDem]

1. Good! A vote for the greens is a vote for a republican.

[DownriverDem]

47. If only folks got that

Our system is set up to be two party, no matter how folks wish it was different. So when you lean left and don't vote for the Dems, you only help the repubs and hurt yourself. This was pointed out big time in 2016, but naive voters didn't realize just how much they hurt themselves. It sure is clear now. trump and the repubs are filling up the Fed Courts which down the road will bite us all in the you know what.

[TheBlackAdder]

49. If Jill Stein is in the barrel, there might be evidence of collusion with Flynn or the Trump Campaign.

[Hortensis]

59. This is a REPUBLICAN deflection of "dirt" to the left,

meant to confuse the public further about the Russia investigation. The Senate intelligence committee is controlled by Republicans, of course. Most of us despise Jill Stein, but so does almost everyone else. Which is why the right insists she's really just one of us, her corruption and now her sedition "typical" of us.

And they're desperate. It's recently come out that Putin's circle streamed election campaign money to many of them legally through their own Citizens United, written to make donations to PACs from enemies of our nation legal. But that doesn't mean their voters are all going to think it's okay. If I remember correctly, Russia reportedly channeled something like $1 million to entities serving Senator McConnell.

[Maraya1969]

63. I think if the people who voted for Jill Stein found out she was a Russian pawn and could

therefor change their vote they would vote Democratic. So I think this is good that this news is coming out.

Most of us here took notice of her at that Putin event with Mike Flynn but I think most Democrats have no idea she was there, or that she is probably a shill for the Republicans.

[Hortensis]

64. Sure, agree she's an unprincipled whackadoodle, and

past time people knew it. There are better left-wing hostiles around for those who hum to those messages.

BUT, IMO, that's just a small side issue compared to the huge threat from the right who are merely using her in one of many tactical moves against us.

Speaking of, it looks as if Rosenstein is being accused of lying under oath to congress, over a relatively minor he-said/they-said matter unrelated to the big issues, but the right is busy blowing that up into something as close to a Hillary-size attack as they can manage.

[onit2day]

61. They have no political infrastructure, few experts

and an unrealistic agenda

[Me.]

2. WooHoo

About time for that traitor...wonder who else they'll hook because of ties to Russia...either direct or with a middleman

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. Well, that's a shocker.

[7962]

30. Haaaaaa!

[applegrove]

4. I wondered if she was being funded and encouraged by the right. If it was

Russia that is even worse.

[lunasun]

8. I wondered where her funding was coming from too . At the time I wasn't thinking Russia

Whoa

[applegrove]

15. I had a sneaking suspicion because she was at that dinner in Moscow, but

did not know how involved Russia was in the election at the time, so I did not make a big deal of the Russia angle in my mind.

[Me.]

5. DEleted

a repeat

[GoCubsGo]

6. It's about time. n/t

[LenaBaby61]

7. Whoa! Jill Stein.

[Wounded Bear]

9. Might need to stock up...

[mcar]

10. Good n/t

[R B Garr]

11. Makes you wonder who else demonizing Democrats

is next. Hmm. There’s obviously big money in rat fucking.

Russia Today all have to register as Foreign Agents. Hmm.

[ehrnst]

12. Good.(nt)

[Doreen]

13. About damn time.

[joshcryer]

14. Likely the Michael Flynn connection.

It'll be interesting if she got more support from Russia than is known.

[Dave Starsky]

16. I am shocked.

Shocked, I say.

[Xipe Totec]

17. The Ministry of Information Retrieval Invites you to Assist...

I hereby inform you under powers
entrusted to me under Section 47,
Paragraph 7 of Council Order Number
438476, that Ms. Stein, Jill,
has been invited to
assist the Ministry of Information
with certain enquiries, the nature
of which may be ascertained on
completion of application form
BZ/ST/486/C fourteen days within
this date, and that she is liable
to certain obligations as specified
in Council Order 173497, including
financial restitutions which may
or may not be incurred if
Information Retrieval procedures
beyond those incorporated in Article
7 subsections 8, 10 & 32 are
required to elicit information
leading to permanent arrest
notification of which will she served
with the time period of 5 working
days as stipulated by law. In that
instance the detainee will be
debited without further notice
through central banking procedures
without prejudice until and unless
at such a time when re-imbursement
procedures may be instituted by
you or third parties on completion
of a re-imbursement form
RB/CZ/907/X...

[L. Coyote]

18. Just a friendly reminder, it is a felony to lie to the investigators.

Putin was definitely telegraphing a message to Clinton with this staging, "I'm supporting your opponents!"

[hunter]

19. Feckless "Greens" have always been a ripe target for grifters.

nt

[NurseJackie]

21. Agreed! 100% ... but the Greens aren't the ONLY ones who are gullible...

... and easy targets. I'll just leave it at that.

[SunSeeker]

25. Yep. nt

[NBachers]

31. Well said

[DownriverDem]

48. Lesson Learned?

Many young voters just didn't know how much damage would happen when they bought that HRC wasn't pure enough crap. No one is pure enough and that's the point. It is the young folks that are going to be hurt the most down the road. They were warned, but again they just didn't see how what their vote for the greens would hurt them. And one more thing: So Bernie either join the Dem Party or don't run at all. The country is not Vermont. You energized many voters, but then they didn't follow your lead and vote for HRC. Let's hope the lesson is learned. Until the Dems gain control of the House and/or Senate, we will not be able to stop the repubs.

[NurseJackie]

50. Vanity and purity and egotism and pride come at a very hight price...

... but sadly, the ones who actually PAY that price aren't the same ones who indulge themselves in the luxury of such emotions.

Lesson Learned?

I doubt it. Some people and some politicians never learn. The intentional attacks and divisive rhetoric from those who are supposed to be our allies still continues. Such things divide and weaken our party, and it needs to stop.

[calimary]

60. No freakin' kidding!

I had an argument at a protest rally years ago with a Green Party woman pushing Exercise-In-Futility #52,489, Peter Camejo. I tried in vain to explain to her that this was throwing her vote away on yet another Can't-Possibly-Win. Not to mention throwing her vote away so the bad guy (republi-CON) can end up with an unearned win. She would NOT hear me. She kept insisting - "WE have to SEND a MESSAGE!!!!"

Aw for Pete's Fucking Sake... NOBODY'S gonna give a freakin' damn about your "message." They're certainly not going to get the "message" you assumed you'd be sending. All they're ever gonna do is laugh and sneer at your "message," and clink their filled champagne glasses together as they watch the GOP chalk up another win and a Democrat check off another loss - when YOUR vote and the other third-party votes could have helped push the Democrat over the finish line before the CON could get there. The Green Party dingdongs and the Independent dingdongs and the Peace & Freedom dingdongs and all the rest of 'em just don't get it. All they EVER "succeed" in doing is pushing the candidate who'll do the least for them and their issues into another default win. If they all ever got some sense into their addled little pie-in-the-sky rainbow-unicorn brains, they'd merge with the one single party that ever has any chance to keep the GOP out of power. And that's the Democrats. Like it or not. There's just one choice.

The only "message" you wind up sending if you vote third party is "Hi! I'm a CHUMP!"

All the wishing and hoping that "it'll be different this time!" is nothing more than what the Blues Brothers used to refer to as a "wish sandwich": you have two pieces of bread, and you WISH you had some meat.

[LiberalLovinLug]

20. I highly doubt she had anything to do with directly helping Donald win

She was the one spearheading the recount vote which, if successful, would have defeated him and put in Hillary.

As the article states:
"Trainor said he believes the committee is primarily interested in Stein’s appearances on RT, “vilifying anyone who’s ever appeared on or talked with anyone on the RT network.”

So I guess Thom Hartman, Ed Schultz, and Chris Hedges are all secret Trump double agents as well.
RT was a vehicle to get the progressive point of view out there because there are very few outlets for anyone left of center. Yes Putin approved it, like he approved everything that might disrupt and divide America. But that doesn't mean these hosts were not promoting the truth or were not using that platform to fight everything about Trump. These hosts use Putin more than Putin thinks he is using them.

https://www.thenation.com/article/rt-america-was-not-pro-trump/


But it’s not just intelligence agencies characterizing RT America as a vehicle for pro-Trump messaging. The accusation has become a common theme across traditional US media outlets as anti-Russia hawks and both liberal and conservative analysts seek to discredit anyone who strays from the accepted narrative on RT as a Kremlin stooge.

The problem with the claim that RT America is pro-Trump is that it is simply false. Many of the channel’s biggest names were either ardently anti-Trump or highly skeptical of what a Trump presidency might mean for America.


I just think this is a case of 'no stone left unturned' They may find some other new information by looking into this though, and it looks like Stein and the Green party are cooperating.

Never understood the vile hatred some have for someone who's platform they couldn't name one thing they were against. You defeat the Greens by making their platform redundant, absorbing it and even going further. Politics is a war about ideas, not about personalities.

[NurseJackie]

23. How much money did she make from that "recount" fundraising?

You defeat the Greens by making their platform redundant, absorbing it and even going further.

Why would we want to do that? Democrats are not "the Greens". I've heard a similar argument about how it would be easier for the Democrats to defeat the GOP... if we simply absorbed their platform, blah-blah-blah.

[7962]

32. She raised millions. She certainly didnt SPEND millions. nt

[Jim Lane]

40. Assuming that your bare assertion is true, is it a basis for a Congressional inquest?

AFAIK, every state has an agency that regulates nonprofit fundraising. These are the people who, in several states, have prohibited James O'Keefe and/or Project Veritas from soliciting donations in the state, because of various violations.

Anyone with evidence of improprieties by Stein and/or the Green Party should send it to the appropriate regulator(s). I do not for one minute believe that a political candidate is being investigated by the Senate solely because our legislators are suddenly concerned about fiscal rectitude in the private sector, and that over an amount that wouldn't even be a rounding error in the federal budget.

In the inquiry into Russian involvement in the election, it's not outlandish to ask for some disclosure by Stein. It would, however, be grossly improper to use that inquiry as a coat rack for a McCarthyite program of character assassination.

Some people say that "A vote for Stein was a vote for Trump." Well, guess what, a vote for Trump was a vote for Trump, but more than 60 million people did vote for Trump, and they had a legal right to do so. I think the Trump voters and the Stein voters were making a mistake, but I don't think it's a mistake that's any business of the Senate's.

[7962]

45. No I don't. And I dont think it would fall into the realm of the Senate. I agree with the rest, too

I called her "recount fundraiser" a scam to start with. Enough votes weren't going to be found.

[R B Garr]

62. Its always curious why some people are so put upon

if Jill’s character might be attacked but don’t acknowledge or care that the basis of Jill’s campaign was attacking Hillary’s character. Weird.

[Jim Lane]

65. It's always curious that some people consider attacks on Jill Stein to be a truth-free zone

Premise: We dislike Stein for one reason or another.
Conclusion: Any attack on Stein is permissible, even if it's false or a violation of a public official's duty, and any opposition to such an attack is improper, or maybe weird.

I personally do not subscribe to this syllogism. For example, if someone utters an outright falsehood, I don't think that lying about the liar is therefore justified.

I will concede, however, that such a flexible standard of ethics is not without its adherents, on DU and in the wider world. People who agree with me may well be in the minority.

[R B Garr]

70. It looks like some people will deny known facts, though,

even when it’s now known she is under investigation by the Feds. So they are no longer “attacks” when speaking about Stein’s unsubstantiated smears against Democrats. It’s a fact that she is under investigation for the very things some people refuse to acknowledge — Russian meddling and collusion.

It’s like they can’t stand that the anti-Democrat narrative fails when simple facts about Jill Stein show that colluding with the Russians is why we have Trump. Some people don’t like that the facts negate their preferred anti-Democrat talking points. Weird.

[Jim Lane]

72. Another interesting syllogism.

Premise: "It’s a fact that she is under investigation for ... Russian meddling and collusion."
Conclusion: "[S]imple facts about Jill Stein show that colluding with the Russians is why we have Trump."

Investigation is not the same as accusation, and even accusation is not the same as proof.

Furthermore, even proof of collusion with the Russians would not establish that as "why" Trump is President. It's absolutely clear that there were multiple factors (e.g., media bias, voter suppression, the Comey letter, the Electoral College, and others). If I could wave a magic wand and change one thing about the 2016 general election, I would pick any of those four ahead of "persuade Jill Stein to give up politics forever and enter an ashram."

As for the Green Party, I suspect that most of their voters are irredentist. Put Stein in an ashram, or remove the Green Party from the ballot across the country, and most of those people still wouldn't vote for Clinton. They would stay home or leave the line blank or write in Paul Wellstone or vote for Gloria La Riva on the Socialism and Liberation ticket, rather than compromise their purity by voting for a candidate who might actually beat Trump but who didn't pass all their litmus tests.

[R B Garr]

73. This is laughable, but thats what happens when a failed

narrative is forced beyond any meaningful use or purpose. Once again, some people are more invested in ensuring a false anti-Democrat narrative lives on and that it’s an attack on Jill’s character to report actual real news —like facts that she is under investigation for colluding with the Russians. That is a fact. Your concern for her character being sullied is sadly amusing, considering Jill’s campaign was based on attacking Hillary’s character.

It’s a fact that the Russians attacked only Hillary so they could sway the election with smears about her. It’s a fact that votes for Jill made the difference. It’s a fact that the Russian’s never attacked Bernie. It’s a fact they were targeting Hillary.

After all the phony browbeating about treating third parties as some special guests, it looks like we were right about Jill all along. The FBI is investigating foreign interference.

[LiberalLovinLug]

37. lol

Where have you ever heard a reputable Democrat suggest we incorporate Trump's platform? That that is a sure way to win. That is absurd.

And why would we want to address the same issues as the Greens? Why would we want to make them redundant? Uh....to win elections by making it clear to more radical progressive voters that they don't have to cast a protest vote anymore.

And Stein did not "make" money. There wasn't any money left, and if there was there were plans to donate it to a charity. Google is your friend.

[Volaris]

26. Thank you. I might be deluding myself, but I've long believed that

Chris Hedges is one of the Good Guys. His writing and opinions used to be posted a lot around here; not so much lately...

[maddiemom]

58. Good guy, or not, Hedges has always seemed a little too seriously self-congratulatory and...

as with what I dislike about Jill Stein, that comes from apparent smugness. At least that is how they often come off. Thom Hartmann never comes off as smug. That's the big difference to me.

[Historic NY]

33. Ok I imagine it seem perfectly normal to go on another countries state rum media////

and believe they aren't constrained.

[link:https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/8/rt-russias-government-owned-news-operation-aggress/|]

[LiberalLovinLug]

38. That's what the MSM portends.

But reality proves otherwise. From the article I linked to above I quoted a passage. That even some of the MSM news promotes that falsehood, like the Washington Times.

You think progressive commentators like Chris Hedges just morph into Trump deplorables the second they get on air on RT? Have you ever watched a show by him or Thom Hartmann on there? I can assure you, if you haven't, they are the farthest thing from pro-Trump.

Again...they are not constrained. And that is because Putin understands that A. American liberals would see right through it. B. No reputable liberal host would agree to that. C. Putin allows it on the American version (of course not the Russian version) especially during Obama's time, to be able to also attack our government credibility from the left as well. He mostly feeds the right wing propaganda machine, but he is smart enough to realize that if he just lets more vocal left commentators loose, without constraints, they only have to tell the truth to make the government uncomfortable. Its a way to hit the government from all sides.

But as someone from the left, I see no problem in taking advantage of Putin, calling his bluff, and putting out the truth regardless of who is paying the bills and for whatever reason they are. Especially since we have so few avenues to voice our concerns left.

[Ligyron]

68. Exactly

Use them up, wear them out, make them do or do without.

[SunSeeker]

22. Of course!

Stein has been a pawn for years.

[milestogo]

24. Did she sexually harass Putin?

[Historic NY]

27. She had dinner with him

[lkinwi]

28. Ive been wondering if-when investigations were going to get around to her.

[ProudLib72]

29. HURRAY!!!!!

This makes me so happy

[saidsimplesimon]

34. There are others that

gave a Hollywood glamour in honour of the Tsar Putin. Her name is Goldie.

[kevink077]

35. I knew it

I kept telling dimwits who were voting for her that not only was a vote for her a vote for Trump, I suspected she was funded by far- right groups. Russia does not shock me.

[stonecutter357]

36. K&R

[democratisphere]

39. green Russian colluder.

[oberliner]

41. How many DUers sent her money for the "recount" BS?

Quite a few, if I remember correctly.

[MineralMan]

52. Not this DUer. I wouldn't give her change for the pay phone.

BTW, I saw one the other day. I checked. It didn't work.

[oberliner]

53. Me neither

I tried to talk people out of it at the time.

[louis c]

56. Pay Phone. Well, you're dating yourself. I haven't seen a pay phone in 20 years.

[TomSlick]

42. I remain convinced Stein was on the Putin payroll.

I know of no other evidence but have no other explanation for her actions.

[EricMaundry]

43. I remain convinced that you are right

[Jim Lane]

66. Nah, her campaign was standard-issue Green Party.

Denounce both major parties as corporate tools, minimize or deny entirely the differences between them, nevertheless show more vehemence in denouncing the Democrat than the Republican, reject any pragmatic considerations, complain about difficulties in ballot access and about exclusion from the debates -- that describes Stein's campaign, but it also describes every Green Party campaign for President since the party was founded.

You say you "have no other explanation for her actions." Here's my explanation: If she weren't in the mainstream of the Green Party, she wouldn't have won their nomination. She did what Green Party candidates always do. If Putin paid her to do what she was planning to do anyway, he wasted his money.

[TomSlick]

69. You may well be right.

The philosophy of the Green Party you describe is so incomprehensible to me that I can't imagine anyone with enough brain power to speak coming up with it. However, you accurately describe the history of the Green Party, so again, you may well be right.

I'm more simplistic in my thinking. If someone tells me it's not about the money, it's about the money.

[spanone]

44. hmmmm the picture with vlad...flynn & stein...gets a bit more interesting

[HughBeaumont]

46. Tofu was on the payroll.

Can't believe any progressive likes this butthole.

[DetlefK]

51. Don Jr. has been incredibly cooperative with the committee,

Except when he invented a brand-new definition of attorney-client-privilege.

[wildeyed]

54. Oh look, another person who thought we should prosecute Hillary Clinton

is under investigation for possible collusion with a hostile foreign power! Quelle Suprise! What about JILL STEIN'S emails?

Also, Fuck Jill Stein, because I post that every time her name comes up.

[NastyRiffraff]

55. At last!

There were indications that Stein was a Russian tool, beginning with the infamous "Dinner with Vlad and Mike" photo.

[maddiemom]

57. I NEVER liked Jill Stein and am on record many times over the years in saying it.

I never understood her popularity among those who consider themselves "intellectual'. Like Trump, she has absolutely no governing experience, (but must be smarter, being a physician). The first time I heard her speak (not in person, I'll admit), she struck me as very smug. I didn't disagree with her ideas, but I didn't see any possibility that she would know how to follow through, except for putting a lot of people off. I truly feel that she was in the race to sink Hillary, as she had no chance of winning. I also felt that Nader took some voters away from Gore, but he, at least, had some experience in dealing with issues, and was in the public eye due to success as a consumer advocate. Stein is in the public eye exclusively through running for president.

[Tarc]

67. Jill Stein, a shill for the white supremacist right?

Would not surprise me a bit.

[IluvPitties]

71. I remember her VP candidate at a CNN forum

a black man, by the way, calling Obama a house n*word or something along those lines, and coming up with some BS explanation for such a crude remark. At that point, I realized something was very wrong with Stein's campaign.