Bernie Sanders is beholden to the corrupt Democrats since they appointed him to seven paying committees in the Senate. He will not jeopardize his well-being for our well-being.
Bernie Sanders–reporting over $200,000 in income, with a fat pension, the best benefits money can buy, and a $30 million book deal awaiting him after the election, and promises of big rewards from Hillary for endorsing and supporting her–will not throw all of that away for a political campaign.
His campaign was just that: a campaign. It was never a political revolution. Leaders of political revolutions never quit before the official battle begins, and say that they will vote for and support their enemies. When the moment arrived of walking all that endless talk of Bernie Sanders about fighting his political revolution, he caved out of self interest, and sold out all of his 10 million followers, who gave out of their meager earnings $220 million to fight the so-called revolution.
The movement will die after July because Berners will lose their leader. They will vote for Hillary, Trump, Stein, Johnson, Bernie, and Hillary will become President. And after the official sell out at the Democratic Convention in July, Bernie will return to the Senate, and give more bullshit speeches to an empty chamber about income inequality.
Like Jerry Brown, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders was just another fake-left disappointment offered to progressive by the DNC to herd them back into the corral of the Democratic party.
Bernie Sanders betrayed his millions of supporters out of self interest. He is no less a traitor than Benedict Arnold.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Jill Stein, what do you say to those, for instance, who criticize third-party efforts as spoiler efforts throughout the history of the country—Ross Perot running in the early ’90s with the result that Bill Clinton was able to defeat the Republican candidate, then, of course, Ralph Nader in the 2000 race, blamed by some, although others disagree that that was the result, for resulting in George Bush being elected in 2000?
DR. JILL STEIN: So, let me say first off, this is a problem that could be fixed with the stroke of a pen, this electoral system that tells you to vote against what you’re afraid of and not for what you believe. And, you know, what we’ve seen over the years, this strategy has a track record: This politics of fear has actually delivered everything we were afraid of. All the reasons you were told you had to vote for the lesser evil—because you didn’t want the massive Wall Street bailouts, the offshoring of our jobs, the meltdown of the climate, the endless expanding wars, the attack on immigrants—all that, we’ve gotten by the droves, because we allowed ourselves to be silenced. You know, silence is not what democracy needs. Right now we have an election where even the supporters of Hillary Clinton, the majority don’t support Hillary, they just oppose Donald Trump. And the majority of Donald Trump supporters don’t support him, they just oppose Hillary. And the majority are clamoring for another independent or several independent candidates and an independent party, and feel that they are being terribly misserved and mistreated by the current politics. So to further silence our voices is exactly the wrong thing to do. And I’ll just point out, Donald Trump himself is lifted up by a movement which is very much the product of the Clintons’ policies. The lesser evil very much makes inevitable the greater evil, because people don’t come out to vote for a politician that’s throwing them under the bus. And so we see houses of—the houses of Congress, we have also seen statehouse after statehouse, flipping from red to blue over the years as the Democratic Party has become a lesser-evil party. And Donald Trump is buoyed up by the policies passed by Bill Clinton, supported by Hillary—that is, deregulation of Wall Street, which led to the disappearance of 9 million jobs, 5 million people thrown out of their homes, and by NAFTA, which exported those jobs. That’s exactly the economic oppression and stress that has led to this right-wing extremism. So you can’t get where you want to go through the lesser evil. At the end of the day, you’ve got to stand up.
But we could fix this right now simply by passing ranked choice voting, which takes the fear out of voting. If you can’t put your values into your vote, we don’t have a democracy. Ranked choice voting says you can rank your first choice first, and if your first choice doesn’t make it, is eliminated and loses, your vote is automatically reassigned to your second choice. This is used in cities across the country. My campaign actually proposed this in the Massachusetts Legislature through a progressive Democratic representative back in 2002 in the first race that I ran. I was running for governor. We proposed that bill, filed it, so that there would be no splitting of the vote. The Democrats refused to let it out of committee. And that tells you something very important: They rely on fear. They don’t want you to vote your values. They need to use the scary tactic of, “Oh, the other guy is worse.” Why is that? Because at the end of the day, they are not on your side. They need you to be afraid of them, because they are not for you. That alone speaks volumes about how far we are going to get.
In this race, I’ll just conclude saying, this is a unique moment now. We’ve never been here in history before. What we are facing, you know, is not just a question of what kind of world we want to be, but whether we will be a world at all, the way the nuclear arms race has been re-engaged, the way Hillary Clinton wants to create an air war over Syria through a no-fly zone against another nuclear-armed power—that is, Russia—the climate crisis, where the day of reckoning is coming closer and closer all the time. We can’t keep using this failed policy of silencing ourselves with this politics of fear. It’s time to forget the lesser evil, stand up and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do.
AMY GOODMAN: And to those Sanders supporters who have started saying, “If it’s Hill, it’s Jill”? And this is going back to the point of what would you say to Sanders supporters worried about Trump.
DR. JILL STEIN: Yes, exactly. I’d say putting another Clinton in the White House is only going to make that right-wing extremism greater. We will see more of these neoliberal policies, like Wall Street deregulation, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Hillary has always supported. She’s changed her tune a little bit, but Hillary has walked the walk. Look at the walk and not the talk. In fact, you know, Trump says very scary things—deporting immigrants, massive militarism and, you know, ignoring the climate. Well, Hillary, unfortunately, has a track record for doing all of those things. Hillary has supported the deportations of immigrants, opposed the refugees—women and children coming from Honduras, whose refugee crisis she was very much responsible for by giving a thumbs-up to this corporate coup in Honduras that has created the violence from which those refugees are fleeing. She basically said, “No, bar the gates, send them back.” You know, so we see these draconian things that Donald Trump is talking about, we actually see Hillary Clinton doing.
And it’s not only the militarism that Trump talks about, it’s Hillary’s massive record of militarism: the rush into Libya, which was really—you know, she was the prime mover behind that campaign, which the military advisers were largely against; her approval for the war in Iraq and so on; you know, her threat to bomb Iran; and, you know, she—and her demonization of Russia and China, and the pivot against China. We are rushing towards war with Hillary Clinton, who has a track record.
And on climate, you know, Trump talks terrible on climate, although in Ireland, I believe it is, he does believe in climate change: He’s trying to build a wall to protect one of his luxury golf courses in Ireland, because he’s worried about sea level rise from climate change, according to the papers that he’s filed for that permit. And on climate, Hillary Clinton established an office to promote fracking around the world, while secretary of state.
So, the terrible things that we expect from Donald Trump, we’ve actually already seen from Hillary Clinton. So I’d say, don’t be a victim of this propaganda campaign, which is being waged by people who exercise selective amnesia. They’re very quick to tell you about the terrible things that the Republicans did, but they’re very quick to forget the equally terrible things that have happened under a Democratic White House, with two Democratic houses of Congress. It’s time to forget the lesser evil, stand up and fight for the greater good. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. Neither—
AMY GOODMAN: Jill Stein, we just—we just have—
DR. JILL STEIN: Neither party of the evils will do it for us.
AMY GOODMAN: We just have 30 seconds, but your unsolicited advice, unsolicited by Bernie Sanders, for what he should demand when he meets with President Obama today, and then your advice to him when he comes outside?
DR. JILL STEIN: You know, I don’t think President Obama is going to change his tune because of something that Bernie Sanders says to him. I think what’s really important—you know, in the words of Frederick Douglass, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will.” This is why third parties are effective, whether they’re in power or whether they are simply pushing. Otherwise, there is no counterweight of the power of corporations, which have basically taken over the two major corporate political parties. So, I think it’s very important for Bernie to—you know, to have a teachable moment here and to take heed of his experience of the last many months, and for him to actually stand up and do what the world needs for him to do and what the world needs for this movement to do. And if Bernie is not able to overcome his experience of many decades as a loyal and faithful Democrat, I really understand that. But I think for those of us who are living in today and who are seeing what tomorrow looks like, it’s very important for us to move ahead and take back the America and the world that works for all of us, based on putting people, planet and peace over profit.
AMY GOODMAN: Jill Stein, we want to thank you for being with us, 2016 presidential candidate for the Green Party.
My Response To Being Attacked By Josh Holland In Raw Story Concerning #ExitPollGate
I want to take a moment to respond to a recent hit piece against me by Joshua Holland in Raw Story.
It involves a meme I created that the actor Tim Robbins then retweeted. The meme shows the difference between the exit polls in several states and the results given by the voting machines. I and many others believe the massive difference in the numbers is due to election fraud, but we’ll get to that in a moment.
Let’s start with the end of the article where Josh Holland tries to further indict me by closing with “I asked Lee Camp if he was ‘interested in the fact that this is factually inaccurate and really misleading? I mean, can a meme be retracted? Is that something that would interest you?’ He didn’t respond.”
Josh Holland believes he “asked” me this because he sent an email to an account I don’t check often. As Holland certainly knows, I get hundreds of emails a day. I’m sure he does too. Many of those emails are from very strange people who send meaningless crap. The name “Josh Holland” did not stand out to me. Then when I did read the email, he didn’t introduce himself as anyone of note or a reporter for that matter. Going back through my emails I can see he had a signature at the bottom that says he’s a writer, but how often do people scan through signatures when they receive weird sarcastic angry emails? So this is a guy who couldn’t pass the most basic hurdle of journalistic integrity – Let the person you’re “interviewing” know that you’re interviewing them for an article. And then he implies that because I didn’t respond, I can’t defend the meme I created.
I can, however, and I will. Not just because I want to correct Josh Holland’s journalism fail but because I want people to hear the facts behind the corporate mouthpieces who uphold this fraud for the powers that be.
Josh Holland wants to lead you to believe that exit polls (in my meme and gathered together by Richard Charnin) are just wildly inaccurate and basically don’t mean anything. But it’s quite easy to find screen shots or video that verify the exit poll numbers I used. CNN did indeed report Bernie Sanders was losing by 4% according to exit polls (Watch it here). So if these numbers are incorrect, that begs the question why CNN or other news outlets would report them at all. I mean, shouldn’t Mr. Holland spend most of his time writing headlines like, “CNN Reports Wildly Incorrect Exit Poll Numbers”? That sounds like quite the scandal. Rather than go after CNN or NBC for reporting these numbers (that he believes are false), Holland attacks me.
Holland goes on to quote Joe Lenski (which he spells “Lensky”) who he says is with Edison Research. However, it’s tough to know whether Lenski knew he was being interviewed since Holland prefers to avoid revealing he’s interviewing people for articles. For all we know Lenski was just making stuff up in an online chat with someone he thought was a sexy co-ed.
Lenski apparently told Holland that American exit polls are “just not designed for that type of precision. They’re surveys, and like any other survey, they have a margin of error.” What Holland is very careful to avoid revealing to readers is that there is an exact margin of error. It’s +/-4% according to Edison Research’s website. However, the NY exit polls were off by TWELVE PERCENT. And many states were equally wildly off. Holland does a fine job of avoiding such inconvenient facts.
Furthermore, this entire line of thought is a contradiction for Mr. Holland. At one point he wants you to believe the exit polls Charnin used for his analysis are INCORRECT (different from what was reported) and then a few paragraphs later he wants you to believe they are CORRECT but NOT PRECISE (the same as what was reported but it doesn’t matter). Which is it, Mr. Holland? Are they the correct exit poll numbers but the polls aren’t very good? Or are they incorrect exit poll numbers altogether? You can’t have it both ways. That’s like saying, “I did NOT sleep with that woman. AND I didn’t enjoy it.”
Even IF we go with Mr. Holland’s thesis that exit polls in America are all but meaningless but that they’re REALLY GOOD in other countries, you would think Holland would want to use his masterful reporting skills to find out why the most powerful “democracy” in the world doesn’t want verifiable proof that their voting system is working properly. Mr. Holland would surely then start researching the voting machine audits in places like Chicago where widespread fraud WAS INDEED discovered. Mr. Holland might also want to let his readers know about Diebold – the company that used to run our voting machines until they were indicted by federal prosecutors for “worldwide criminal conduct.” Or he might want to mention how certain voting machines are ripe for hacking according to cyber security experts. But no, facts like that are not good for Mr. Holland’s argument that these elections are pristine.
Finally Holland seems to confuse two kinds of “adjusted” poll numbers. He thinks that “adjusting” for non-response rates is the same as “adjusting” for what the voting machines tell us. When people (like me) say they’re looking at “unadjusted” poll numbers, they mean they’re looking at poll numbers before they were FORCED to fit with the machine tallies. As election fraud expert and NY Times bestselling author Greg Palast told me, “After Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, when exit polls showed Gore and Kerry as winners, US TV networks asked exit polling contractors to ‘conform’ the results to the official results. So, of course, all evidence of hanky-panky disappears.” Holland seems to entirely misunderstand what “adjusted” means. There’s no mention of Lensky carefully explaining this to Holland, but who knows what happened in that conversation that wasn’t reported.
Or perhaps Holland would like to let his readers know that the 2004 election was INDEED stolen for the Republicans as proven by Greg Palast, and that the exit polls showed as much.
But Josh Holland is in a tough spot. He’s trying to defend a system that was recently rated by a Harvard study as the worst in the Western world for fair elections. That’s not an easy job. It’s like being the current publicist for Bill Cosby. Holland has to rely on smoke and mirrors because this system is so clearly corrupt. Over 50% of America already believes the presidential nominating system is rigged.
So I sent an email to Mr. Holland saying, “Are you interested in the fact that your reporting is factually inaccurate and really misleading? I mean, can a column be retracted? Is that something that would interest you?” …I sent it to an email address he doesn’t often check and didn’t identify myself. …I haven’t heard back.
UPDATE: Richard Charnin and Bob Fitrakis (the author of six books on election integrity) have ALSO responded to Josh Holland’s sad attempt at reporting. They tear his argument limb from limb with simple facts. Read their responses HERE.
UPDATE #2: Here is another well-researched article demonstrating election fraud by looking at the exit polls. It brings up an interesting point that I did not know before. If Holland’s assertion that the exit polls are all just WILDLY OFF all the time is true, then they would be WAY off for the GOP primary as well. They AREN’T. According to the article, the GOP primary exit polls have been almost dead on. This further negates Holland’s evidence-free argument.
All Speakers: Ralph Nader and Greta Wodele Brawner
Greta Wodele Brawner
EN LOT OF MONEY6 HOST: WHAT WILL HE ASK FOR AT THE CONVENTION?
CALLER: HE WILL GET A PRIMETIME SPOT BUT CONVENTION, THEY ARE REALLY VAUISHED AND SUPPORTING DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES FOR ELECTION AND HE IS LIKELY TO LEND HIS CREDIBILITY TO HILLARY’S IN CREDIBILITY. Show Less Text
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: SO SHOULD HE LAUNCH AN INDEPENDENT BID?
GUEST: IT IS TOO LATE. IT MAKES SURE YOU HAVE TO CLIM MOUNTATO GS OETH — A MILITARIST. THE NEW YORK TIMES IS ENDORSING HILLARY AND STILL HAVING A PAGE ONE STORY ON HILLARY THE HAWK. SHE SCARES OBAMA. SHE SCARES SOME OF THE GENERALS. WAR IS THE FIRST CHOICE AND LOOK AT THE LIBYA ATTACK, WHICH WAS A DISAROUS, CHAOS AND VIOLENCE SPILLING INTO AA Show Less Text
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST:S FOR WALL STREET. IF YAB TWATPE, SHE ISIRST F PREDTABLE. THS, I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OUT AGAINST COAL COMPANIES LIKE PATRIOT AND PEABODY THAT HAVE TRIED TO SHIRK THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES TO WORKERS AND RETIREES. THEY MOVE INTO RENEWABLE ENERGY WORK, WHICH THEY CAN BE PROUD OF AND DON’T HAVE TO DIE FROM. Show Less Text
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: WHAS NA GUT: ITOPEN PRIMARY. SOMEBODY WHO CALLS HIMSELF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST CG AT FAST, HE STARTED AT 3%. WHAT DOES HE DO NEXT? WHAT HE HAS TO DO IS LEAD A CIVIC MOVEMENT. HAS GOT TO VE A BIG RALLY ON THE MALL AND HE IS GOING TO TAKE HIS AGENDA AND SAY WE WANT TO PRESS ALL THE CANDIDATES FROM NATIONAL TO LOCAL TO TURN THIS COUNTRY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF FAIR PLAY AND SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVITY. IF HE DOES THAT, HE WILL BE RELATIVELY INDEPENDENT. HE WON’T BE SEEN AS A TOADY FOLLOWING CNTON IF SHE WINS. HE HAS A LOT OF AGONIZING DECISIONS TO MAKE BUT HE HAS A HUGE BASE OF SUPPORT AND VERY HIGH IN THE POLLS. Show Less Text
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: ARE YOU GIVING HIM ADVICE? WE WILSHOWHAT COLUMN THERE AND THE NEW BOOK THAT IS COMING OUT WHY RALPH NADER. WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT, BREAKING THROUGH POWER. YOU GO TO THEIR WEBSITE, YOU CAN FIND MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE BOOK AND THE EVENTS. LET’S GO TO BALTIMORE OENROLEODELOR L T YOU THINK THAT THERE IS NO DOCUMENT AS CLOSELY HELD TO OUR HEART AS THE CONSTITUTION HAPPENS TO BE, THAT IT IS NOT SACROSANCT. IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE TO HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, PERHAPS ONCE EVERY HUNDRED YEARS. TRYING TO HAVE AN ALL-OUT PROCESS WHERE THE POPULACE — THE CONSTITUENTS, 300 MILLION WOULD PARTICIPATE AND THEN DO A REFEREND, UM TO HAVEHE MAJORITYILL ON T W RISK A CONVENTION IN WHICH YOU MAY LOSEOME OF THE BILL OF GHTS IMAY BE RETROGRADE. THE LARGEST ASMB OF LYCOMPSH LICYROSACCOMPLISHED CIV NATION, THEY ARE NEVER ASKED T PARTICIPATE. THEYRE ELUD.THEY PUT OUT REPORTS TT AFFECT CAIDTH THEY ARE IED.OR 13 PEOPLE WERE ARRESDTE IS I DANGEUS SOCIETY TSIBAY HAVE A COMMERCIALIZED ECTION THAT IS REMOVED FROM THE CIVIL COMMUNITY. THAT IS WHY WE WANT PEOPLE @TO COME TO CONSTITUTION HALL. THESE ARE GROUPS THAT ARE PUSHING SAFE FOOD. PHARMACEUTICALS. DOESN’T MATTER WHAT POLITICAL IDEOLOGY CONSUMERS HAVE HERE. LESS PESTICIDES? FAIRNESS IN THE JUDICIALES ALWAYS LIKE THIS, IS A PRODUCT OF DIVIDE AND RULOWBRES TREGH ENTIMMERSION. IT IS NOT FOR PEOPLE WITH SHORT ATTENTION SPANS OR PEOPLE WITH JUSTICE FATIGUE BECAUSE IT IS EIGHT HOURS A DAY, THE GREATEST CIVICS EXPERIENCE IN ANYBODY’S SI INEFFECTIVE FOR THEIR PURPOSES OR DOWNRIGHT DANGEROUS. HE DID IT ON A TINY BUDGET. IT’S LOT EASIER TO THINK AT’S IT’S A LOT EASIER THAN WE THINK TOAKE CNGE AT THE BASIC CHANGE IN A COUNTRY COMES THROUGH CIVIC ACTIVITIES AND IT SPILLS OVER INTO BETTER POLITICS. IF W DON’T HAVE BETTER POLITICS, IT IS BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE ARE CYNICALLY ACTIVE. Show Less Text
>> HAVE YOU INVITED SENATOR SANDERS TO SPEAK?
GUEST: WE CAN’T INVITE PEOPLE SPEAKING — PEOPLE RUNNING FOR ELECTED OFFICE. I HOPE C-SPAN WILLOVER CT. NEXT.
CALLER: I WANT TO CALL ABOU THE SYSTEM — THE MONEY AND CORRUPTION IN THE POLITICAL SYSTEM. I AM THINKING WE ARE MORE LIKE A PLUTOCRACY DOMINATED BY THE CORPORATIONS AND BY THE WEALTHY. ESPECIALLY WITH THE CITIZENS UNITED DECISION THAT JUST OPENS THE FLOODGATES FOR MONEY FROM THE CORPORATIONS TO DOMINATE AT AND DERA, POSITIONS. I JUST DON’T SEE HOW MONEY IS — IT IS GOING TO BE A HUGE FLOOD OF MONEY INTO THIS ELECTION AND IT IS GOING TO CONTROL THE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS, EVEN STATE ELECTIONS. Show Less Text
>> THE MOST POPULAR POLITICIAN OF ACCORDING TO THE POLLS, BERNIE SANDERS, IS ON YOUR SIDE. HE IS SAYING WE HAVE GOT TO GET RID OF BIG MONEY, SUPER PAC’S, BILLIONAIRES TRYING TO BUY POLITICIANS, AND HE HAS DEMONSTRATED WITH MILLIONS OF PEOPLE GIVING HIM $27 AVERAGE CONTRIBUTIONS. HE DOESN’T GO TO PARK AVENUE OR BEVERLY HILLS FOR THESE FUNDRAISERS. THIS IS A PERSON RUNNING FOR A MAJOR PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION. THATUGHTO GI Y JOHNSON. HE HAS TAKEN ON DONALD TRUMP. YOU DON’T SEE THAT ON THE SUNDAY SHOWS. THIS IS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES BELONG TO THE OPLE. Show Less Text
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: YOU CAN HEAR THE CITIZENS VOICE RIGHT HERE ON WASHINGTON JOURNAL. CARMINE IN NEW YORK. REPUBLICAN.
CALLER: MR. NADER, HOW DOES A CORPORATION LIKE GENERAL MOTORS KNOWINGLY PRODUCE A CAR WITH THE ADDITION — IGNITION SWITCH DEFECT AND AS A RESULT, PEOPLE ARE KILLED AND MORE ARE INJURED, AND NO ONE GOES TO JAIL. Show Less Text
GUEST: THIS IS THE ADDICTION — IGTIONNIWITCH DEFECT THE ANSWER IS INTERNAL COVERUP. THEY COVERED UP FROM REPORTING THEY TOOTHEIK NEY FROM A STATEMENTS AND BIGOTRY, THEY SAY HE IS THE ONE. WE HAVE TO HAVE CORPORATE CRIME ENFORCEMENT. THERE IS A CORPORATE CRIME WAVE. YOU CAN READ IT IN THE WALL STET JOURNAL LOPO LOBIS H DISASTER, SO IT ALL COMES DOWN TO CITIZENS MOBILIZING. IF 1% OF THE CITIZENRY MOBILIZES IN EACH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, TWO AND A HALF MILLION PEOPLE, AND HAVE PUBLIC OPINION BEHIND THEM AND SET UP FULL-TIME OFFICES, THEY COULD CHANGE SS IN ONE OF OUR MOTTOS IS “MAKING CHAN IS EASIER TN WE THINK. LET’S NOT GIVE UP ON OURSELVES. IO HE WANTED TO USE A PROPELLANT. WHERE WAS THE QUALITY CONTROL PEOPLE AT FORD AND GENERAL MOTORS? THAT IS A FASCINATINGRY Show Less Text
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: WHAT A BIG FAN I AM OF YOU. I AM A BERNIE SANDERS SUPPTER. I WILL PROHE INTERN GIVING HIM $27 TODAY. I WILL TAKE MY BERNIE SANDERS WATER BOTTLE WITH HONOR TO WORK TODAY. ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN BUGGING ME FOR YEARS, I KNOW A LOT OF DEMOCRATS AND FRIENDS OF MINE THINK YOU CAUSED — COSTOR THE ELECTION IN 2000. WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST HAWKS 9/11 IGO AND KNOW THAT IN 1998, BOTH GORE AND INTON GOT ROUGTH CONGRESS A RESOLUTION TO TOPPLE SDAMAD HUEIN. GEORGE BUSH USED THAT WHEN HE WAATS G THE DRS FOR TT CRIMINAL WAR OF AGGRESSION THAT HAS TAKEN ER A MILLION OF IRAQI LIVES. NEVER MIND T THERE WAS BELLIGERENT’S. IN THE 2000 ELECTION, GEORGE W. BUSH HAD A SMALLER MILITARY BUDGET THEN GORE WAS PROPOSING. HE WAS TALKING AGAINST NATION BUILDING SO IT IS VERY HARD TO PREDICT. WE DO KNOW IF PEOPLE DON’T GET INVOLVED IN FOREIGN AND MILITARY POLICY, BARNEY FRANK, RON PAUL, TRIED TO DO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THE ECONOMY IS GOING TO BE SUBORDINATED TO THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. SEVERE DEPRIVATION, CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE WHILE WE SPEND TRILLIONS ABROAD MAKING THINGS WORSE. Show Less Text
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: HECTOR IS UP IN SAN DIEGO. OF THE PASSION THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SHOULD HAVE SPE IF THEY WIN THE ELECTION BY A LANDSLIDE?
GUEST: I DON’T THINK HILLARY WILL DO THAT. I DON’T KNOW ANY NOMINEE OF A MAJOR PARTY THAT WILL PICK SOMEONE WHO IS HIGHER IN THE POLLS THAN SHE IS AND IS TRUSTED MORE THAN SHE IS. MOST NOMINEES JUST DON’T DO THAT. MY GUESS IS BERNIE WOULD NOT EVEN WANT IT. I DO THINK HE WANTS TO GO ALL OVER THE WORLD LIKE JOE BIDEN AND GO ON ASSIGNMENTS LIKE THAT. I THIS HEEES S Show Less Text
CALLER: THANK YOU C-SPAN FOR IS OORNITYTU MR. MR. NADER, HAVE YOU HEARD OF SOMEONE NAMED FUEGO GOING AROUND CIOIT C AND EDUCATING THE ZET MO L O CITYOITY C ANDTI, IOLD MY NOSE FINY CRAFTED ABILITY TO SAY WHATEVER SHE NEEDS TO SAY TO WHICHEVER AUDIENCE SHE IS SPEAKING. SHE IS A VERY WELL PRACTICED AND CUNNING LINGUIST THAT CAN SAY WHATEVER IT TAKES. Show Less Text
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: WHAT JOHN SAID
GUT: THEY ARE AFRAID OFRUMP THEY THEY HAVE THEIR HOPES INTO BOTH — HOOKS INTO BOTH PARTIES. TO WHICH THEY MOLI BACK ON MAY 20 3:20 4, 25, AND 26 — 23, 24, 25 AND 26. ISIT IS PEOPLE LEARNING HOW CHANGE OCCURS OUTSIDE THE POLITICAL PROCESS. WHEN I CAME TO TOWN, YOU COULD NOT FIND MANY POLITICIANS FAVORING CONSUMER PROTECTION, MUCH LESS OUR SAFETY. WITHIN A FEW MONTHS, THEY WERE PASSING THE AUTO SAFETY LAW UNANIMOUSLY. THAT IS BECAUSE THEY HEARD THE RUMBLE FROM THE PEOPLE. THE FACTS GOT FULL-TIME CIVIC ADVOCACY, IT IS A DIFFERENT COUNTRY. THE POLICIANS WILL FOLL.OW TH MASSACHUSETTS. GOOD MORNING. GO-AHEAD, BRIAN. Show Less Text
CALLER: YOU SAID IT RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS MR. NADER. I AM WONDERING WHETHER MR. NADER CAN COMMENT ON THE RECENT PASSING OF DANIEL BERRIGAN AND WHETHER MR. NADER EVER MET HIM OR WHAT HEOULDHINK OF THECUENT CAMPAIGN. MR. BERRIGAN WAS ALWAYS CONCERNED WITH THE LIFE AND ADDRESSING THESE NEEDS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. Show Less Text
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: LET’S MOVE ON TO JANET IN INDIANA.
GUEST: IS A GREAT AMERICAN, DANIEL BERRIGAN.
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: JAN, UT I WANT TO TE A MOMENTO THANK RALP NADH
ST: ROB IN NEW NADER, YOU HAVE HAD A REAL IMPACT ON MY LIFE. WE MET IN 1992. I WAS ENTHRALLED WITH YOANDU STILL AM. YOU MIGHT RECALL IT IS ROB ARNOLD. DONALD TRUMP HAS SAID SOME THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN VERY TO HEAR COMING OUT OF THE MOUTH OF A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND FRONT RUNNER OF THE REPUBLICAN LINE, BY DON’T SEE ANYTHING HE HAS SAID AS BIGOTED. I THINK IT IS EASY TO AUTOMATICALLY BRAND SOMEONE THAT WAY.YOU REFERRED TO DONALD TRUMP AS BIGOTED , AND LIKE YOU TO GIVE EMPWH OHIM HE WENT AFTER HISPANICS FOR AME. AND REBUILD THEIR LIVES IN SOUTH CAROLINA, AND HE ATTACKED THEM AS IF THEY ARE TERRORISTS. THIS IS ANTI-SEMITISM AGAINST ARABS. IT IS NOJUSTT NTI-SEMITISM AGAINST JAEWSEWS WHEN THEY WERE EXCLUDED BECAUSE PEOPLE THOUGHT THEY WERE COMMUNIST. HE IS A SERIAL BIGOT. HE COMES BACK AND SAYS THE HISPANICS VE Show Less Text
GUT:SOI DON’T FLYAG VOTE, BUT I ALWAYS VOTE MY CONSCIENCE. WE HAVE GOOD THIRD PARTIES. OBOUSLM FAVORABLY OS TO EDEL OGREEEPARTY. IF PEOPLE VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE COLLECTIVELY, THEY WILL CHANGE POLITICS. IF THEY VOTE FOR THE LEAST WARS, THEY WILL NEVER HAVE ANY LEVERAGE. IF YOU SIGNAL YOU WILL VOTE FOR THE LEAST, WHY SHOULD THEY GIVE YOU ANY TIME, THE POTENTIAL NOMINEES? PEOPLE HAVE TO POPULATE THEIR VOTE. STRATEGIC OR TACTICAL VOTE OR LEAST WORST OR THEY CAN DO A VOTE OF CONSCIENCE. I PREFER THE LATTER. WHITE VOTE FOR SOMEBODY YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN JUST BECAUSE THE OTHER PERSON IS WORSE? Show Less Text
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: IN MARYLAND WHO IS A DEMOCRAT, YOU’RE ON THE AIR.
CALLER: CAN YOU HEAR ME?
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: WE CAN.
CALLER: MR. NADER, I HAVE QUALITY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND I RESPECT WHERE YOU’RE COMING FROM. HOWEVER, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT CONGRESS. THE CANDIDATES CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH. SOMEONE LIKE BERNIE SANDERS IS 74 YEARS OF AGE AND HAS NO CONSTITUENCY. IF HE GOT THE NOMINATION AS PRESIDENT, WHO DOES HE TURN TO? THE DEMOCRATS? REPUBLICANS WILL NOT FOLLOW HIM. WHERE DOES HE GO? WE HAVE TO GO WITH WHAT WE HAVE. NEED TO HAC 270. CAN VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE IN THOSE STATES. YOU THINK E REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO CAMPAIGN IN MASSACHUSETTS? YOU THINK DEMOCRATS WILL CAMPAIGN IN TEXAS? IF YOU’RE IN ONE OF THOSE 40 STATES, YOU CAN HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. YOU CAN VOTE FOR YOUR CONSCIOUS AND THE LEAST WORST ARE GOING TO WIN BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY WE DON’T HAVE COMPETITIVE ELECTIONS. WE DON’T HAVE A COMPETITIVE DEMOCRACY IN ALL THE STATES. BERNIE SANDERS HAS BEEN PUSHING FOR THAT, BY THE WAY. HE CAMPAIGNS EVERYWHERE. ITS NOT JUST CAMPAIGN IN BLUE STATES. Show Less Text
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, CYNTHIA, IENYOU ARE ON THE AIR WITH RAHLP NAR. CA AND MODE OUT EVERY INCUMBENT. BOEVARIRAQ THEY– BLOW APART IRAQ. THEY LET WALL STREET PEOPLE TAKE OVER A SET OF CHALLENGING THEM AN IMPOSING STANDARDS AGAINST THE BAILOUTS. AT LEAST YOU ARE ACTIVE, BUT ALWAYS HAVE A REASON FOR UNIFORM REJECTION. Show Less Text
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: BILL IS NEXT IN MARYLAND. A DEMOCRAT. HI, JOE.
CALLER: THANK YOU FOR C-SPAN. I’M CONCERNED THAT THE BAD ACTO WILLING TO GO TO WAR WHEN NOT NECESSARILY SO DEPRIVED ME OF THE LUXURY OF FOCUSING ON A LOT OF THE GOOD LIKIVING THE CONVERSATION IN WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND A GOOD DIRECTION, BUT MY HIGHEST ALREADY PRIORITY IS KEEPING PEOPLE WHO ARE READY TO GO TO WAR WHOSE ANSWER TO OUR PROBLEMS ARE EXPENSIVE BLOODY ANSWEROUT OF THE PICTURE. Show Less Text
GUT: WELL, THAT IS WHAT MADE 25TH — MAY 25 IS ALL ABOUT. HIGH-LEVEL VETERANS AND BECOME SCHOLARS AND ADVOCATES, AND PEACE GROUPS WILL COME TOGETHER. PHIL DONAHUE IS COMING TO SHOW HIS DOCUMENTARY ABOUT A SOLDIER IN IRAQ WHO CAME BACK AS A PARAPLEGIC. THE INT IS ALLMPIR E DEVOUR THEMSELVES. THAT IS THE LESS OF ONSTORY. BREAKING THROUGH POWER AND HOW TO DO IT. THAT ISAY ONE BREAKING THROU CONGRESS IS DAY FOUR, MAY 26. BREAKING THROUGH WAR IS DAY THREE, MAY 25. BREAKING THROUGH THE PRESS. THERE ARE A LOT OF VOICES OUT THERE THAT DON’T GET ON THE EVENING NEWS. Show Less Text
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: FINAL QUESTION FOR YOU HERE. WHAT DYOUO MAKE OF THE DEBATE THAT HAPPENS BETWEEN HILLARY CLINTON AND BERNIE SANDERS DURING THIS PRIMARY NOMINATING PROCESS OVER WHO IS A PROGRESSIVE AND WHO IS NOT? IS HILLARY CLINTON A PROGRESSIVE? Show Less Text
GUEST: BY NO MEANS. ONE OF THE DEFINITIONS OF PROGRESSIVE IS CURBING CORPORATE POWER, CRACKING DOWN ON CORPORATE CRIME. WHEN SHE WAS IN THE SENATE, SHE REPRESENTED NEW YORK STATE AND WALL STREET. SHE DID NOT HOLD THE BANNER OF JUSTICE UP. SHE DID NOT ASK FOR HEARINGS. SHE DID NOT ASK FOR STRONGER CORPORAL CRIMINAL LAWS. SHE IS FAR FROM A PROGRESSIVE AS ANY DEMOCRAT COULD BE. THE OTHER THING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW IS IF BERNIE SANDERS HAD MORE DEBATES, ARE THINK THINGS MAY HAVE CHANGED BUT THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE WAS FAVORING HILLARY. THEY WANTED TO LIMIT DEBATE AND PUT THEM AT INOPPORTUNE TIMES AGAINST BIG SPORTS EVENTS. IN FIVE MONTHS, HE GOT VERY LITTLE COVERAGE. THERE WAS AN ANALYSIS OF ABC COVERAGE OF TO THE MIDDLE OF DECEMBER. THEY GAVE TWO MINUTES TO BERNIE SANDERS AND 80 MINUTES TO DONALD TRUMP. THE MEDIA WILL HAVE TO BE A LITTLE INTROSPECTIVE AS TO WHY THEY DID NOT HAVE AN HIGHER ESTIMATE OF THEIR OWN ABILITIES AND WHY THEY DID NOT STOP THE SHOUTING AND SLITHERING OF THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY. IT IS A VERY SERIOUS REASON FOR THE MEDIA TO LOOK BACK AND SAY WHAT DID WE DO? WHO DID WE NOT SCRUTINIZE? WHY DID WE GIVE MOST ATTENTION TO THE NOMINEES WHO WERE EXITING FALSE STATEMENTS — EXU ING FALSE STATEMENTS AND BIGOTRY. THEY WERE MAKING MONEY OFF OF THESE DEBATES. THEY WERE SETTING UP DATABASE. SINCE WHEN IS A COMMERCIAL CORPORATION DECIDE WHO IS GOING TO BE DEBATING? WHO IS ON TIER ONE OR TWO YEAR T– OR TIER TWO? THEY SHOULD BE REPORTING. THAT IS WHY I THINK WE SHOULD GET THE CIVIL SOCIETY VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN CAMPAIGNS. Show Less Text
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: FINAL CALL FOR YOU FROM TEXAS, INDEPENDENT. ARE YOU THERE?
CALLER: YES I AM.
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: IT IS YOUR TURN.
CALLER: I AM CALLING FROM HOUSTON, TEXAS.
Greta Wodele Brawner
HOST: YOU ARE ONLY A. — ARE ON THE AIR.
CALLER: WE HAVE VOTER FRAUD HERE IN TEXAS. IT IS NOT DONE BY THE LITTLE PERSON. I HAVE ONLY SEEN ONE CASE OF IT AS BEING AN ELECTION CLERK. NOW WE HAVE GREAT BIG HUGE FRAUD BASED ON THE ELECTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH. 800,000 VOTES THROWN OUT OF HARRIS COUNTY. WE HAVE ELECTION FRAUD. IT IS ALWAYS AT THE TOP. IT IS NOT AT THE BOTTOM. WHY DO I HAVE TO SHOW UP WITH IDS? WHY DO I HAVE TO SHOW UP AND STAND IN HUGE LONG LINES? Show Less Text
GUEST: THAT IS A GOOD POINT. , WESTERN COUNTRIES, THE U.S. HAS — AMONG U.S. COUNTRIES, THE U.S. HAS MORE CONSTRICTING LAWS FOR VOTING. WH WE HAVE TDO BALLOT TO GIVE THEM MORE VOICES AND CHOICES? TH IS WHAT GROUPS LIKE SETE FONST CUTIONA RIGHTS AND THE BRENNAN CENTER ARE WORKING ON. WATCH THE SOFTWARE PROBLEMS NOW. THE SOFTWARE IS OWNED BY PRIVATE COMPANIES. AS RESEARCHERS AT JOHNS HOPKINS HAVE POINTED OUT, IT IS EASY IN A CLOSE ELECTION TO RIG THE SOFTWARE AND FLIP IT. WE REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS. INTERNET HAS PAPER BALLOTS. — CANADA HAS PAPER BALLOTS. THEY DON’T HAVE MACHINES. AT NIGHT IN THIS GIANT COUNTRY, THEY KNOW WHO WON OR LO BECAUSE THEY HAD A PAPER TRAIL. THAT I HAVE MACHINES WHICH ENGAGE IN SHENANIGANS. I THINK THE CALLER MADE A VERY IMPORTANT POINT. THERE IS A STRONG ARGUMENT FOR UNIVERSAL VOTING LIKE AUSTRALIA. IF YOU GIVE THE PEOPLE TO CANDIDATE, I THINK OUR CIVIL Show Less Text
Bill Curry: “In some ways, you would be [surprised that the polls in Connecticut are busy today]. Last week, on the Democratic side, every story said that it’s all over for Bernie; it’s so difficult to put this nomination together. And Bernie supporters really do feel that they are part of the revolution. They really do feel that this is a movement. Their dissatisfaction with the party leadership is really deep. And it turns out that nothing can keep them from showing up. Hearing a week of negative stories doesn’t seem to dampen their spirits at all. He has a real chance here…
On the Hillary side, on the establishment’s side, you hear a lot of calls for Sanders to drop out. And the thing is, this has always been about two things: this is about the base of the party in a revolt against its elites. This is not just in the Democratic party but in both parites. If you look at Sanders and Trump, it’s not just a left insurrection or a right insurrection, this is an insurrection of the broad middle class against the entire political establishment. This is a revolt against corruption in the eyes, I believe, of a solid majority of Americans.
So when the pundits on the national television say, maybe this next round will wind it up, there’s no reason for the Republicans to surrender their party to Trump, and there’s no reason for the Sanders supporters to give up their fight. And so it’s not just a question of picking a nominee, on each side they are trying to secure a future here. It’s going to go all the way to both conventions regardless of the results….
The largest rally on the [New Haven] green since the Black Panther’s trial of 1970. I think it’s been 40 years since a crowd that large assembled in New Haven for any reason. Having spent the last few years worrying that the grassroots democracy was just about dying out, the campaign trail was like the streets of Laredo with swinging saloon doors, tumbleweed bouncing down an empty Main Street, and suddenly the rooms are full in both parties. Suddenly these rallies are full.
If you want to take a step back from it, there’s a really hopeful sign here of a public that won’t give up on its democracy. That’s really good news.”
NERMEEN SHAIKH: I’d like to turn to an ad produced by the Emergency Committee for Israel, which alleges that Trump supports dictators. The ad started airing last month.
JAKE TAPPER: The world would be better off with Saddam Hussein—
DONALD TRUMP: Hundred percent.
JAKE TAPPER: —and Gaddafi in power?
DONALD TRUMP: A hundred percent.
Looking at Assad and saying maybe he’s better than the kind of people that we’re supposed to be backing.
And I think Russia can be a positive force and an ally.
But, you know, whether you like Saddam Hussein or not, he used to kill terrorists.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Glenn Greenwald, in one of your recent articles, you suggest that Hillary Clinton has demonstrated comparable support for what you call, quote, “the world’s worst despots.”
GLENN GREENWALD: Well, two things. You know, that article that I wrote about Hillary Clinton grew out of the debate where she attacked Bernie Sanders for comments he made in the 1980s in which he said positive things both about Fidel Castro and also the Sandinistan government in Nicaragua, and she very self-righteously said, “How could you possibly praise a government that is oppressive and tyrannical.” And yet, if you look at Hillary Clinton’s record, not in the 1980s, but far more recently, in the last five to six years, she has embraced and expressed extreme levels of support for some of the world’s most brutal and horrific dictators. She called President Mubarak of Egypt a close personal friend of her family and expressed all kinds of support for him at the time that the government, of which she was a part, was arming and funding him. She did the same with the Saudis. The Clinton Foundation has raised money from some of the worst and most oppressive dictatorships in the Persian Gulf, including the Saudis and the Qataris and the Emirates and the Bahrainis. Hillary Clinton, essentially, her record has been one of embracing and supporting, in all kinds of ways, the world’s worst tyrants.
The other aspect that I would add is that, you know, not just those Persian Gulf regimes, but one of the things that Hillary Clinton has done, with very little notice, has been to make a central part of her campaign embracing not just the right-wing Israeli government, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu herself—himself. She’s written op-eds in Jewish journals and in The Forward talking about the need to get even closer to Israel, if you can imagine that. And then the speech she just gave to AIPAC was about the most disgustingly militaristic, hawkish, pro-Israel speech, I think, that you could ever possibly hear, without the slightest even pretense of concern for people in Palestine or in Libya, where she supported a war that has caused great instability, or in Iraq, where she supported a war that has imposed huge amounts of suffering. And so it’s very easy to talk about Donald Trump being close to dictators or being dangerous, but there has been a huge amount of Hillary Clinton’s record that has spawned immense amounts of tyranny and violence in the world, that Democrats and progressives are steadfastly ignoring.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to a clip of Hillary Clinton addressing AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
HILLARY CLINTON: Many of the young people here today are on the front lines of the battle to oppose the alarming boycott, divestment and sanctions movement known as BDS. … We must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary Clinton addressing AIPAC. Glenn Greenwald?
GLENN GREENWALD: What she’s doing there is affirming one of the most vile slanders that currently exists. There is a campaign in the United States and in Israel to literally outlaw any advocacy of a boycott movement against Israel, similar to the boycott and divestment and sanctions campaign that brought down Israel and the United States’s closest ally, which was the apartheid regime in South Africa. Now you can certainly raise objections to the tactic of boycotting Israel, and lots of people have, but to render it illegal depends upon this grotesque equating of an advocacy of a boycott of Israel with anti-Semitism and then saying that because anti-Semitism should be banned from universities or from private institutions, that it should be literally outlawed, to ban advocating the boycott of Israel, as well. And people in Europe are actually being arrested for advocating a boycott of Israel. Students in American universities are being sanctioned and punished for doing so.
And what Hillary Clinton did was go before AIPAC and pander, as grotesquely as she typically does, by affirming this line that if you “malign,” quote-unquote, the government of Israel and support a boycott of it, in opposition to their decades-long occupation of the Palestinians, it means essentially that you’re guilty of maligning the Jewish people. She is conflating the government of Israel with Jews, which, ironically enough, is itself a long-standing anti-Semitic trope. But it’s just part of her moving to the right in order to position herself for the general election by affirming some of the United States government’s worst and most violent policies.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, Democratic candidate Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was the only one to skip the AIPAC conference earlier this week. He did address the issue on the campaign trail, though, from Utah, calling for an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: It is absurd for elements within the Netanyahu government to suggest that building more settlements in the West Bank is the appropriate response to the most recent violence. It is also not acceptable that the Netanyahu government decided to withhold hundreds of millions of shekels in tax revenue from the Palestinians, which it is supposed to collect on their behalf.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Bernie Sanders in Utah. Glenn Greenwald, I believe he did offer to address AIPAC by video stream or Skype, as did Romney in 2012, but we heard he was told no.
GLENN GREENWALD: Yeah, I mean, a couple months ago, Donald Trump, on an MSNBC program, said, when asked about Israel and Palestine, that he thought the U.S. should be neutral in order to be a more effective arbiter, which until 20 years ago was a standard mainstream U.S. position, but now has become very shocking. Same with what Bernie Sanders just said. To hear a prominent American politician stand up and actually criticize Israel in such stark and blunt terms, calling them occupiers, essentially, and criticizing how they’re treating the Palestinians, is almost shocking to the ear. Hillary Clinton would never do it, nor would leading Republican politicians. And yet it’s really a very mild way to talk about Israel. And it shows just how far to the right the discourse has shifted in the United States when it comes to Israel, and how much a part of that rightward shift is Hillary Clinton, when you think about how almost shocking it is to hear pretty mild criticisms of Israel coming from Sanders or mild proclamations of neutrality coming from Trump.
AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, before we end, Glenn, the issue of encryption, again raised, of course, in the aftermath of the Brussels attacks, but the whole battle between the government, the FBI and Apple?
GLENN GREENWALD: The government’s attempt to make sure that nobody can use encryption to keep them out of private communications is based on continuous deceit. They falsely claimed that the Paris attackers used encryption, when they had no idea if it was true. They’re already making that claim about the Brussels attackers, even though there’s no suggestion that it’s true. And the whole campaign against Apple was based on what turned out to be a total lie, which is that they needed Apple to help them break into the San Bernardino phone, when all along they could have done it themselves. And it’s up to the media to check these claims on the part of the government, and, of course, the media has been very lax in doing so.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you, Glenn, for staying with us. We’re going to talk to you for a few more minutes after this broadcast, and we’ll post it online at democracynow.org. Glenn Greenwald, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, his piece for The Intercept is headlined “Brazil Is Engulfed by Ruling Class Corruption—and a Dangerous Subversion of Democracy.” Another recent piece, “The Rise of Trump Shows the Danger and Sham of Compelled Journalistic ‘Neutrality.'” We’ll link to these and many others at democracynow.org.
RADDATZ: That’s Hillary Clinton’s top rival, Bernie Sanders there, working the crowds this week on New Year’s Eve. In just a moment, Bernie Sanders will join me.
But first we go inside the growing feud between Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, who’s about to hit the campaign trail for his wife, Hillary, as ABC News Cecilia Vega reports, Trump’s new attacks on his former friend, Bill Clinton, are dominating the Democratic race in the New Year.
CECILIA VEGA, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A year ago it seemed the presidency might be Hillary Clinton’s race to lose.
Who would have thought 12 months later a Democratic Socialist from Vermont and a billionaire reality TV star would pose the biggest threat to her dreams?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Are you ready for a radical idea?
VEGA: Her main challenger, Senator Bernie Sanders, continues to draw large and enthusiastic crowds.
SANDERS: We have received 2.5 million individual contributions, more than any campaign in the history of the United States of America.
VEGA: And this week a twist, ugly attacks from a former friend. Just a few years ago, Trump had nothing but praise for the Clintons…
TRUMP: Hillary is a great friend of mine, her husband is a great friend of mine, they’re fantastic people.
VEGA: Now aiming his attacks only at his potential rival, but taking shots at Hillary’s husband as well.
TRUMP: She wants to accuse me of things? And the husband is one of the great abusers of the world? Give me a break. Give me a break.
VEGA: Those attacks not stopping Clinton from bringing what she calls her secret weapon to the campaign trails.
Tomorrow, the former president heads to New Hampshire, a place where both Clintons have enjoyed political comebacks. But this time, this is Sander’s backyard where he’s been leading in the polls since August.
HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Let’s make this happen. I need your help. I need your support.
VEGA: For This Week, Cecelia Vega, ABC News, New York
RADDATZ: Our thanks to Cecelia.
Bernie Sanders is hard at work on the campaign trail this holiday weekend. And he joins me this morning from New Hampshire. Happy new year, Senator Sanders.
We noticed that today is the 25th anniversary of your first day in Congress. Twenty five years, what do you say to critics who say the country needs a president from outside Washington and not a career politician?
SANDERS: Well, what I say is if you study my record, I’m not exactly a career politician. Martha, during my tenure in the Congress, I have taken on virtually every powerful special interest from Wall Street to the insurance companies to the pharmaceutical industry to the military-industrial complex.
What my campaign is about is standing up to the billionaire class today, and making certain that we do not continue to see the decline of the American middle class, where people are working longer hours for lower wages and almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent. That is the issue that I find that the American people are most concerned about, the decline of the middle class, massive income and wealth inequality, and a corrupt campaign finance system.
RADDATZ: Well, let me take you back to 1990 on election night. This is what you said. “We need a mass movement of tens of millions of people prepared to say that we want national health care, that we want the millionaires and multi-national corporations who are not paying their fair share, to pay their fair share.”
That sounds an awful lot like Bernie Sanders 2015, but you haven’t really been able to create that mass movement. How can we imagine that you’ll do it now?
SANDERS: Well, Martha, we’re doing pretty well. You know, I started this campaign at 3 percent in the polls. There were some polls that had me out recently at 39 percent. Come to my meetings. They’re huge all over the United States of America.
And what we are seeing is mass dissatisfaction on the part of the middle class. We’re seeing people who are really upset that they can’t afford to send their kids to college. They can’t afford childcare. The rich are getting richer; almost everybody else is getting poorer. And what people are saying is, you know, it’s absurd. That with massive income…
RADDATZ: Let me turn to Iowa.
SANDERS: …and wealth inequality…
RADDATZ: Let me turn to Iowa, Senator Sanders. This is what you recently said at a campaign stop.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANDERS: Let me tell you a secret, don’t tell anybody. I don’t want to get Secretary Clinton nervous.
SANDERS: I think we’re going to win here in Iowa.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RADDATZ: I don’t know how nervous Secretary Clinton is about that. She has consistently led in the polls in Iowa through the latter part of 2015. What can you possibly do to try to stop that momentum in just four weeks?
SANDERS: Martha, should have been with us in our last trips to Iowa. The turnouts that we’re seeing in big towns and in small towns are extraordinary. The enthusiasm is very, very strong. I think that people are tired of establishment politics and establishment economics. And they are also tired of a corrupt campaign finance system in super PACs that allows billionaires to purchase elections. That’s not what the American people want.
And one of the manifestations of that is the kind of incredible fundraising that we have been doing in terms of small, individual donations. We have 2.5 million small, individual contribution-style campaign. That is more than any campaign in the history of the United States of America, and I think that speaks to the enthusiasm and support that we’re getting at the grassroots.
RADDATZ: Hillary Clinton has Bill Clinton joining her on the campaign trail there in New Hampshire this week. Donald Trump and Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus think Bill Clinton’s sexual history is fair game. Do you?
SANDERS: No, I don’t. I think, you know, we have enormous problems facing this country and I think we got more things to worry about than Bill Clinton’s sexual life. I think — interestingly enough, maybe Donald Trump might want to focus attention on climate change, understand that climate change is not a hoax, as he believes that it is, that maybe Donald Trump should understand that we should raise the minimum wage in this country, which he opposes, and maybe we should not be giving huge tax breaks to fellow billionaires like Donald Trump.
So I think maybe he should focus on those things.
RADDATZ: You have had some very harsh words for Donald Trump recently and you said you wanted to stay away from personal attacks…
RADDATZ: …in this campaign.
RADDATZ: Some of the things you’ve said, like calling him a pathological liar, have been pretty personal.
SANDERS: Yes. The truth is I do not get engaged in personal attacks, but Trump really is over the edge. He has attacked me very ferociously and has called me a liar because I point that out, that nobody else has seen on television thousands of Muslims celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers.
Time after time, this guy just comes up with things off the top of his head that are lies. And somebody has got to say that he is a pathological liar.
RADDATZ: Senator Sanders, President Obama is reportedly considering executive action that would require unlicensed gun dealers to get licensed by the ATF and conduct background checks on potential buyers. Recent polling shows three in four Americans thinks it’s important that there be bipartisan consensus before implementing gun control. Is an executive action that circumvents Congress the right way to do it?
SANDERS: Well, I wish that we could get bipartisan action on gun safety legislation. I think the American people have been horrified by the mass shootings we’ve seen over the last couple of years. What I think we need to do, among many other things, is do away with the so-called gun show loophole where people are — do not have to go through the instant background check.
Martha, there is a wide consensus, overwhelming majority of the American people believe we should expand and strengthen the instant background checks so that people who should not have guns, are i.e. criminals or people with mental issues, mental health issues, should not guns. I think that’s what the president is trying to do and I think that will be the right thing to do.
RADDATZ: And very quickly, Senator Sanders, on the campaign trail last week, you said that the retaking of Ramadi in Iraq is a model for destroying ISIS and that training of Iraqi troops may have turned things around. Eighty percent of the reason Ramadi is falling is because of coalition air strikes, though. That’s what you think should continue?
SANDERS: Right. I think it has to be Muslim troops on the ground who are fighting for the soul of Islam, supported by U.S., French, U.K., German, other major powers, and using our air superiority.
RADDATZ: Might be very difficult to get those ground troops, but thank you very much, Senator Sanders.
RADDATZ: OK, let me move on in the short time we have. Let me move on to the next few months. “The New York Times” this week looked back through old polls and it turned out those candidates who have led in Iowa or New Hampshire, polls with just one month to go, have lost as often as they have won.
So any predictions of a shakeup?
I want to start with you, Matt. Just look at the races and what you think we’ll see in the next couple of months.
BAI: I would never make a prediction —
RADDATZ: He would never —
BAI: — no, I wouldn’t, at this point —
RADDATZ: — I want you to tell us what’s going to —
BAI: I was there, you know, in Iowa this week. I can tell you that it’s cold and I predict it will stay that way. And I think — this is a very fluid race to me still. Now maybe not. I mean, Alex and I were talking in Iowa. I think that one of the key numbers here is no matter how you divide it up, no matter where the polling’s been, 60-plus percent of the Republican electorate has identified with an extreme outsider, like a Ted Cruz or a Donald Trump or Ben Carson. And that tells you that maybe it doesn’t matter how this thing shakes out in the end, you know, the governing wing of the party, even if they congeal around a candidate, might not have the support.
But I think that’s still very fluid. I think Chris Christie’s very much in play, New Hampshire, and actually getting big crowds in Iowa. Marco Rubio’s still doing quite well. You know, I don’t think Jeb Bush and John Kasich are dead in New Hampshire and I think we’re going to see —
RADDATZ: And you talking — you’re talking Ted Cruz.
CASTELLANOS: — that candidate leading a month out doesn’t win, gosh, I hope that’s right about Ted Cruz in Iowa. But right now, I’d say Ted Cruz does win Iowa. There’s a chance that Donald Trump slightly underperforms because he is doing worse in early states than he is nationally. And usually it’s kind of a tell as you get closer to picking a real president, ehh, maybe he’s not the guy you want in the big chair.
So he underperforms. We go to New Hampshire. What happens there? New Hampshire looks to validate an alternative.
Who is that?
Well, right now, it’s probably Trump again. But that’s the opening for an establishment candidate; I think Rubio is capped by Christie.
What does that mean?
Christie’s got — by Cruz. Christie’s got a lane. If Christie can gel in New Hampshire, that could be the three-way race you’re —
RADDATZ: Well, Rubio had a lot of media energy this week, emerging as the establishment candidate to beat or as “Politico” put it, “establishment rivals rip into Rubio,” but some reality checks to you.
Had David Axelrod tweeting, “But where does he win?”
STEWART: So the key is —
RADDATZ: Where does Rubio win?
STEWART: — the key is Iowa is so important. But as you say, the last at least two cycles we’ve had, the winner of Iowa, who I worked for in the caucuses, did not go onto win the nomination.
The key is having a strong organization and ground game in Iowa but executing the same plan in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and through the early states.
And racking up that magic 1,237 delegates needed in order to become the nominee. And I see that happening with the candidate who has strong ground game in Iowa, New Hampshire, all through the SEC states and showing that they’re able to be in this for the long haul, which means organization on the ground and the money to maintain as well an air campaign.
And right now I see that between the top three —
RADDATZ: — let’s hit the Democrats, first Sanders —
RADDATZ: — Martin O’Malley.
JONES: You talked about the person we always talk about, Donald Trump. Let’s talk about the person we never talk about, we just heard from.
Bernie Sanders has incredible momentum. He’s had almost a media blackout. We — I mean, he’s almost never the subject of the main conversation. But out in the country, you see a lot of Bernie Sanders support. He got more contributions, individual donors, than anybody in American history. That by itself lets you know something’s going on.
I think he’s going to win Iowa. He may win New Hampshire. And —
RADDATZ: — not afraid —
JONES: I’m not afraid — listen, I love Hillary Clinton. She will be our nominee. But there is something happening in this party that — and when you combine the authenticity of a Bernie Sanders with the popularity of his agenda.
You don’t like his agenda, there’s — being tough on Wall Street, very popular, across the board in America.
RADDATZ: OK. We’ll have a bit more of you guys later.
On Friday, the Democratic National Committee suspended the Bernie Sanders campaign’s access to a critical database after finding his staffers improperly viewed front-runner Hillary Clinton’s proprietary information when a computer glitch made it briefly available. The DNC backed down after Sanders filed suit, but the Sanders campaign has accused party leadership of trying to thwart the Vermont senator’s bid. The DNC has also been accused of trying to help Clinton by limiting the number of debates and scheduling them on low-viewership periods like Saturday nights. Bill Curry, political columnist at Salon.com and former White House counselor to President Clinton, argues that the DNC is deliberately blocking debate and that chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz should resign as a result. “This is supposed to be a political party. In a healthy society, there would be a democratic process in the Democratic Party, by which elected people would be overseeing these issues by making sure there wasn’t just nepotism and insider dealing,” Curry says. “That the political party itself — which is supposed to be the progressive party — has become mortgaged to a small group of Washington insiders, who raise money from large corporate PACs, [and] has become just a dead carcass of what it once was, is the most important piece of information that this contretemps over the data files has emphasized. It’s time for progressives in this country to stand up and demand a genuinely democratic process.”
AMY GOODMAN: Before we go to Phyllis on this issue of Deborah Wasserman Schultz, who is the Florida congress member, who’s head of the Democratic National Committee, Bernie Sanders has not gone this far, but you’re saying she, herself, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, must go. Why?
BILL CURRY: Yeah, absolutely. First of all, you know, when the—Bernie’s spokesperson in the earlier segment did a wonderful job. I would just add, though, that it wasn’t the DNC that shut down the debates. It was Ms. Schultz. There was no meeting. There weren’t no notice. There are no minutes. All the other members of that committee never got to say—there have been at least two vice chairs have come forward and said they read about it after the fact in the newspaper. No one else has claimed to have been informed in advance.
AMY GOODMAN: About?
BILL CURRY: It was a decision that Hillary—about the decision to have—to go from 26 debates in 2008 to six debates, three of them on a weekend, for 2016. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton made that choice together.
In this contracting dispute, the contractor, a company of which Schultz’s nephew was a principal, and all of the principals have worked either previous—in various ways for different Clinton campaigns in the past, if you’re the Bernie Sanders campaign or the—
AMY GOODMAN: The ones that run the database.
BILL CURRY: The one—I’m sorry, the ones that run the database. For anybody to think they’re getting due process, when there’s such a small cabal making all the decisions—this is supposed to be a political party. In a healthy society, there would be a democratic process in the Democratic Party, by which elected people would be overseeing these issues by making sure there wasn’t just nepotism and insider dealing, and making sure that the public was able to see how this process works. That the political party itself, that what is supposed to be the progressive party, has become mortgaged to a small group of Washington insiders, who raise money from large corporate PACs, who are dependent upon them for their life, who pursue their own careers, that the party itself has become just a dead carcass of what it once was is the most important piece of information that this contretemps over the data files has revealed, or emphasized, because it’s been revealed a hundred other ways, including in the shutting down of debate. It’s time for progressives in this country to stand up and demand a genuinely democratic process—if nothing else, from the Democratic Party, a democratic process.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to bring Phyllis Bennis back into this conversation for the last minute we have. Phyllis, for the overall issues, we talked about what was raised, what wasn’t, by the journalists—they didn’t raise climate change, they didn’t talk about the issue of immigration—but where you feel the Democratic Party is going right now?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: You know, I think that what we were seeing here is that Hillary Clinton is not running in a Democratic Party primary. She’s running in the general election, with the assumption, the entitlement, that she will be the candidate. And that’s a huge problem.
I mean, everything that Bill Curry just said I think is absolutely right. I think that what we have to recognize is that this so-called two-party system is not working. This is what we’re seeing in Spain in the victory of Podemos over the weekend and the possibility of breaking the monopoly of a two-party system where there’s just not enough differences on certain key issues. There are differences—I don’t want to minimize the differences between the two parties here—but they’re not nearly what they need to be, and there’s not a democratic process within either party. We don’t have a democratic democracy—small-d democrat. So, I think that what we’re looking at is a situation in which the clear differences—there are clear differences on climate, there are clear differences on the economy. I disagree a little bit—
AMY GOODMAN: We have 10 seconds.
PHYLLIS BENNIS: I disagree that there was not clarity from Bernie Sanders. I think he made a very compelling case on the economic side. On the issues, the crucial issues of war, the notion that you can go to war against terrorism, none of these candidates were prepared to say, “You can’t bomb terrorism. You can only bomb people, and that creates more terrorism, not less.”
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’ll have to leave it there. But, of course, we’ll continue to cover these issues. Phyllis Bennis, fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, and Bill Curry, weekly columnist with Salon.com. We’ll link to your articles.
DICKERSON: We’re back now with Senator Bernie Sanders, who is in Burlington, Vermont, this morning.
Senator Sanders, the president is going to address the nation tonight. If you were president, what would you say?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What I would say is that we have got to be as aggressive as we can in destroying ISIS, but we have to learn the lessons of the past.
And that means we cannot do it alone. It must be an international coalition, in which the Muslim nations are the troops on the ground. King Abdullah of Jordan, whose country has been playing a heroic role dealing with refugees and ISIS, made the point that it is the Muslim nations that are fighting for the soul of Islam who have got to lead the effort in crushing ISIS. The United States, the U.K., France, Russia, Iran, other countries around the world have got to be supportive, but the troops on the ground have got to be Muslim nations.
And I believe very strongly that we need to put that coalition together. We need to put it together as soon as possible. But I do believe we have got to learn the lessons from Iraq.
I hear a lot of tough talk coming from my Republican opponents out there. They are really tough guys. But I heard that back in 2002 from George W. Bush. He was wrong. The invasion of Iraq was one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the history of this country and in many ways precipitated exactly where we are today.
So, yes, we have got to be tough, but we have got to be smart. And that means an international coalition with Muslim troops on the ground supported by Western democracies with airpower and other military efforts.
But the troops on the ground to crush ISIS have got to be led by the Muslim nations.
DICKERSON: That’s the foreign policy piece.
What is your feeling — what would you message be about America and the threat in the homeland security sphere of this conversation?
SANDERS: Well, obviously, we have got to do everything that we can to protect the American people. That’s a no-brainer.
And that means much tougher screening policies than we have right now. I think Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson is right. We should have more agents placed in other countries around the world. And it’s not just Muslim countries that we have to worry about. There are other countries as well that people can slip in to this country.
Second of all, I think we need to do much, much better work, not only in our intelligence efforts, but in coordinating international intelligence. I think, clearly, Paris was an intelligence failure. And we need to be tapping the intelligence information that is being ascertained from countries all over the world.
DICKERSON: Democrats are going to notice that you didn’t list gun control in your responses. A lot of Democrats, including the president, who will address it tonight, think gun control is an answer to this.
SANDERS: No, I — well, I was just at a press conference the other day talking about the need for gun — increased gun control.
I don’t think anybody believes it’s a magic formula. Clearly, though, there is an obvious commonsense consensus, John, in this country that guns should not be falling into the hands of people who should not be having them.
And, obviously, that goes without saying. I don’t think it’s very hard to understand that terrorists or potential terrorists should not have guns. People who are being barred from flying on airplanes should not have guns. I believe we must improve and expand instant background checks.
I believe we have got to do away with this gun show loophole. About 40 percent of the guns in this country are sold outside of the purview of the instant background check process. I think we need — I agree with “The New York Times.” I think it does not make sense to me that we have guns designed for military purposes that can kill enormous numbers of people in a very short period of time being sold and distributed in the United States.
And I support a ban on assault weapons. I think we need to do away with the straw man provision so that people can legally buy guns, but then give them to criminals.
And I think we need a revolution in mental health. And that revolution is about making sure that the many thousands of people who are walking the streets of America today who are suicidal or homicidal get the help they need, and they get it now, not two months from now.
Senator Sanders, we need to take a break right now, but we’re going to ask you to stay with us.
And we will be back with Senator Sanders in a moment.
DICKERSON: CBS News will carry President Obama’s address to the nation tonight on the San Bernardino shooting at 8:00 p.m. Eastern, 5:00 p.m. Pacific. Scott Pelley will anchor our special report.
We will be right back.
DICKERSON: Some of our CBS stations are leaving us now, but, for most of you, we will be right back with a lot more FACE THE NATION, including more with Senator Bernie Sanders and our political panel.
Stay with us.
DICKERSON: Welcome back to FACE THE NATION. I’m John Dickerson.
We’re back with Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders.
Senator Sanders, I want to continue on with the conversation a little bit with — of on gun control. So many Democratic voters I’ve talked to in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings are concerned about this. One of the questions they wanted to ask — wanted me to ask you is whether you regret having voted to protect gun manufacturers, giving them that immunity. What’s your feeling on that now?
SANDERS: Well, I come from a rural state that has no gun control at all. I think the votes that I have cast over the last 25 years have been strong votes for protecting the American people from gun violence. That one particular vote, there were thing in it that make sense to me. There are things in it that do not make sense to me and I’ve said many times, I’m willing to rethink that piece of legislation and make it more effective. If a gun manufacturer understands and knows that the product that he is selling to a community is really getting out to criminal elements, that gun manufacturer should be held liable for what the company is doing.
DICKERSON: In retrospect, though, do you think it was a mistake, that vote?
SANDERS: There were elements in that vote back then that did make sense. In the sense that if a small gun shop owner in the state of Vermont sells a product, a gun, legally to somebody else who then goes out does something crazy, do I think that that small gun shop owner should be held liable for legally selling the product, no, I don’t. But I think, bottom line is, that we should be rethinking that legislation and we should be doing everything that we can as a country to make sure that weapons do not get into the hands of people who should not have them.
DICKERSON: Because of your experience from a rural state and your understanding of that, you’ve talked about being a bridge builder between the Democrats, who would like to see gun control and Second Amendment, those who care about the Second Amendment. So tell me how you would build that bridge in this instance, because when I talked to some conservatives they say, look, this is a situation in which a man went and killed his co-workers and a mother dropped of her six month old baby. You’re not going to stop those kind of premeditated killers with any gun control.
SANDERS: Well, let me answer it in two ways. For a start, there is a split, a political split on this country on guns, and everybody knows that. Every poll indicates that. But I think, John, there is a broad consensus of focusing on the reality that the vast majority of the American people, not everybody, by the way, but the vast majority understand that we have got to do everything that we can to prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who should not have them.
And who are those people? Obviously, criminal people. People who are in to domestic violence. People who will use guns to kill other people. People who are mentally ill and should not have those guns. The vast majority of the American people believe that. And I believe that what we should be doing is improving and expanding instant background checks.
Second of all, if you believe that, which most Americans believe, but most Americans also believe is you don’t want an obvious loophole that allows guns to be sold to people who are criminals or mentally ill. That means shut — ending the gun show loophole.
DICKERSON: Senator —
SANDERS: That means ending the strong man situation.
DICKERSON: I don’t want to leave without —
SANDERS: And I think there is a consensus, John. Yes.
DICKERSON: Let’s talk about climate change. I know that was an important issue for Democrats this week. You got a new plan coming out. It has a carbon tax as a part of it. Might that not scare people who think they’re —
DICKERSON: Tell me about that.
SANDERS: All right. Well, John, I mean this is not a plan for Democrats. Pope Francis recently said something, which I think is profound, and he’s right, as he often is. And what he said is, this planet is on a suicidal direction in terms of climate change. And it is beyond my comprehension that we can have a Republican Party and Republican candidates who are more concerned about getting huge campaign contributions from the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobil and the coal industry than they are about accepting what the overwhelming majority of scientists are saying. And that is, climate change is real, caused by human activity and already causing major and devastating problems in our country and around the world.
And what the scientists are telling us — we are — telling us is, if we do not act boldly and aggressively now, which is what my legislation does, massive cuts in carbon pollution, if we don’t do it now, the planet that we are going to be leaving to our children and grandchildren may very well be uninhabitable and in much worse shape than the planet is today. We have a moral obligation to move aggressively to transform our energies —
SANDERS: Away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy and that is what my legislation does.
DICKERSON: All right.
SANDERS: So if you want to talk about being frightened, I am frightened about the planet we’re going to leave our kids if we don’t act.
DICKERSON: All right, Senator Bernie Sanders, we’re going to have to leave it there. Thank you so much for being with us.