Hillary Smears Gabbard

Vincent J. Curtis

19 Oct 2019


This week, Hillary Clinton openly smeared Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nominee.  Hillary claimed Gabbard was being “groomed” to be a “Russian asset.”  Hillary also accused the 2016 Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein of being a Russian asset.  Let’s examine these explosive accusations both in their substance and in a wider political context.

During the Whitewater Investigation, when Hillary’s husband, Bill Clinton, was president, New York Times columnist William Safire concluded that Hillary Clinton was a pathological liar.  I share that opinion, and do not for a moment believe Hillary’s latest outrages against truth.

The entire smear against Gabbard is that she is “being groomed” to be a Russian “asset.”  The being groomed aspect is intended to be worse than a patronizing putdown.  Children are groomed.  Gabbard is a mature woman, old enough to run for president.  Grooming in the sense implied by Hillary is reserved for a child – one being groomed for sexual abuse.  While one sense of grooming could be used in the case of an adult, as when, for example,  a general is being groomed to become a chief of staff, it means a favored person is given experience necessary for the top job.  By no means does Hillary imply that the Russians are giving Gabbard experience to become an asset of theirs.  The being groomed part of the smear is simply to make the false accusation that follows more vicious and personal, giving a whiff of sexual perversity.

The choice of the term asset is somewhat clever.  The obvious alternative would be “agent,” but the use of asset instead makes the accusation more slippery.  An agent is someone who is acting on behalf of, or is employed for the purpose of, gaining a benefit for the person who hired the agent.  A spy can clearly be an agent.  But an agent knows that he is operating to confer benefits onto someone else  Hillary wants to imply that Gabbard may not even be aware that she is going to benefit Russia in some unspecified way, making the charge harder to dispute.

Hence, grooming and asset together mean that Gabbard may not yet be of value to Russia, and she may not even be aware that she is going to become one in some unspecified way.

An asset is not necessarily an agent.  Anything of permanent value can be an asset.  For example, Hillary permitted the transfer of twenty percent of American uranium reserves to a Russian company, for which she received indirectly $145 million.  Those reserves are now an asset of Russia.  So by calling Gabbard an asset Hillary means in a vague and undefined way that Gabbard is going to become something of value to Russia, though in what way is left tantalizingly unclear.

The “grooming to be a Russian asset” against Gabbard is an example of the Clintonian method of smearing – vicious, diabolical, and vague enough not to be immediately dismissible.

Hillary may have gone to the well too often in making this smear promiscuously against Gabbard, Jill Stein and Donald Trump - of being assets of Russian president Vladimir Putin.  The Russia hoax against Trump lasted three years before it finally ran out of gas due to utter lack of evidence.  Hillary ought to be jailed for hoaxing America like she did, but without doubt she will get away scot-free.

The media response is, to say the least, strange.  The media have heard the same charge from the same source before.  No one asked Hillary obvious questions: “how do you know this?”  “Who told you?”  “How is this taking place?  If asked, Hillary would squirt a load of ink into the water and try to slink away amid vague insinuations of insider insight.  She couldn’t say that Fusion GPS told her, or that a former British spy named Christopher Steele did a study for her.  That would give the game away, and undermine the impeachment of Donald Trump.

Gabbard served on the board of the DNC during the 2016 nomination, and she discovered that the DNC was applying pressure to ensure that Hillary won the nomination over Bernie Sanders.  Gabbard resigned the board and endorsed Sanders.  Hillary’s smear is straightforward revenge for that “betrayal,” though we still don’t know why now?

The real question is why the media are giving it the currency they are.  Why are they taking this absurd charge from a known pathological liar seriously?  Why aren’t they piling on Hillary for a smear she can’t back up?

Do Hillary and Bill Clinton still possess a hypnotic power over the Main Stream Media?
-30-