No Remorse For Hillary 182

I am hopeful that the commendable discovery process involved in US litigation will bring to light further details of the genesis of Christopher Steele’s ludicrous dossier on Trump/Russia, and may even give some clues as to whether Sergei Skripal and/or his handler Pablo Miller were involved in its contents.

The decision by the Democratic National Committee to sue the Russian Government, Wikileaks, Julian Assange personally and the Trump campaign is an act of colossal hubris. It is certain to reveal still more details of the deliberate fixing of the primary race against Bernie Sanders, over which five DNC members, including the Chair, were forced to resign. It will also lead to the defendants being able to forensically examine the DNC servers to prove they were not hacked – something which astonishingly the FBI refused to do, being instead content to take the word of the DNC’s own private cyber security firm, Crowdstrike. Unless those servers have been wiped completely (as Hillary did to her private email server) I know that is not going to go well for the DNC.

I cannot better Glenn Greenwald’s article on why it is a terrible idea to sue Wikileaks for publishing leaked documents – it sets a precedent which could be used to constrain media from ever publishing anything given them by whistleblowers. It is an astonishingly illiberal thing to undertake. Nor is it politically wise. The media has done its very best to ignore as far as possible the actual content of the leaks of DNC material, and rather to concentrate on the wild accusations of how they were obtained. But the fundamental crookedness revealed in the emails is bound to get some sort of airing, not least as the basis of a public interest defence.

I have often been asked if I regret my association with Wikileaks, given they are held responsible for the election of Donald Trump. My answer is that I feel no remorse at all.

Hillary Clinton lost because she was an appalling candidate. A multi-millionaire, neo-con warmonger with the warmth and empathy of a three week dead haddock and an eye for the interests of Wall Street, who regarded ordinary voters as “deplorables” (a term she used not just once, but frequently at fund-raisers with the mega-wealthy). Hillary Clinton conspired with the machine that was supposed to be neutrally running the primaries, to fix the primaries against Bernie Sanders. The opinion polls regularly showed that Sanders would beat Trump, and that the only Democratic candidate who Trump could beat was Clinton. Egomania and a massive sense of entitlement nevertheless led her not just to persist to get the candidacy, but persist to rig the candidacy. She then proceeded to ignore major urban working class battleground states in her campaign against Trump and focus on more glamorous places. In short, Hillary was corrupt rubbish. Full stop, and not remotely Wikileaks’ fault.

Wikileaks did not go out to get the evidence against Hillary. They were given it. Should they have withheld the knowledge of the rigging of the field against Bernie Sanders from the American people, to let Clinton benefit from the corruption? For me that is a no-brainer. It would have been a gross moral dereliction to have done so. It is also the case that Wikileaks can only publish what they are given. Had they been given dirt on Trump, they would have published. But they were not given any leaks on Trump.

I should put in an aside here which might surprise you. I like Anthony Weiner. I have never met him, but I watched the amazing 2016 fly on the wall documentary Weiner and he came across as a person of genuine goodwill, passion and commitment, undermined by what is very obviously a pathological illness. I realise that was not the general reaction, but it was mine.

But – and now I am going to really annoy people – I have to say that from an international perspective, rather than an American domestic perspective, I am also not in the slightest convinced that Trump has been worse for the World than Clinton would have been. Trump has not, to date, initiated any new military intervention or substantially increased any military conflict during his Presidency. In fact his current actions more closely match his words about non-intervention during his election campaign, than do his current words. Despite hawkish posturing, he has not substantially increased American military intervention in Syria.

My reading of the reported chemical weapon attack on Douma is this. Whether it was a false flag chemical attack, a pro-Assad chemical attack, or no chemical attack at all I do not know for sure. But whichever it is, it was used to attempt to get Trump to commit to a major escalation of American involvement in the war in Syria. So far, he has not done that. The American-led missile attack was illegal, but fortunately comparatively restrained, certainly in no way matching Trump’s rhetoric. All the evidence is, and there is a great deal of evidence from Libya and Afghanistan, that Clinton would have been far more aggressive.

That leaves the dichotomy between Trump’s rhetoric and his actions. Certainly there is every sign of a sharp tilt to the neo-cons, His apparent preference in his press conference with Macron today for an extended presence of France, the former colonial power, and US troops in Syria is deeply troubling. His sacking of the sensible Tillerson from the State Department, and his appointment of the odious John Bolton as National Security Adviser all appear to be terrible signs. But still, nothing has actually happened. There is a reading that Trump is placating the neo-cons with position and rhetoric while his actions – in Syria and in what a hating political class fails to acknowledge has all the makings of a diplomatic coup in North Korea – go in a very different direction.

It is beyond doubt that Hillary, who cannot open her mouth without denouncing Russia for causing her own entirely self-inflicted failure – would be taking the new Cold War to even worse extremes than it has already reached, to the delight of the military-industrial complex and her Wall Street friends. It is open to debate, but I would contend that it is very probable that President Hillary would have launched a major attack on Syria by now, just like she presided over as Secretary of State in Libya.

So my answer is this. Firstly, Clinton caused her own downfall by arrogance, and by failing to grasp the alienation of ordinary people from neo-liberal policies that impoverished them while the rich grew massively richer. Secondly, I strongly suspect that if Hillary were President, more people would be dead now in the Middle East.

So no, I have no regrets at all.


Finally, a change of policy on this blog.

For thirteen years now it has operated with a policy of not accepting donations, except for occasional legal funds. It has now reached a size and cost, not least because of continual attacks, that make income essential. It is also the case that due to change in personal circumstance I am no longer in a position to devote my time to it without income – the need to earn a living caused the blog to go dark for almost five months last year, and the last six weeks this journalism has stopped me doing anything else to pay the rent. So, with a certain amount of pride swallowed, here is your chance to subscribe:

Support This Website

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations

182 thoughts on “No Remorse For Hillary

1 2 3
  • Oliver Tickell

    “His sacking of the sensible Tillerson from the State Department, and his appointment of the odious John Boulton as National Security Adviser all appear to be terrible signs.”

    It’s ‘Bolton’.

  • James Charles

    ” . . . Wikileaks, given they are held responsible for the election of Donald Trump. ”

    This is why H.R.C. ‘lost’?
    “And it’s deadly. Doubtless, Crosscheck delivered Michigan to Trump who supposedly “won” the state by 10,700 votes. The Secretary of State’s office proudly told me that they were “very aggressive” in removing listed voters before the 2016 election. Kobach, who created the lists for his fellow GOP officials, tagged a whopping 417,147 in Michigan as potential double voters.”

    • YankeeFrank

      And what has the DNC done to combat this despicable minority voter purging (which has been going on since at least the 2000 Bush v Gore election)? Absolutely nothing at all. Even during the 8 years Obama ran it, the DNC did nothing. One must conclude they are fine with it.

      • Kofarizona

        They did their own purging. In the runup to the Democratic Primary, I, and tens-of-thousands of other registered Democrats, most of whom had evidenced a preference for Bernie Sanders, found out that our registration had been changed to “Independent” or “No Party Preference.” In Arizona, where I reside, only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic Primary.

  • Jon

    Heh. I managed to earn the ire of classical liberals on social media, prior to the presidential election, by suggesting the very same. I had quoted someone else’s very clever aphorism: “Clinton is capitalist violence abroad, Trump is capitalist violence at home” based on where each neo-liberal would wreak the most damage. I think they were furious because they thought I was in the US, and I’d be staying at home in a potential swing state.

    What strikes me as odd is that for anyone who was paying any attention at all to politics, it was clear that Hillary was just Blair in an expensive pantsuit. However, I fear that my interlocutors were so worried what was going to happen to Americans in America (abortion rights and health-care in particular), they did not have much space left to worry about the impact of the election’s outcome on the state of the world.

    • bj

      In fact, US Presidential Elections should be be determined by voters from the countries that the US meddles with –economically, militarily or otherwise– beside those in the homeland.

  • Smiling Through

    When candidate Hillary Clinton spoke of “the deplorables”, she revealed a contemptuous attitude not only to millions of her fellow Americans with a vote – scarcely the sign of a mature politician – but to the billions around the world who are largely powerless in the face of a US in pursuit of “full-spectrum dominance”.

  • Paul Flockhart

    I have no axe to grind with Craig Murray he seems from previously reads to be a reasonably nice chap. What astonishes me about this article is how it places facts, allegations, suppositions, beliefs and what might have beens on an equal footing. The fact that Trump has shown by his rhetoric, his actions and his executive orders, to be a lying charlatan with the moral scruples of a cockroach seem to be overlooked in favour of what Hillary probably would have done. Trumps year long reality is not as bad as the imaginary presidency of HRC. Murray failed miserably to anticipated the unexpected vile reality of Trump, yet claims the prophetic powereas and perspicacity to predict the path Clinton would have taken. As is obvious from past blogs Murray confuses “it is” with “I believe” maybe you should google English-Prime . Just saying

    • Canexpat

      I don’t want to speak for Craig, (I am entirely unqualified), but I would say that his comments are completely valid given Clinton’s appalling track record as S.O.S. Libya, Syria and Ukraine can be laid at the feet of that odious woman. Trump as of this moment has not yet started a new war for the Neocons. I am not confident that he won’t, but his record so far pales into insignificance in terms of illegal acts of international terrorism when compared to those of the Hildebeast and her minions.

    • Michael McNulty

      I hear they promised Hillary if she made President they would carve her image on Mt Rushmore. As soon as they found two faces.

      • Courtenay Barnett

        Very clever Michael.

        Reminds me of the one about the lawyer’s tombstone:-

        ” Here lies John Brown – a lawyer and an honest man”.

        Observer: ” Cemetery must be full – they are burying two men in one grave ( chuckle)

    • MightyDrunken

      Reread the article and note that this article is only talking about the actions of Trump and possible actions of Hillary regarding external military intervention and not domestic policy, or anything else.

    • bj

      Are you nuts!

      Hilary Rodham Clinton had, came election time, proven herself (quite openly, and glee and with pride, I add) to be a ruthless murderer, state-wrecker, and war-criminal.

      At election time, much could be said about Trump, and about how despicable and dangerously corrupt he was (and is), but I don’t think he had, at that time, real blood on his hands.

      The imminent danger came from your beloved ‘Democrat’ Hillary. It was a memorable night, when she did the world one great favor, by screwing up her own election by meddling with Bernie Sanders’).

  • Merkin Scot

    I have never met her but believe Clinton to be an odious creature.
    Trump is equally odious.
    Such is the corruption within the American system that these bozos were the only choice presented to the American voters.
    In this country we are not far behind with regard to choice.
    Meanwhile, Corbyn will get roasted tomorrow for resisting calls from a certain M.E. government’s placemen to hand over control of the Red Tories once and for all. That particular M.E. government already controls the Tory party, it seems.
    We must resist this affront to our democracy.

    • Tim Groves

      odious ►
      adj. Arousing or meriting strong dislike, aversion, or intense displeasure.

      From the above definition, odiousness is very much in the gut of the beholder. It’s a value judgement on another person based on an emotional response to that person’s appearance, behavior or reputation. One only needs to stand on a podium to provoke somebody’s odium. I can’t recall any political operative or celebrity in recent years who hasn’t been hated by somebody of my acquaintance who had never even met them personally. Perhaps Audrey Hepburn was the last famous figure who didn’t make anybody else feel sick.

      • Merkin Scot

        “odious : adj. Arousing or meriting strong dislike, aversion, or intense displeasure.”
        Yes, if you are using American English.
        I wasn’t.
        Odious in British English describes Clinton or Trump perfectly ie foul, nasty or disgusting.

      • Tom Welsh

        Tim, you are wasting your breath. Many people nowadays have no inkling of the difference between values and facts – and of course they believe their particular values to be facts.

        • Merkin Scot

          As I said, I have never met Clinton (or Trump).
          However, I think it is quite possible to make a judgement of these two characters based on the publicly available information.

  • N_

    JLC and BOD statement on their meeting with Jeremy Corbyn today:

    “(H)e failed to agree to any of the concrete actions we asked for”

    “(building trust with Mr Corbyn) will not be possible until and unless he and the party turn their many strong words against antisemitism into equally strong actions in order to bring about a deep cultural change in his supporters’ attitude to Jeωs” (emphasis added)

    “it is action by which the Jeωish community will judge him”

    “we will hold the Labour Party to account or any future failures”

    “We also commit to do our utmost to work with all those within Labour who want to help make it a safe and equal space for all of its members”

    How about if anyone doesn’t like the Labour party they go and support some other party? If you think someone is breaking antiracist law, put your fucking hands in your pockets and take them to court. Why should the Labour party accept being “judged” and “held to account” by racists and fascists?

    As for that phrase “deep cultural change”, haven’t I heard that notion before? Indeed I have. “Profound cultural changes” were the words used by former Mossad boss Ephraim Halevy hours after the 7-7-2005 bombs in London. Hecalled for a “world war” in which “profound cultural changes” would be necessary.

    Remember that day? It was first announced and then denied that Benyamin Netanyahu had had advance warning. I__aeli “consular officials” were also reported to have visited several London hospitals.

  • james

    craig… thank you.. i am with you 110% in all your comments on this… well written commentary and if anyone thought the democrat party could get worse and drag itself into the gutter further – they have this new legal case to help future totally destroy there party… amazing..

  • Sean Lamb

    A final note on Skripal: is there something in the link MI6 tame liemonger Boris Karpichkov and the tabloids are making between the Russians and the death of “spy in a bag” Gareth Williams? The death of Williams happened within a month of Sergei Skripal’s release.

    The line the tabloids are spinning is that Gareth Williams discovered in a Russian mole in GCHQ and confronting him was killed. Quite improbable that someone would leave no record with a superior of such a momentous discovery – not to mention alleged mole still hasn’t been identified. Can we make something simpler?

    Sergei Skripal is arrested and loses all contact with MI6, during his interrogation and trial he learns something of the events that lead to him being uncovered. On his being swapped and arriving in UK during his debriefing MI6 is able to discover the leak that lead to spy ring being busted – and Gareth Williams ends up suffocated in a bag a month later.

    So once again Boris Karpichkov and his handlers would be engaged in flagrant projection.

    Sadly I don’t think there is going to be much different in the long term between the Trump and a hypothetical Clinton presidency. It is, however, revealing to increasing numbers the intrinsically psychotic nature of the National Security State.

    • Sean Lamb

      ” Unless those servers have been wiped completely (as Hillary did to her private email server) I know that is not going to go well for the DNC.”

      They did wipe everything – everyone had to hand their devices in to the DNC IT team where everything was wiped. It is worth reading Donna Brazile’s Hacked, it is very revealing if read with a critical eye.

  • Courtenay Barnett

    The Clintons are beneath contempt and constitute a literal ‘criminal couple’ – with no scruples – no morals.
    Surely, the use of her private server and the swiping constitute a violation of Federal Law. But – that pales when ones deeper into ‘Clinton-land’ and her and her husband’s histories.

    Bill and Hillary

    The “Clinton Foundation” turns out to be a con-artist fund used to piggy back on Haitian suffering – post the tragic and devastating earthquake. So – where are the multi-millions in donations – where are the efforts to bring the Clintons to justice – where is justice?

    Folks like Tony Blair; George Bush Jr.; Bill and Hillary Clinton – are – indeed – above the law.

    But – go further all the way back to the Clintons history from Arkansas onwards and one will definitely find not just a trail of corruption – but – a trail of blood! Recall which primary state the ‘drugs for arms’ deal had the drugs being shipped out of…. and who was the Governor. And, on and on and on….

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Courtenay Barnett April 24, 2018 at 23:42
      Absolutely. And though Craig has no time for Hillary, he does not seem to know her (and her hubby’s) background. If Craig reads books, as well as writing them, he should read Gary Webb’s book ‘Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion’; he allegedly ‘committed suicide’ not long after the book was published.
      Here are a couple of videos:
      ‘Mena Coverup – Bill & Hillary Clinton’s Arkansas Cocaine Operation Exposé’:
      ‘The Mena Connection (1995) -Exposing Iran Contra, Clinton, Mena, Arkansas, & CIA Drug Smuggling’:
      The Clintons are loathsome creatures, as are Trump, the Bush’s, Obama, Bliar, Cameron, May, Macron etc.
      Evil blackmailable creatures rule us; they are mere puppets of the ‘PTB’ who pull their strings, and stuff their pockets.
      That’s why all the fury of hell is poured out to try to keep Jeremy Corbyn from becoming Prime Minister of Britain.
      Elections coming up! Keep your eyes on the ball.

  • Tony_0pmoc


    I agree with much of what you have written about Clinton and even Trump. Clinton is easy to analyse, but Trump is highly complex. Re “His sacking of the sensible Tillerson from the State Department”, I think you should seriously consider Theirry Meyssan’s analysis below, may be very close to The Truth. Recent propaganda events have been heavily driven by The British Government, and thankfully (and you have made an enormous contribution), almost all of it has been proven to be a highly embarrassing series of lies and fabrications, to such an extent, that the Government should have already resigned.

    “Four days to declare a Cold War”


    “13 March 2018

    The Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs published a Press release condemning a possible US military intervention, and announcing that if Russian citizens were harmed in Damascus, Moscow would riposte proportionally, since the Russian President is constitutionally responsible for the security of his fellow citizens.

    Bypassing the official diplomatic channels, Russian Chief of Staff General Valeri Guerassimov contacted his US counterpart General Joseph Dunford to inform him of his fear of a false flag chemical attack in Ghouta. Dunford took this information vey seriously, and alerted US Defense Secretary General Jim Mattis, who referred the matter to President Donald Trump. In view of the Russian insistence that this piece of foul play was being prepared without the knowledge of the Pentagon, the White House asked the Director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, to identify those responsible for the conspiracy.

    We do not know the result of this internal enquiry, but President Trump acquired the conviction that his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was implicated. The Secretary of State was immediately asked to interrupt his official journey in Africa and return to Washington.

    President Trump announced on Twitter that he had fired his Secretary of State, with whom he had not yet been in contact. He was replaced by Mike Pompeo, ex-Director of the CIA, who, the night before, had confirmed the authenticity of the Russian information transmitted by General Dunford. On his arrival in Washington, Tillerson obtained confirmation of his dismissal from White House General Secretary General John Kelly.

    The ex-CEO of the largest multinational in the world, ExxonMobil, thought he was untouchable. But to his great surprise, Rex Tillerson was brutally dismissed by Donald Trump. The former believed he was serving the Anglo-Saxon world, while the latter considers him to be a traitor to his country.”

  • MrTuvok

    It seems you argue that Trump has been better for the world, yet you state that he has been «worse».

    Thierry Meyssan says that some of the bombs were directed against Assad’s palace and probably meant to hurt the regime more than the attack turned out to do. The bombs were likely neutralized to a far greater extent than anticipated. We should be careful with interpreting the bombs as a way to appease neo-cons and globalist allies.

    • Tom Welsh

      I think Craig’s point (part of it at least) is that there still is a world today. Judging by Mrs Clinton’s statements and her past actions, it seems quite likely she would have started a war against Russia by now. A war that could hardly fail to turn into a thermonuclear conflagration.

      Mr Trump’s bark is very much worse than his bite. Whereas Mrs Clinton’s bark and bite are equally dangerous. If she tried to do to Mr Putin what she did to Colonel Qadafi, we would all die.

  • Scurra

    I don’t necessarily disagree with your sentiments here – HRC was the worst possible choice the Democrats could have made for that particular election, in which “outsider” status turned out to be the critical thing.
    But I do object to the repetition of the assertion that she “regarded ordinary voters as “deplorables” (a term she used not just once, but frequently at fund-raisers with the mega-wealthy).” No, she regarded deplorable people as deplorables. She singled out the racists, the homophobes, the misogynists as being deplorable, and noted that they were going to vote for Trump because he embodied their values, especially after 8 years of a president who was notably not any of those things.
    By all means condemn her for her hawkish militancy (she would have bombed those buildings too) or her Wall Street leanings (she might well have supported those tax cuts), but at least report her accurately.

    • Canexpat

      From what I read, she alleged that half of Trump’s supporters fitted the description you consider deplorable. A quarter of the U.S. population is apparently racist, sexist, homophobic, islamaphobic… So only a quarter, (not half),should be ignored as being unworthy of her attention. How wonderfully democratic of her.

      • N_

        People who support Trump are arseholes whatever proportion of the population they comprise. Even if it were 90%, they’d still be arseholes. The majority of white people in the US think it’s wrong that any of their black fellow-citizens should get Medicaid healthcare for free – even if they don’t admit it. The US is a very racist country. There is a high level of racism too against Latino and Hispanic citizens, who outnumber black people – but how many Hispanics can you think of who have served in top positions, comparable to the offices occupied by Barack Obama, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell? Almost any film set in Los Angeles is bound to have a scene showing Latino residents as gang-involved.

        • Canexpat

          Sorry N, I cannot agree with you on this. Many good people supported Trump for a variety of reasons, not least of which was the appalling nature of the opposition. I would suggest that you listen to the wise words of Mark Blythe on the phenomenon of ‘Trumpism’. The problem with all party-based politics is that no party represents the entire views of any thinking voter. I have held my nose and voted for parties that had elements of their platform that I detested, but on balance, given that no party represented my views on all subjects, I believed that they were the best choice at the time. As to racism, I am of the opinion that most groups have a natural in-group preference that has evolved over thousands of years as a successful survival strategy. The formation of ghettos seems to be a symptom of this in-group preference. Indeed, in Canada, entire urban areas are becoming almost monoethnic. It is a triumph of the Christian west that such natural preference is now frowned upon by the culture and each individual is (at least in principle) valued as a member of the human species. Can you name any other society where ‘racism’ is vilified to the same degree? The racism/tribalism of many other societies is often taken for granted within the culture. I have experience of the attitude of Chinese society to non-Chinese and that of (albeit elite) Japanese to non-Japanese and the racism you cite for the U.S. would pale in comparison.

          • Billy Bostickson

            That’s very true, thank you and Mark Blythe for stating it so clearly.

    • WJ

      Some Americans are deplorable. Most Americans are badly educated, under employed, highly indebted, under insured, and socially alienated. But instead of addressing the justifiable anger of these Americans, it is less awkward during your Wall Street $10,000 plate dinners to just call them deplorables.

      She used the same strategy with Sanders’ supporters, many of whom overlapped socioeconomically with Trump’s midwestern supporters. She and her campaign called them BernieBros, inventing the term whole cloth to cast the most popular politician in America–and by far the most popular among women, men, and minorities under thirty–as the favorite of a bunch of crass misogynists–many of whom ended up voting for Jill Stein! Who is, of course, a woman.

  • slorter

    The corporate Democrats would have preferred Trump to Bernie in any case! They had to destroy Bernie they new their backup would be Trump!

    • Canexpat

      I do wonder about this. Once I heard Adelson was funding Trump I lost almost all my remote hope for Trump’s populist campaign. When I first heard that Trump was running I had assumed that he was doing so to help the Clinton campaign as he was thought to be the only Republican that Hilary had a chance of beating. As an old friend of the Clintons who had been to Chelsea’s wedding this seemed plausible. The vilification he was subjected to by the MSM during the campaign and since still makes me wonder whether he was perceived to be a threat by the Deep State. He’s still alive however, so maybe not.

      • N_

        @Canexpat – The vilification was only superficial, or else the controllers of the MSM were stupid to a level that cannot be true. Trump was hugely helped by the MSM. It’s true that the way his campaign used rallies was highly effective, but their effect was boosted by the MSM.

        • Canexpat

          Very possibly N. I am very aware of what happened in the case of Ron Paul, although I do think given Trump’s ‘Celeb’ status it might have been difficult to completely ignore him. I still hold out a hope that Jesse Ventura becomes a candidate in the next Presidential election. He seems to be a man of integrity and as a former wrestler he fits with the Idiocracy future of the U.S.

        • WJ

          Clinton encouraged the MSM to prop up Trump. He was the R candidate she wanted to face. It’s in the emails.

        • WJ

          A host on MSNBC, by contrast, was fired for wanting to cover Sanders’ announcement of his candidacy. The host is Ed Schultz. His testimony is easily found online. He now works for RT.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Canexpat April 25, 2018 at 00:16
        Sure, Trump was friends of the Clintons. It’s a tight-knit community of gits who the PTB (‘Deep State’, Banksters etc.) have ‘tapped’ for ‘Front Guys/Gals’ who are eminently bribable. They are puppets of the ‘backroom boys’ who really control our destinies.
        Every now and then, the system malfunctions, and the ‘wrong’ leader is elected. He is then removed, one way or another.
        There is no way Trump was not aware of the Clinton’s backgound, of the long list of murders, ‘accidents’ or suicides of people who had upset or been a threat to the Clintons.
        As for his being perceived as a threat by the ‘Deep State’, the last thing Trump would do is risk upsetting the PTB. It’s all a charade.
        As some folks seem to think Obama was a ‘good guy’ (‘I’m good at killing people’ was one of his statements, re drone strikes), get a load of this: ‘Joan Rivers • Obama is gay, Michelle is a tranny’:
        Joan Rivers died in extremely suspicious circumstances within two months of that brief ‘interview’.

      • Stu

        It’s worth remembering that in Trump’s first speech as President elect the very first two things he said were that they were going to bring down pharma costs and get better value for money on defence contracts. Presumably Bannon fed him these lines. It’s never been mentioned since!

        Trump was obviously a fake populist. The real conflict we are seeing now is within capital. Capital is in crisis because there are no new markets to expand into and massive wealth has been amassed in formerly poor regions which is now competing with western wealth. So you basically have your capitalists like Trump, Orban, Erdogan and the Brexiters attempting to reshape their national economies in favour of the domestic wealthy in conflict with the institutions that control contemporary capitalism.

  • N_

    Schools are removing analogue clocks from exam halls as teenagers ‘cannot tell the time’.
    Something must be done.

    What will it be in five years’ time? Just grunt to your phone and Google will select the right four-bit message type for you from your brain chip? Why would most people need to say anything other than “I like it”, “I follow you”, “Delete”, “Here’s a photograph of my genitals”, “I defriend you” or choose from one of seven other possibilities anyway? Are they intellectuals or something? Ideas above their station? Next they’ll want a clock with hands that go round! They may even try to learn what the different hand positions mean! Posh!

    • N_

      When increasing numbers of children can’t tell the time, you wonder what the point is of debating the pros and cons of Britain belonging to a customs union with the EU, or whether or not the Russian government ordered Sergei Skripal to be attacked using a chemical weapon. You wonder what percentage of the adult population could name five European countries that belong to the EU and five that don’t, let alone point to them on a map.

  • Chain Break

    Clinton was bad and hawkish but she’d never ever touch the likes of Bolton with a barge-pole. The man is toxic.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Chain Break April 25, 2018 at 00:45
      You may well be right about Bolton, but she sure as hell ‘touches’ other stuff. Read ‘Cathy O’Brien’s ‘Access Denied: For Reasons of National Security, and/or watch ‘Cathy O’Brien Ex Illuminati Mind Control Victim MK Ultra The Granada Forum 10/31/96’:

    • Michael McNulty

      I think Hillary failed because she is rotten to the core and enough voters knew it.

  • exiled off mainstreet

    This is another excellent article like all of them have been in this crucial month. I agree that had the harpy been in it would probably have been us. Though the missile attack was an obvious crime, I can see the merit of your views as to its rationale. I also think that Tillerson may have been sacked because he was too accepting of the phony Skripal story, and I accept the suggestion that Trump may have been conned into sending more Russian diplomats back than he was intent on doing. I do think that he is rather weak and can be manipulated by the power structure and I also think he should just shut down the Mueller witchhunt and gain more freedom of action that way. The biggest threat to our future is the media/deep state intelligence agency power structure conspiracy.

  • fredjc

    No mention of the ‘mysterious Pakistani IT guy’ or ‘Wendy’ Wasserman, or her brother, or the spy-ring in Congress, well, somethings amiss?

    • Antony

      The present DNC is capable to incidentally shoot itself in the foot as this dumb law suit shows, but not yet in the head as that Pakistani IT family infiltration of Congress curtsy Democrats non-inclusion shows.

  • Hieroglyph

    That lawsuit reads like a Nixon enemies list. Except, of course, it’s Hillary’s. The unfortunate fact about Crooked H. is that she’s a whack job, and it’s not terribly well-disguised either. Add her basic lack of any charm at all, with an astonishingly inept campaign, and you can only come to the conclusion that Hillary should really be taking legal action against herself, and perhaps her creepy husband.

    Alas, the Clinton’s are not fixable. There is no redemption ark for those decades-long crooks. It’s a measure of the power of the media that she was able to run for election at all.

    Trump out-worked her, and fought for the little-guy – that’s why he won. Whether this was a genuine pitch, or just cynical populism, we’ll have to wait and see. Personally, I consider the early signs promising. And he could yet win a Nobel peace prize. Perhaps Crooked H. will file a lawsuit against the Nobel committee as well? Would anyone be surprised?

      • Hieroglyph

        I entirely concede I have no clue what the fuck the US is doing bombing Yemen and Somalia. Think the Saudi’s are heavily involved here as well, but that’s no excuse. And I was hugely disappointed that Trump added more troops to Afghanistan, when withdrawal is the only option. One must indeed be careful that relief about Crooked’s loss doesn’t translate into a free pass for Trump.

        One part of the article is interesting though. Trump no longer holds ‘Terror Tuesdays’. This was Obama’s day, allegedly, to select which wedding guests to execute. As the article states, “Trump gave the US military’s Africa Command (Africom) greater freedom to carry out strikes.” This is a thorny one, ethically speaking. I basically agree with his decision, as I really don’t think POTUS should be selecting from death lists. But the inevitable consequence of this shift are more military strikes on ‘ISIS’, aka wedding guests etc.

        I don’t think Trump is perfect, and his love of all things military is a bit, you know, draft-dodgy chicken-hawk. I’ll never understand why we are allied with the Saudi’s in bombing bleeding Yemen. This policy began before Trump, but he’s POTUS now … All I can say in (partial) defence of Trump is that I don’t believe he’s a rabid neo-con, and his objective is fundamentally to withdraw from these foreign ventures, over time. Does this make me a mug? Quite possibly. Charismatic, clever people have made mugs out of the voters before, and will again.

        Also, if Trump invades Syria, fuck Trump. That’s my red-line, right there.

  • Njegos

    “Secondly, I strongly suspect that if Hillary were President, more people would be dead now in the Middle East.”

    Totally agree. Her track record pointed exactly in that direction. Thank you.

  • Hatuey

    I’m disappointed with this article by Craig Murray. That’s fine, though, we are all allowed to be wrong, even Craig.

    Counterfactual possibilities aside, it make sense for us to attack Trump now because he is the President, not Hillary, and Theresa May has aligned herself with him. By extension, the more ridiculous Trump looks and is made to look by us, the more discredited Theresa May will appear. Political minds should be able to make calculations like that in an instant.

    Now, you may very well want to indulge in imagined scenarios and questions — like “what might have happened if Hillary had won?” — but your suppositions are inadmissible. I am concerned with the realities we face, not imagined realities, and Theresa May is a real existing menace to the cause most dear to me, Scottish Independence.

    My enemy’s friend is my enemy. Say nothing or attack Trump, that’s the choice now. Hillary is over.

    • james

      maybe it would have been better for craig to title his piece “an act of colossal hubris”.. it really isn’t about hilary anymore, but how the usa and the western gov’ts in collusion with it, as spiraling down a slippery slope with no possibility of return… it would appear you missed this in craigs post.. bring the litigation on! it will only open up an even greater can of worms for the powers that be…

      • Hatuey

        I focus on the things that matter most. The litigation, your spiralling West, and Hilary Clinton in general, are all unimportant distractions.

  • Squeeth

    Remember the excuses people used to make for that bloody bastard Obama? Same with trump, people look for a bright side that isn’t there. Clinton failed because she’s a canute but US president elections aren’t democratic so it hardly matters. It does look like Macron of Vichy is being groomed to take up the poison chalice so we can always look forward to the Russians being less inhibited about shooting down terrorflieger.

  • Den Lille Abe

    Nice article, but it does nothing to hide the fact that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are horrible people, that only couls get elected in a morrally corrupt and degenerated society. Like the US or UK. There is no “We the people” in either the UK or US, a corrupt and criminal political Establishment holds all the cards, gerrymandering, vote rigging , you name it, they have got it. Both systems needs to be blown up and replaced with something different, impossible though when the people are treated as muhrooms, kept in the dark and fed shit.
    The breaking of the Unions and de-politicization of the people, Thatcher anybody, was first steps in disarming the people, of removing the only weapon they had: Their right to vote, The status of the press is another step in this strategy, it is not press anymore, it is Ministry of Truth, a complete make up of lies and fake news, based on fictions made on the fly. Complete and utter tosh!
    I dont see anything happening before the house comes crashing down, as it will, another financial bust will arrive at some point, the US defaulting , the dollar is scorned as a world currency, whatever, and we will all probably be left dirt poor. Then is the time to rebel.

    • BarrieJ

      A student of recent history would see much in 1930’s Germany reflected in Britain today.
      The state and every office and function of it comprehensively corrupted and sad to see the humble front line bureaucrats of the state seemingly happy to play their part.
      It’s very worrying.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.