[ Karnataka News ] The political drama going on to gain power in Karnataka is really amazing.


The political drama going on to gain power in Karnataka has really reached a pretty turning point. The hearing was held in the Supreme Court on Friday. The political drama going on to gain power in Karnataka has really reached a pretty turning point. The hearing was held in the Supreme Court on Friday. The political drama going on to gain power in Karnataka has really reached a pretty turning point. The hearing was held in the Supreme Court on Friday. The political drama going on to gain power in Karnataka has really reached a pretty turning point. The hearing was held in the Supreme Court on Friday.

Kamal Haasan’s first political visit to Tamilnadu on January 26 / THE NEWS INDIA


In South, the famous filmmaker Kamal Haasan has already announced the announcement of coming to politics. In South, the famous filmmaker Kamal Haasan has already announced the announcement of coming to politics. In South, the famous filmmaker Kamal Haasan has already announced the announcement of coming to politics. In South, the famous filmmaker Kamal Haasan has already announced the announcement of coming to politics. In South, the famous filmmaker Kamal Haasan has already announced the announcement of coming to politics. In South, the famous filmmaker Kamal Haasan has already announced the announcement of coming to politics.

Real Media: Former British Diplomat Turned Anarchist


CARNE ROSS: My name is Carne Ross. I’m a former British diplomat. I resigned from the foreign office over the
Iraq war and since then I’ve set up an NGO dealing with political causes for democratic
countries and movements around the world. But since then I’ve also had a journey where
I’ve ended up as a believer in anarchism, which is a rather strange thing for somebody
who comes from my background, which is very much government top-down authority, neoliberalism,
to believe basically the opposite of that. The trigger was my resignation from the foreign
office or rather the Iraq war itself because I worked on Iraq and WMD and weapon’s inspections
and to see my own colleagues, a government I thought was basically good, naïve as that
may sound, lie about a war and ignore alternatives to war on something I really knew about. And so I knew exactly how it was lying. That was a real breach that let open the door
to the journey that followed. Had that not happened I don’t think what subsequently
took place in terms of my own personal transformation would have happened. It might have happened in other ways, I don’t
know, but that certainly was the case here. In the British system, there’s no question
that the Prime Minister is by far the most important actor in British government and
therefore in British politics. To a remarkable degree, British government
is centralized. I worked in the foreign office theoretically
responsible for British foreign policy. The foreign secretary, in almost all cases,
in almost all important areas of policy, defer to number 10 and was told very explicitly
on decision after decision what to do by number 10, and was basically presenting number 10’s
policy. In those days, it was Tony Blair, I was also
around when John Major was Prime Minister, so I saw both. In Blair, it was actually worse, I mean people
in the foreign office said that Blair centralized government more than any predecessor. So there were people who worked on foreign
policy, including Alastair Campbell, who was technically their media guy, actually had
a huge influence over foreign policy because Labour in those days very much saw the message
as the policy. What you were saying about it publicly was
really all that mattered. The idea that a small group of people can
know the reality of millions or billions is absurd, and that therefore they can make the
right decisions about those millions and billions is equally absurd. I think also you know my own analysis started
from a kind of empirical observation about what was going on. You know, problems of epic magnitude, such
as climate change and inequality resulting from the economic system that we all seem
to have been accepting. These problems are not getting solved. See look at the outputs from the system and
you have to question the system itself. I mean there are various theoretical explanations
I could give you of why that’s happened, including complexity theory, which I’m very attached
to, which says that top-down authority can neither know the state of the system in any
meaningful way and therefore cannot arbitrate it, and that stability can only come from
combined bottom-up actions in a complex system. There’s no question that the Earth, the planet
today in human society, millions of actors, billions of actors in constant interaction
— that is by definition complexity. The vast majority of political parties across
the west continue to support this model of neoliberalism or supposedly representative
democracy kind of modulating the worst effects of neoliberalism, whether inequality or environmental
destruction, when the evidence is overwhelming that that’s not happening, and yet the vast
majority of political parties across the West and indeed to an extent across the world still
support that model. So the radical alternative, the better alternative
is invisible to a lot of people; that choice is not on the menu for them politically. In Britain it’s a slightly different story
because you do have a more radical political choice in the Labour Party that is offering
a fundamentally different vision and I think that’s important and I think that has shaken
up the political debate. Here we can talk about the program that the
Labour party is proposing, but there is much more of a choice here. What I would like to see is real mainstream
comprehensive discussion of ideas like anarchism and the sorts of models of the company, of
local democracy, of bottom-up democracy, that is proposes, which are not complicated. They are simple things that actually people
can start to implement already, they don’t have to wait for an election to do it. I know there’s a lot of optimism about the
possibility of a Labour government. I don’t dispute that optimism, it would undoubtedly
be better, but I don’t necessarily think they’re going to bring about systemic change, which
is largely social, actually. It’s in our heads, it’s about how we see each
other, how we see society, and this where anarchism I think has a lot to tell us. That if we follow certain principles in our
lives and in our forms of organization, including how we govern ourselves, how we organize ourselves
economically, those principles, above all being the rejection of coercion, equality
of voice, equality of agency, then a different society will emerge. I think that is plausible. I don’t think that’s a crazy idea. I think anarchism is actually, in a way, certainly
is a much more sensible, rational, way of organizing society than the current system
which seems to me, when you look at it on the face of it, tinier numbers of people making
decisions for this vast number, absolutely crazy. Politics and neoliberalism have created this
sense of agency-less, of apathy in sort of impolite way of talking about it, that “We
can’t do anything, we have to wait for them to do something.” In fact anarchism, very very clearly says
that, you know ,if you’re not prepared to do it yourself and practice these principles,
then you’re not changing anything. Communicating anarchism is complicated because
it’s got a history. It’s a word that comes with baggage in lots
of societies and interestingly that baggage is different. I’ve lived in the U.S. for a long time and
anarchism is definitely seen more negatively than it is in Europe, and that’s partly because
anarchist killed their presidents on one or two occasions. And, you know, I think that the left there,
the Democrats have got a long way to go in terms of understanding that their mainstream
politics is just re-affirming a system. Whereas in Europe I think there is more openness
to the ideas. I think that the way to explain it is just
talk about the practicalities of it. Forget the labels. I mean I will call it anarchist, but other
people can it communalism, they can call it self-organization, they can call it bottom-up
democracy. I’m not at all attached to what people talk
about and when you talk about the practical stuff, get away from the theology and the
philosophy and the history, you talk about practical things. Like people sharing the enterprises that they
work in, people governing themselves, taking decisions about the things that matter for
them, whether the future of the local hospital or their local school, everybody gets that. That’s not a complicated idea to understand
whether you’re from the right or the left. Ultimately my hope is that if we do this,
we will be able to dispense with political labels altogether because we’ll start to see
each other as people not as Tories or Labour, Republicans or Democrats, or whatever — or
anarchists or socialists even. I think you know that labeling has been very
very divisive in a lot of circumstances. Clearly very divisive in the current political
dispensation. I mean there’s a whole host of reasons for
that in America and in Europe, but you know ultimately a successful cohesive society where
all the vulnerable are taken care of, where everybody has an equal voice, is almost by
definition a de-politicized society. It’s one where human values and moral norms
in a sense are much more important than policy or political parties. I think where these ideas have been implemented,
it’s quite interesting. For instance, in Brazil, there was a big experiment
— not really an experiment, practice of participatory democracy — in a city called Porto Alegre,
where millions of people took part in the decisions of how to spend the city budget
which was intrinsically better, led to much more equitable outcomes, but also very interestingly
led to a decline in party politics because people began to see each as just people, you
know, with needs. How do we educate our kids? How do we get treated when we’re sick? Rather than as political enemies, but also
then one of the reasons the political system is held up and is supported is perpetuated
in Brazil like everywhere, is that it’s a form of small elites dividing up the spoils. There’s always going to be competition between
those elites as to who gets their hands on the money. So in every country, you see that contest
and often that contest is presented as about ideology or political ideas. In fact, it’s just groups of people arguing
over who has access to the moolah.

BREAKING NEWS Out Of ALABAMA, Roy Moore Supporters OUTRAGED


BREAKING NEWS Out Of ALABAMA, Roy Moore Supporters
OUTRAGED When it comes to trying to win elections,
there�s no depths the Democrats won�t sink to in order to beat their opponents.Last
presidential election, Hillary Clinton first rigged the Democrat primary against Bernie
Sanders, before going on to engage in deceptive practices during the general election. In fact, Wikileaks revealed that she was in
collusion with dozens of journalists from the mainstream media as well as the Ukrainian
government, all to take down then-candidate Donald Trump. Worse, it�s estimated that anywhere between
one and four million illegal votes were cast last election, and studies have shown that
such votes are cast in favor of Democrats by an 8 to 1 margin, if not more.Now, with
the Senate seat in Alabama being a must win for Democrats, another sinister plot of theirs
has been exposed, and it�s enough to make your blood boil. Big League Politics is reporting that Democrat
activists in the state are urging African American voters to come out in droves to vote
for Roy Moore�s opponent, Democrat Doug jones, but there�s just one problem � the
people they�re soliciting don�t live in Alabama. No, instead they live across the border in
Mississippi, and the activists are using Redding as their medium to reach out to them.Unbelievable. From Big League Politics: Democratic activists are making a last-minute
push to get out the vote against Roy Moore in Alabama by encouraging �African-Americans
in Mississippi� to vote in the wrong state. Sources on the ground in Alabama confirm that
these tactics are real, and they are being used by supporters of Democrat Doug Jones. Big League Politics received evidence of a
Reddit call for �African-Americans in Mississippi� to �make a short trip to Alabama on December
12.� That Reddit thread is still active. Similar calls have been made on Reddit for
African-Americans in other nearby states, including Georgia and Tennessee.Lovely, right? It gets worse, however. Not only are Democrats trying to get people
to illegally vote, but they�re fully abusing a new law that allows certain felons to re-register
to vote by rounding them up in droves and getting them to register, AL.com reported. �Thousands of felons across Alabama have
registered to vote in recent weeks, according to Pastor Kenneth Glasgow, who is heading
up a statewide effort to get felons to the voting booth. Glasgow�s goal is to get as many felons
as possible signed up to vote before the end of the day Monday, the deadline to be able
to cast a ballot in Alabama�s Dec. 12 U.S. Senate special election� Meanwhile, Democrats across the country have
been repeatedly accusing President Trump of unfairly �stealing� the presidential election
last year. Yet the truth of the matter is it�s them
committing the election fraud and projecting their own actions onto conservatives. Why is it Democrats can�t seem to win elections
without cheating?

Ecuadorian Ex-Diplomat: Report Claiming Assange Met Manafort Is False


BEN NORTON: It’s The Real News Network, and
I’m Ben Norton. The United States government has secretly
filed criminal charges against Julian Assange, the founder and editor of the whistleblowing
journalism organization WikiLeaks. This has huge implications for journalism
around the world, and could be an enormous blow to the freedom of the press here in the
U.S., because Assange is not a U.S. citizen, and he has not done journalistic work inside
the U.S. So the U.S. government is trying to criminally
prosecute a journalist who is not even a citizen for publishing confidential government documents,
which all major newspapers do, including the New York Times and the Washington Post. Assange has never been charged with a crime,
but he’s been trapped in the embassy of Ecuador inside London since 2012. He has feared that the British government
would extradite him to the U.S. for prosecution, where he is afraid he could face the death
penalty. In 2016, a United Nations human rights panel
determined that Assange is being arbitrarily detained under international law, and that
he must be freed and is due compensation. But still, in the past two years since that
U.N. ruling, Assange has remained stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy. And now corporate media outlets are spreading
stories about Assange that WikiLeaks maintains are totally false. On November 27, the British newspaper the
Guardian published a story claiming that Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort
met Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy three times for secret talks in 2013, 2015,
and in mid-2016. The Guardian report implied that this was
related to WikiLeaks’ publication of leaked Democratic Party documents and emails. Wikileaks actually says this story is completely
false, and has pledged to sue the Guardian for it. WikiLeaks is currently raising money for a
lawsuit. Assange and Manafort both say that the story
is fake, and even the Washington Post has actually cast doubt on the Guardian report. Well, now a former diplomat in the Ecuadorian
embassy in London is also speaking out. Fidel Narvaez told the British news website
the Canary that the story is false, and today here we are joined by Fidel Narvaez to discuss
the scandal. He is an Ecuadorian human rights activist
and former diplomat. Fidel Narvaez served as consul and then first
secretary at the Ecuadorian embassy in London from 2010 until July 2018. Thanks for joining us, Fidel. FIDEL NARVAEZ: Thank you for having me. BEN NORTON: So can you respond first–there
was a lot of things we can discuss here. We can talk about the new Ecuadoran president. Lenin Moreno has been pushing for Assange
to leave the embassy, after he was granted refuge there by the previous president Rafael
Correa. But before we talk about that conflict, let’s
specifically talk about this Guardian report which you, Assange, and WikiLeaks, and Manafort
all say is a fake report. The Guardian also has come under attack because
it disguised the fact that this story was actually co-written by Fernando Villavicencio,
who is an anti-Correa opposition activist who has worked closely with the U.S. government. And Villavicencio himself has been repeatedly
accused of fabrication. In fact, in 2014, the Ecuadoran public news
agency Andes reported that Villavicencio doctored an official government document, and that
the Guardian published it as supposed news without verifying it. So do you think that this is another case
where the Guardian has not verified the story, and has published fake information? FIDEL NARVAEZ: Yeah. The latest Guardian publication about [inaudible],
it’s a fabrication. I’m surprised, because the big implication
that such a story has. But I’m not that surprised that the Guardian
is again publishing stories on Assange and WikiLeaks. The sources that you have mentioned, they
have been used previously by the Guardian in other stories that I remember challenging,
as part of the embassy. That was part of my job. And I can especially referred to the previous
one when they fake completely a supposed Russian plan to smuggle Julian Assange from the embassy. In that story they name me as the supposed
contact with Russians, with Moscow. Is another fabrication from the Guardian,
and it’s disgusting, really. BEN NORTON: And can you talk more about the
previous reports, along with this report? The Guardian, what’s interesting, is that
in the digital version of this report it disguised the fact that this story had three coauthors. The digital version only shows Luke Harding
and Dan Collins. However, in the print version of the story,
it actually showed that there were three coauthors. The third was Villavicencio, who is this Ecuadoran
activist who was previously strongly opposed to the government of Rafael Correa, which
was now replaced by the current president Lenin Moreno. And as I mentioned previously, Ecuadoran public
news have accused Villavicencio of publishing doctored information. So if this has happened in the past, why would
the Guardian continue using this person as a critical source? And a photo on Twitter shows Luke Harding
and Dan Collins, in fact, meeting with the CEO in Quito, Ecuador. So it’s very clear that he is one of the main
sources. FIDEL NARVAEZ: Yeah. Yeah, most probably he’s one of the main sources. And the sources of that source, I assume,
is the a security company that used to be in charge of the security of the embassy,
who was contacted by the intelligence services in Ecuador. They have been pretty hostile to Julian Assange
during those years, producing very misrepresentations in reports about the day to day in the embassy,
trying to misrepresent Julian’s stay in the embassy. And these latest fabrications, they have clearly
a political aim. It is a clear attempt to link Assange, WikiLeaks,
to Russian collusion and Trump administration, which I don’t think, Idon’t think there are
grounds for that at all. BEN NORTON: Yeah, and let’s talk about- FIDEL NARVAEZ: Why the Guardian keeps using
VIllavicencio and those sources is a question for the Guardian. But I tell you that the Guardian is processing
my complaint, because I’m complaining about defamation. It’s not an easy thing to cope with in the
UK if a major newspaper accuses you of plotting with Russian diplomats or Russian intelligence. So the Guardian was already processing that
complaint, and they went ahead with the story of Manafort, which I don’t think they will
be able to substantiate. And I think we’re going to see a lawsuit by
WikiLeaks. BEN NORTON: Something that you pointed out
in your interview with the Canary, which is a British news website that reported on how
you are calling this story false, you pointed out that the London embassy of Ecuador is
extremely surveilled. I mean, this is one of the most highly surveilled
places, really, in the world. So there’s video footage and meticulous documentation
of everyone who enters and exits exits the embassy. Also, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist
Glenn Greenwald has pointed this exact fact out, that if this story were true we should
have video and photo evidence. Of course, we don’t have any video or photos
of Manafort supposedly entering the embassy three times. So can you respond to that point as well? FIDEL NARVAEZ: There’s video footage and pictures
of every single person that enters that embassy in the last six years. Since Julian Assange took refuge at the embassy,
the whole embassy is surveilled. By the Ecuadorean security cameras that record
24 hours, seven days a week, every single movement in there. But the exterior of the embassy is also surveilled
by other cameras. Not just the normal cameras that exist in
London, but we are completely sure that the neighboring buildings, they have surveilling
cameras spying on Ecuador, registering every single visitor, every single movement. There are previous occasions when other controversial
visitors, to say, have been reported by exterior cameras. It’s impossible that anybody will enter that
embassy without being, without leaving a clear record. It’s impossible. And the reports claiming that Mr. Manafort
was not just three times, four times, you read carefully the report, and there’s not,
there’s no record of that? And it’s not just the cameras. Every visitor needs to be approved by the
head of mission. Normally the ambassador or whoever is in charge
of that embassy. To be approved, the security personnel draws
a profile of every visitor, and there’s a record of that. And every visitor needs to register, needs
to leave a copy of their identification with the embassy. The Guardian doesn’t have anything of that,
and won’t have, because it’s a fabrication. This is false and disgusting. BEN NORTON: And in addition to this story,
we also saw a report on December 3 in the New York Times which said that in mid-2017,
Manafort met with Moreno, Lenin Moreno, the new president of Ecuador, to try to work out
a deal. Moreno wanted debt relief from the U.S., and
potential Chinese investment. And in return, Manafort offered to help extradite
Assange to the U.S., to help hand over Assange to the U.S. for prosecution. Do you think that this story is true? And if it is true, why do you think that Lenin
Moreno has turned on Assange when the previous president, Rafael Correa, had previously given
refuge to the WikiLeaks editor in the first place? FIDEL NARVAEZ: This story about Manafort meeting
with Lenin Moreno is true. It is not a secret. It was reported normally and immediately. Mr. Moreno met with many people before he
took presidency. When they met, Moreno was not president yet;
he was president-elect, apparently. And this is true, and the sources that the
Guardian is using for the fabrications immediately starting [inaudible]brating connections between
Manafort and WikiLeaks or Assange on nonsenses. The reports that we have is that it was Moreno
who put Assange on the table in that meeting with Manafort. According to the reports that we have, Manafort
just basically listened. Moreno doesn’t want to have Assange at the
embassy. He never wanted. Not even when he was vice president of Correa. So why the change on his policies? Because he has basically betrayed the movement,
and the people who elected him, and the concrete political project. And he’s implemented the project of the
opposition. And the project of the opposition is a very
pro-U.S. project. Moreno has, in fact, re-opened the doors for
the U.S. in Ecuador. Now we have U.S. military planes operating
again in Ecuador. That is against our constitution, for example. And the asylum to Julian Assange was granted
by President Correa, who is right now the main political enemy of Moreno. So they will want to finish with Assange,
and they are doing everything possible to do that. BEN NORTON: Yeah. And then finally, the most recent report,
an update on this, is that on Thursday, December 6, we saw that the that Moreno says now that
he has worked with Britain, and Britain has assured that it will not extradite Assange
to the U.S. And Moreno is now openly, publicly calling
for Assange to leave the Ecuadorean embassy in London, insisting that if Assange leaves
he will not be sent to the U.S. Do you think that this is true, that the the
British government will secure his safety? FIDEL NARVAEZ: Well, what Lenin Moreno is
claiming is not something new. And there’s a key point on this that we need
to understand. Political asylum is not equivalent to protecting
you from the electrical chair. From the death penalty. Political asylum is protecting your rights
integrally. So if there is a risk of Julian Assange being
sentenced to a life sentence, to spend his life in prison, that’s absolutely unacceptable. If there is a risk of Julian Assange being
sentenced to 30, 40 years in the security prison, as Chelsea Manning was condemned,
that’s absolutely unacceptable. That’s why Julian Assange has political asylum
from Ecuador; to protect his rights. So the UK has claimed that from the very beginning,
in the year 2012, saying that in the case of the risk of death penalty, they won’t extradite
a person to a country where the death penalty is in place. So that’s not, that’s nothing new. But this does unacceptable if now Lenin Moreno
wants to ask Assange to leave the embassy because supposedly he had reached an agreement
with the UK. There’s no agreement. That’s something that was always there. We always knew, and that’s unacceptable. BEN NORTON: We’ll have to end our conversation
there. We were joined by Fidel Narvaez, who is an
Ecuadorean human rights activist and a former diplomat. He served as consul and then first secretary
at the Ecuadorian embassy in London from 2010 until July 2018. Thanks for joining us, Fidel. For The Real News Network, I’m Ben Norton.

[Hyderabad] Chandrasekhar Rao’s statement debated in national politics THE NEWS INDIA


Hyderabad: The Chief Minister of the Telangana and the TRS chief, to try for a new political alliance in the country’s politics. Chandrasekhar Rao’s statement remains the issue of debate in national politics Hyderabad: The Chief Minister of the Telangana and the TRS chief, to try for a new political alliance in the country’s politics. Chandrasekhar Rao’s statement remains the issue of debate in national politics Hyderabad: The Chief Minister of the Telangana and the TRS chief, to try for a new political alliance in the country’s politics. Chandrasekhar Rao’s statement remains the issue of debate in national politics

Data Republican Party ID drops after Trump election


Data: Republican Party ID drops after Trump
election. Donald Trump�s presidential win was a boon
for the Republican Party in Washington, consolidating the GOP�s control of the Oval Office, Senate
and House of Representatives. But beyond the Beltway, poll data suggests
the election has had the opposite effect on the party, pushing voters away. From November 2016 to November 2017 there
was a 5-point drop in the number of people who call themselves Republicans, from 42 percent
to 37 percent, according to Gallup. In that same time, the number of people identifying
as Democrats stayed flat at 44 percent. Do the math and a 2-point edge for the Democrats
in party identification, 44 percent to 42 percent, has been pushed to 7 points, 44 percent
to 37 percent, in just one year. That�s getting up into the area that may
be a concern for Republicans in the 2018 midterms, where a big swing in party allegiance could
lead to a swing in House and Senate seats. You can see the potential impact of party-switching
numbers like those in this year�s Virginia governor�s race. The exit polls from that race compared to
the 2013 election showed Republican affiliation was down 2 points, while Democratic affiliation
was up 4 points. The result? Democrat Ralph Northam won what many thought
would be a close race by nine points and Republicans lost 15 seats in the Virginia House of Delegates. But perhaps just as concerning for the GOP
may be how widespread the party defections have been. The numbers have dropped across a wide range
of demographic groups � all age groups, different education levels and most racial
and ethnic groups. Among 18- to 34-year-olds, there was a 4-point
drop in people identifying as Republicans. With 35- to 55-year-olds the drop was 4 points. And among those older than 55, the drop was
5 points. College graduates saw a 4-point decline in
Republican I.D. and those without a bachelor�s degree saw a 5-point dip. White, non-Hispanic respondents saw their
GOP share drop 5 points. Hispanics saw a 3-point decline. African Americans actually saw a 1-point increase
in their of self-identifying Republican population, but the number, 10 percent, is still remarkably
low. To be clear, these drops aren�t just due
to selecting two points in time, the Gallup data show that since November of 2016, there�s
been a fairly consistent drop in the number of people who identify as Republican or �lean
Republican.� And these are important numbers to keep in mind when you see reports about
how high Trump�s job approval is among Republicans. Currently, Trump�s support among Republicans,
78 percent approval, is in line with normal figures for a first-term president. Barack Obama was at 82 percent approval among
Democrats at roughly the same point of his presidency. Bill Clinton was at 76 percent with Democrats
at roughly this point. But as these numbers indicate, that 78% approval
comes from a smaller group of people. So among people who were �Republicans�
when Trump elected, the approval number is likely lower. The data also suggest there is one group,
in particular, that is a problem for GOP in the Trump era: women, particularly white women. Among women overall, the number identifying
as Republican has declined by 5 points, to 32 percent from 37 percent, but among white,
non-Hispanic women, the drop has been an especially precipitous 7 points, to 41 percent this November
from 48 percent in November of 2016. That drop among white, non-Hispanic women
coincided with an increase in the same group who now identify as Democrats and when you
put those numbers together you see a flip in the partisan lean of that group. In November 2016, white women were more likely
to identify as Republican than Democrat by 5 points, 48 percent to 43 percent. By November of this year they were more like
to say they were Democrats by 5 points, 46 percent to 41 percent. As 2018 nears and the midterm elections come
into focus that could be a real challenge for Republicans. Women traditionally make up a larger part
of the electorate than men. And white women could be a crucial factor
in the vote in suburban and exurban House districts held by Republicans. That raises some serious questions for the
Republican Party. How will the GOP�s congressional leadership
handle its members who have been accused of inappropriate behavior toward women? And what happens if Alabama elects accused
teen-girl molester Roy Moore to serve as a Republican senator on Tuesday? The Republican-Democrat gender gap is nothing
new in politics. Democrats traditionally hold an edge with
women. But these numbers show that the gap is growing
wider and is in danger of becoming a chasm. If it gets wide enough, it could pull the
GOP down into it.

Biggest Traitor In The Republican Party Handed Over The Trump Dossier To The FBI!


Recent reports show bombastic details about
the Trump dossier. According to a report from Kristinn Taylor
on The Gateway Pundit: The Washington Post article claims the 2016
presidential campaign of Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton and the Democratic
National Committee paid for the Fusion GPS dossier alleging Russian ties with the Presidential
campaign of Republican Donald Trump and sordid phony personal smears of Trump. To make things even worse, we discovered that
traitor Republican John McCain was the one to turn over this fake dossier to the FBI,
just before the presidential inauguration in January. The Daily Mail reported that: Sworn Donald Trump enemy John McCain admitted
Wednesday that he passed the dossier of claims of a Russian blackmail plot against the president-elect.
The Arizona senator issued a public statement amid mounting questions of his exact role
in the affair – and how a document riddled with errors and unverifiable claims came to
be published. McCain said: Late last year, I received sensitive information
that has since been made public. Upon examination of the consents, and unable to make a judgment
about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the Director of the FBI. That has been
the extent of my contact with the FBI or any other government agency regarding the issue. As the whole dossier-story unravels, we discover
that all of this is part of a big scheme, of the Democrats, their puppets from the liberal
mainstream media, and the traitor Republicans to take President Donald Trump down.

Norman Solomon and Paul Jay discuss the Struggle in the Democratic Party


PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network,
live on Facebook and YouTube and, I think, Periscope and therealnews.com. We’re going to continue our conversation we’ve
been having on The Real News about the fight within the Democratic Party, Donna Brazile’s
revelations, and as we go, a bit of a series that’s going to unfold here with our guest,
who I’ll introduce in a moment, about just what is the prescription, one could say, for
reform of the Democratic Party, if that’s possible, and we’re going to discuss whether
or not it’s worth the effort, and if so, what that might look like. But we’re going to start with Donna Brazile. In Donna Brazile’s book, which I’m sure just
about everybody who’s watching this has heard about if not already read, one of the more
explosive things she exposed was a sort of financial shenanigan that the Clinton campaign
had used to up the amount of money any individual could donate by giving a certain amount of
money, a few thousand dollars, to every state party, which in theory is supposed to be used
for state funding of local elections. But instead, 99%, apparently, according to
Donna Brazile, of that money actually went back to the coffers of the Hillary campaign,
back to the DNC, and then the Hillary campaign controlled that money. To quote Donna Brazile, she says, “The states
kept less than half of 1% of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fundraisers
that Hillary’s campaign was holding.” It’s interesting that if you actually do the
math — because they accused Bernie Sanders of not raising hardly any money for the state
campaigns — if you do the math, something like $850,000 or so actually stayed in the
state campaigns once all this money gets transferred back to the control of the Hillary campaign. Sanders raised $5 million for down-ticket
Democrats, so he actually wound up raising more for down-ticket ballots than the Hillary
campaign. At any rate, the revelations of Donna Brazile,
which essentially amount to her accusing the DNC of rigging the primary, the Sanders-Clinton
primary — and when Elizabeth Warren was asked directly, “Did you think it was rigged?” she
said yes — it’s sparked a great deal of controversy, as you know. For example, this is what happened on CNN. We’re going to run the Hilary Rosen clip. HILARY ROSEN: For Democrats to spend a second
re-litigating this primary fight could not be stupider. If we’re going to take Donna at her word,
then you have to read the whole excerpt, because what the excerpt said is Hillary Clinton bailed
out the DNC financially and controlled the staffing of the DNC, but Donna also said in
that excerpt, Nina and Don, that she went door to door at the DNC and could not find
a single shred of evidence that the actual results of the primary were tilted one way
or another. And so if we’re going to comment on the book,
we ought to go all the way and say that actually Donna said that she found no proof and no
evidence at all that the system was rigged. NINA TURNER: Since you want to go there, this
is really about a DNC that lacks accountability and transparency, period, and we can deal
with more than one thing at a time. HILARY ROSEN: That’s not the issue. That’s not about rigging an election. NINA TURNER: We have to restore the faith
and credibility of the Democratic Party, and statements like you’re making doesn’t help. PAUL JAY: All right, let me introduce our
guest, Norman Solomon. Norman is the co-founder of rootsaction.org,
and he’s co-author of a new report, “Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis.” Thanks for joining us, Norman. NORMAN SOLOMON: Thanks, Paul. PAUL JAY: There’s kind of two arguments there. One, let’s start with the first, that now’s
not the time to rehash all of this, that Trump represents a kind of — they are not using
this language, but I will — a kind of neo-fascism. There’s a broad front called the Resistance,
and people like Hilary Rosen and others are saying that this isn’t a time to, they use
the word re-litigate what the DNC did or didn’t do. There should just be a constructive outlook
in terms of reforming the DNC. Don’t rehash who did what to whom, and focus
on attacking Trump. How do you respond to that? NORMAN SOLOMON: Ideally, there’s a united
front against the horrific Trump presidency. There’s not usefulness in getting united behind
bad strategies and undemocratic internal processes of the Democratic Party. After all, “Democratic” is the first name
of the party, and when we see so clearly that contempt for basic democratic principles were
in play and in force inside the Democratic National Committee, then it doesn’t work to
just shrug and say well, that’s the past so let’s move on. The reality is that the same basic forces,
the political corporate tendencies and power, that held the DNC last year still control
it this year. So it’s all well and good to say hey, just
move on, but we can’t move on without being real about what happened and what continues
to be in play in terms of the top-down power at the DNC. PAUL JAY: The media has on the whole been
very antagonistic to Donna Brazile, at least the media I’ve seen, led of course by MSNBC,
and I’ve seen CNN, especially the first few days after Brazile’s book was started to be
released by the Washington Post. There was one report I saw, it was a CNN journalist,
who just lambasted Brazile. We couldn’t find the clip, but NBC had released
this agreement between the Clinton campaign and the DNC, and according to a couple of
sentences in that agreement, the money that Clinton was controlling and the power she
had over the DNC was all supposed to be directed towards the general election, which would
have been appropriate. But NBC later actually, it got revealed, when
people look at the dates, and I understand NBC even had to retract this, that the dates
actually showed it was clearly about the primary, and Donna Brazile clearly makes that this
control of Clinton was all about the primary. But the attack continued. Here’s Robby Mook, a former campaign manager
for Clinton, on CNN. ROBBY MOOK: You know, politics is politics. People have to go out there and say what they
need to say. I think it’s dangerous to say that this contest
was rigged. We can’t make the case to working people in
this country that we’re going to stand up for them and we’re going to fight for them
if we’re fighting each other. We can’t do that. Hillary Clinton won this primary with almost
four million votes. That’s a bigger lead than Barack Obama had
over her when she lost and conceded in 2008. The idea that the DNC could rig a contest
frankly is laughable, and here’s the last thing I’ll say. The caucus contests within the larger primary
are the contests that are run by the party. The primary elections are run by secretaries
of state. Those contests, the caucuses that were run
by the party, Bernie Sanders won overwhelmingly. So if we look at what the party actually managed
in this process, Bernie Sanders won those contests. I think we only won three of them, and we
barely won Iowa. So there’s just no evidence to back this up. PAUL JAY: So Norman, what do you make of that
point, that the caucuses were controlled by the party, Bernie won the majority, and the
DNC didn’t control the elections in the states, so how can you accuse the Clinton campaign
and the DNC of rigging the primaries? NORMAN SOLOMON: A significant side note, a
footnote, is that the Iowa caucuses, pivotal at the very start of the season, were run
in an extremely shabby and questionable way by the party. So if I were Robby Mook I wouldn’t boast about
how the caucuses were run by the party, but more fundamentally, getting hung up-
PAUL JAY: Hang on for a sec, Norman, what do you mean by run in a shabbily way? NORMAN SOLOMON: Oh, the count of the votes
during the Iowa caucus night you wouldn’t accept at a student council race. It was funky to say the least, problematic. There seemed to be thumbs on the scales in
terms of just counting up in the caucus rooms who had won, and it’s very dubious whether
Hillary Clinton actually won the Iowa caucuses, even though officially she did. Fundamentally, whether we get caught up in
the word “rigged” or not, the reality is — and we knew this way before Donna Brazile’s book
— the reality is that there was a tilted playing field. It was not a level playing field. The DNC was tilted for Hillary Clinton from
2015 on, and the reality is, as we know now from the Brazile book, that the Clinton campaign
at the outset of the primary season had control over, and veto power over, who was hired in
basic positions such as communications director at the DNC. People can try to clean up the mess like Robby
Mook, the campaign manager for Hillary Clinton, but the reality is it was wrong. It was wrong how the DNC operated. It was not even-handed. It was a violation of the DNC’s own charter,
which commits theoretically the party and the DNC to being even-handed throughout the
nomination-selection process for president. So there’s a big problem, and unless the people
at the top of the DNC acknowledge the problem, then we’re fated — and required, really — to
keep fighting this battle. PAUL JAY: And the battle includes not just
the battle against Hillary Clinton, but people involved in this “progressive wing,” as people
are calling it, of the Democratic Party were also many of them dealing with the policies
of Barack Obama. In Donna Brazile’s book, one of the interesting
revelations was the extent to which the DNC, the party itself, was millions and millions
of dollars in debt, and we know during the Obama years many — a majority, I think — of
state legislatures were taken over by the Republicans. At many levels, the party was kind of being
demolished across the country. And it’s interesting, on CNN, at the same
time when Hilary Rosen was on, there was a Republican, a former advisor to Bush, Scott
Jennings, and he actually makes an interesting point about Obama’s role. Let’s roll that. SCOTT JENNINGS: It is amazing to me what no
one’s pointing out, that the President of the United States at the time, Barack Obama,
had left his Democratic National Committee in such a shambles that not only was Hillary
Clinton having to fight off Bernie Sanders, but she knew that if she were to get the nomination,
she had to simultaneously bail out the DNC so it could be a viable entity for the general
election. And this really to me falls at the feet of
Barack Obama, whose path of destruction through the Democratic Party for eight years is completed
by these Brazile revelations. PAUL JAY: I know the right-wing use of Brazile
is certainly not meant to kind of strengthen any progressive fight anywhere, and particularly
not in the Democratic Party, but it seems to me what Jennings is saying has a lot to
it. When you look at Barack Obama’s policies that
led to such growth in inequality across the country … we know the numbers of the, what
is it, something like 90% of the post ’07-’08 crisis-crash income gains went to less than
1% of the population. That plus the destruction of the infrastructure
of the Democratic Party all helped create the conditions for the election of Trump. Certainly this needs to be part of the diagnosis
too, doesn’t it? NORMAN SOLOMON: These are points that were
elaborated on in great detail in the report released three days before the first excerpts
from Donna Brazile’s book came out, and that is the task-force driven report called “Autopsy:
The Democratic Party in Crisis”, which I co-coordinated with Karen Bernal, the chair of the California
Democratic Party Progressive Caucus. Everybody is invited, by the way, to go to
the web, read that report, that autopsy report, at the website democraticautopsy.org, and
one of the points that we emphasize throughout the autopsy is that in eight years of the
Obama administration, the President’s affinity with, support for and from Wall Street, cut
the legs out from under the traditional working-class support for the Democratic Party. And the money problem that the DNC fell into
with the neglect from President Obama was in its own right a huge problem, and also
a marker and a tracker for the way in which the Obama presidency helped to get Obama,
obviously, reelected but was devastating for down-ballot Democrats. When you have during the eight years of the
Obama administration a loss of more than 1,000 state legislative seats, loss of Democrats
to Republicans, around the country, when you lose the Senate and you lose the House on
Capitol Hill, and somehow the President comes up high and dry and keeps hobnobbing with
and stocking his cabinet with all these corporate flacks, and in some cases billionaires like
Penny Pritzker as Secretary of Commerce who helped to bankroll Obama’s political career
in the first place, then it is a fundamental problem about the Democratic Party at the
top. And there are really no indications that the
governing body of the national party, the DNC, has come to terms with that reality in
any way other than continuing it. So this is what the battle is really about,
as we come to the last weeks of 2017, when we look to the elections coming up in 2018
and beyond, is a struggle for the Democratic Party. Will it be the party of Main Street or Wall
Street? And the claim … and, incidentally, Donna
Brazile is a long-time Clinton loyalist but she’s willing to look out for herself now
and sell the books and so forth … but the reality is that the power structure at the
DNC that Donna Brazile has always been part of, and that the current chair, Tom Perez,
is very much part of, that power structure is all about serving the donor class, the
big donors, those who can provide six-figure checks with the flick of a hand in the checkbook. And the pretense, the fallacy, and the betrayal,
really, of working class people, of young people, of people of color from the hierarchy
of the Democratic Party is the claim that somehow we’re going to be getting along with
Wall Street and we’re going to help Main Street. We saw, and you alluded to the transfer of
wealth further upward, Paul, during the Obama administration, this an absolute falsehood. This is in reality a division of labor that
is being called for and enforced by those in power in the Democratic Party that effectively,
they look at working-class people as those who are supposed to come up with a requisite
number of votes during an election, but it’s the people who are at the top donor strata,
Wall Street, big corporations, those who serve and represent and are at the top of the big
banks, they are the ones who are the masters, largely, of national Democratic Party policy. Not entirely, but largely. And so when it comes down to deference to
messaging and messaging priorities in terms of who gets the money of these Democratic
Party campaigns, the emphasis is on shifting the party more and more in a corporate direction. That’s why in our report, “Autopsy: The Democratic
Party in Crisis”, we focus on how so much money in 2016 … and still, even in Virginia
… so much money from the Democratic Party goes to messaging supposedly persuadable so-called
moderate Republican voters. And it’s a way of saying to people of color,
young people, working class people generally, we want your votes but our policies and our
outreach and our messaging will set you aside as being secondary. PAUL JAY: I think it’s particularly interesting,
Donna Brazile’s critique, even attack on Obama. During the Obama years she was number one
cheerleader on CNN for the policies of Barack Obama, but she called Obama and Clinton, she
talked about dealing with these two enormous egos, and a lot of people have critiqued Obama
for continuing, really, the Bush-Cheney imperial presidency, the idea that the presidency’s
above the law, above everything else, and in Obama’s case, certainly above the party. The idea of a real party with party structure
in theory introduces a certain kind of democratic process, and Obama had no interest in that
after he had this campaign, his first campaign particularly, but second, which was all about
online and mass movement and house parties and small donors. All that went by the wayside once he was President. I guess part of what Sanders did is he kind
of reignited a fight within the party to actually build some party structure, and now we see
from Brazile’s book, in spite of and against the DNC, which supposedly is supposed to be
there to defend party structures. NORMAN SOLOMON: I think that’s right, and
I want to recommend to people the cover story in the current issue of The Nation magazine
by William Greider, who’s been covering the Democratic Party for several decades. In this piece in The Nation, titled “What
Killed the Democratic Party?” he summarizes our autopsy report and quite correctly characterizes
it as a call for rebellion and for working people, for young people, people of color
to gain control over the party that in theory represents them and, in fact, largely does
not. Greider, I think quite astutely, sums up that
we have this challenge now to organize effectively, to point out what the Democratic Party really
is, not what it claims to be, and to see that there’s an opportunity here. We’re down in the hole, we do not have a lever
to pull that can move the Democratic Party in a progressive direction, and yet there’s
tremendous organizing going on. And as you referred to, Paul, I think Bernie
Sanders did reignite a struggle that has to take place, because as we say at the very
outset of the autopsy report, we have two huge responsibilities in this historic period. One is to fight the right, the racists, the
xenophobes, the misogynists, the repressive forces that according to — and I think he’s
correct — Noam Chomsky, the Republican Party now is the most dangerous organization in
the history of the world. We’ve got to fight back against the Trump
regime and against the Republican control of Congress. And the second responsibility is to move forward
a truly progressive agenda that will come from the grassroots, have staying power, and
move not only the Democratic Party but the country in a genuine progressive direction. The mythology, and we have so many liberals
and people like, at the clip, Robby Mook and Hilary Rosen and others, people at Mother
Jones piling on, some traditional liberals or some who claim to be progressives — and
I remind people there’s an insurance company claims to be progressive, doesn’t mean much
of anything, the label — there’s an effort to tell people, “Chill out, calm down, only
concentrate on defeating the right wing Republicans, don’t advance a progressive agenda,” and there’s
a claim, explicit or otherwise, that actually those two goals are in contradiction. You know, either you push your progressive
agenda or you fight the right. In fact the opposite is true, and I think
the autopsy documents that very clearly.

In Primaries, Democratic Progressives Take On Party Elites (2/2)


It’s the Real News. I’m Aaron Mate, continuing with Nina Turner,
former Ohio state senator and president of Our Revolution. And we’re talking about the first big primary
day of 2018, and how it fares for Democrats in this contentious primary season. Sen. Turner, I wanted to read you a headline
from the New York Times today talking about a new group of Democratic donors, and it’s
called “Big Donors Form New Alliance to Seize House from Republicans.” And it’s talking about a group of wealthy
Democrats in New York launching something called the House Victory Fund, where for entry
donors can pay $108000 to go to a new fund that will support a group of House Democratic
candidates that have already been selected. And some of the donors include Robert Rubin,
he’s the former Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton; Roger Altman, the former deputy
Treasury secretary of the Clinton administration; and two investment bankers who are major Democratic
fundraisers, Deven Parekh and Blair Effron. But the, this group has already selected candidates,
Democratic candidates, who they favor in November. The problem, looking at this article, is that
some of these candidates haven’t even won their primaries yet. And before the break we were talking about
how, you were saying that this race should not be bought. I’m just wondering your reaction to this
news of another group of powerhouse Democrats already throwing their money into the ring
before even some primaries have been held. And again, this is part of the problem. I won’t say it’s all of the problem. People certainly have a right in this country,
whether they’re wealthy or not, ultra-wealthy or not, to be able to weigh in. But what we don’t want, and what the Supreme
Court has laid out in two cases, one in particular, Citizens United, that, you know, money is
speech. And we have to turn that around or we’re
going to continue to get things like this where the ultra-wealthy can get together and
pile up money and decide who should, you know, who are the people who will represent us. And that’s not the way it should be in a
representative democracy. Everybody should have a voice. They should have equal voice, whether they
have millions of dollars or whether they only have a few thousand dollars, to be able to
participate in the process. And that’s why campaign finance reform is
so vitally necessary. Now, if these donors are getting together
to say, you know, let, let, let the process play out, and then, you know, we’re going
to support, you know, candidates on the back end of the primary process. And that’s one thing. But to be able to amass this kind of money
and decide who the candidates are going to be even going into the primary with that kind
of money, you know, it’s the outweight, it’s not just money in general but it’s
the outsized impact that money has on, on races across this country from both parties. And so again, the American people, we’re
going to have to step up and say that enough is enough, and that we will not tolerate this
anymore. You know, people power is greater than any
money power, but the people have to rise up. And some people are just really discouraged
and frustrated, Aaron, because of, because of, because of articles like that. Because of revelations like that. Because of what you just let the viewers know
was going on. In terms of them the mood of voters right
now and their enthusiasm level, what did you see yesterday in terms of turnout in Ohio? It was abysmal. And somebody that is a pro-voter rights, you
know, leader in this country, it just breaks my heart that in Ohio, for example, we’re
just one example of many, but we have about 8 million eligible voters in the great state
of Ohio. Only about a little over 600000 of those voters
even showed up to vote in the primary. That’s about 20 percent. So that is no way, again, to, to have a robustness
in our democracy if people are just, really just opting out of voting. And so we should care about that as much as
we care about any candidate or set of candidates winning, is the fact that the American people
in many ways are just opting out of even participating in the democracy. And Aaron, you know, as well as I do and others
do, of even just, even the turnout in 2016 was low for a presidential election. If that is the trajectory, then we are in
trouble as a representative democracy. We got to, we have to push through this. We’ve got to figure out why people are opting
out of voting and do something that gets them reengaged. And I’m making that statement separate and
apart from any support for any particular candidate. You know, there was one positive cited and
by voting rights advocates yesterday in Ohio, actually, where voters passed a measure that
would put an end to gerrymandering in the state, establishing a new state process that
could redraw the maps. Do you see that as a hopeful development? I do. And you know, I was in the legislature when
we really started this, and I am just absolutely elated. You know, I got to give big ups to the League
of Women Voters, who were very much in the mix on this, and they always are across our
country when it comes to these types of good government policies. But just really excited to see that this,
the people, the voters of Ohio who did vote yesterday really have given us a shot in the
arm, a positive shot in the arm towards trying to make the process of drawing lines fairer
in the extent that politicians should not be allowed to select their constituents, the
constituents should select or elect the politician. So yeah, this is a very good step forward
in Ohio. All right, Sen. Turner, so as we wrap, your
thoughts on the upcoming votes, and your, the approach you’re taking going into this,
the flurry of primaries that are about to pick up across the country heading into the
midterms. In less than two weeks we have, you mentioned
in the first segment, Laura Moser, the Democratic House hopeful in Texas who has been vocally
opposed by the Democratic Party leadership. They released opposition research on her. Your thoughts on that race, and other areas
where progressives are fighting the party leadership to stay alive? Now, I’m so glad you asked about that, Aaron. Yes, we have more primaries to go. I mean, May 15 is the next set, you know,
and then we have May 15, we’re going to have also states like Pennsylvania and Oregon. I just don’t want the voters to to give
up. People should not be discouraged. I know it’s easy to get discouraged. But even, I don’t want to say people shouldn’t
be discouraged, but even in their discouragement I want them to know that the power still ultimately
in their hands, and we should have these conversations with our neighbors, with our family members,
with our co-workers about the kind of America that we want to live in. And that starts with the school board all
the way up to the presidency, that ultimately we have the power to turn the tide, and that
people power wins every single day. And that if you are on the progressive progressive
side, that our ideas really are transforming this country. And we must continue to push, we must continue
to fight, we must continue to use our life force to lift. But that, one part of that, though, is making
sure that we do participate in the primaries. We cannot sit out in a representative democracy. We all matter. And we have to be engaged and involved, even
through our discouragement. If we are discouraged, we still have to be
involved. And I think Laura Moser is going to do a good
job, Aaron. I’m sorry. I really do. Laura has picked up a lot of steam, because
you did ask me that directly, and although she has had to continuously fight the establishment
I really do believe that she is going to be victorious. And I just salute her courage under fire,
especially when that kind of fire comes at the hands of your own party. We know what to expect in the general, but
you certainly do not expect that kind of heavy-handedness and dirtiness to happen in a primary at the
hands of your, of your own party. It’s unfortunate, but more and more of that
has happened all across the country, Aaron. But we will continue to push. And we’ll keep covering it here on the Real
News. Nina Turner, former Ohio state senator, and
president of Our Revolution. Thank you. Thank you, Aaron. And thank you for joining us on the Real News.