How Fancy Bear Destroyed Eliot Higgins Bellingcat Credibility

If you’re just catching up, Fancy Bear was outed this past week and those Ukrainian hackers are going to cause a lot of legal problems for their supporters in the US if journalists remember their job is to protect the public as a 4th estate. If they don’t, we’ll get there without them.

Continue reading

Posted in Politics / World News, propaganda | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Against David Irving’s View of Hitler

Eric Zuesse, as posted originally at The Unz Review

In response to Ron Unz’s “The Remarkable Historiography of David Irving”, this note will pick up on and elucidate the reader-comment to that from James N. Kennett, which stated: “It seemed to me that the problem with his work was not the possible inaccuracy of the details that he included – but the things he had left out. Anyone can tell a good story by leaving out the evidence that does not fit. Irving also coined the phrase ‘the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust, and Other Liars—A.S.S.H.O.L.E.S.’ You don’t have to be a supporter of the Holocaust Industry to realise that this is crass insensitivity, and an ahistorical insult to those who did survive. Far from indicating a historian of unique genius, it is the product of a perverted mind.” (I have added the link there in Kennett’s comment — it wasn’t provided by him — a link to an apt comment that had been posted at “Good Reads” about David Irving’s statement there against those survivors.)

My 2000 book WHY the Holocaust Happened (the publisher subsequently went out of business, and so it’s no longer available) discusses both the history and the historiography of the Holocaust; and, while the writings of David Irving are not mentioned there (but more ‘respectable’ proponents of his ‘weak dictator’ interpretation of Hitler were), it presented, regarding Mr. Irving, lots of (as Kennett has put it), “the things he had left out,” and that I think invalidate Irving’s works, because the motivation behind those omissions is clear and is not considered acceptable by most historians. Here are some of those omissions — things left out altogether, or else unjustifiably denigrated, by Irving — (with page-references to where the given excerpts appear in my book):

Pages 229-230:

Despite the transparent frauds of the Holocaust-deniers inside and outside academia, there is no serious question that the Holocaust existed and that it constituted a crime of unimaginably vast scope. Equally without doubt — again notwithstanding hoaxers both inside and outside the universities — is the fact that Adolf Hitler held the motive for the crime, and that the Nazi Party and the other perpetrators “on the ground” were his instruments in carrying it out. According to Adolf Eichmann, Chief of the Bureau for Jewish Affairs at the Reich Security Headquarters, in his 1983 Eichmann Interrogated (p. 75), it was in August or September 1941 that his boss “Heydrich sent for me. I reported. … He began with a little speech, then said, ‘The Führer has ordered physical extermination.’ These were his words. … The Führer had ordered the physical extermination of the Jews.” And (xxii, 92) Eichmann also acknowledged that by no later than 21 September 1939, Heydrich had made known to him the “basic conception” of “the physical extermination of the Jews” as “the ultimate aim” that was “promulgated by Hitler.” Eichmann’s recollection was exact to the day: Heydrich’s official order, referring to “the final goal (which will require a lengthy period),” was dated 21 September 1939. On 31 July 1941 Göring instructed Heydrich to draw up detailed plans for “the desired final solution of the Jewish question” (document 710-PS in Trial of the Major War Criminals). Hitler’s signature even appears on the document (630-PS) dated 1 September 1939 authorizing the “euthanasia” of the disabled and other “incurables.” The physicians had wanted that in writing, and got it. And in his Secret Conversations (Table Talk) of 21 October 1941, Hitler concluded his long tirade against Jews: “By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea.” Himmler publicly stated in a speech on 24 February 1943 that this was necessary in order to have “exterminated a bacterium because we do not want in the end to be infected by the bacterium and die of it.” Hitler’s guilt in the Holocaust is beyond any reasonable doubt, regardless of what neo-Nazis say.

page 218:

By January 1939, Hitler’s official policy was for the expulsion of all Jews. By June 1940, it was for their expulsion specifically to Madagascar — a goal even less practicable than expulsion itself, since the “Madagascar Plan” required as prerequisites the defeat of both France and England, and could thus realistically not even be considered as a short-term measure which is what it was presented as being. Hitler knew better. And along the way, he skillfully set up numerous highly visible public displays of the unwillingness of foreign nations to accept the flood of dispossessed Jews that he was offering as refugees. (As Rudolph Binion noted in his 1976 Hitler Among the Germans, pp. 29-30, Hitler had even fired Reichsbank chief Hjalmar Schacht early in 1939 because Schacht had been too effective in promoting the expulsion of Jews; and both Binion, and Richard Breitman’s 1991 The Architect of Genocide, pp. 50-1, documented that even Hitler had acknowledged that expulsion of Jews was really intended as nothing more than “exporting anti-Semitism.”) Hitler gleefully observed the embarrassment of other countries that proclaimed their opposition to anti-Semitism but that turned a cold shoulder to these desperate refugees. Hitler was trying expulsion; other nations just refused to receive what he was offering them. The United States, for example, not only did not increase its immigration-quota for Jews; it failed even to admit as many Jews as the official quota permitted. David S. Wyman’s 1984 The Abandonment of the Jews documents (pp. 100, 365, 410) the repeated refusal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to meet with Jewish leaders to deal with the problem, and also establishes the President’s own personal knowledge of the Nazis’ anti-Semitic exterminations. For Hitler, such international response was itself part of the “sleepwalking” toward genocide. By the time of the Wannsee Conference on 20 January 1942 to coordinate the actions of all state agencies involved with the “final solution,” all participants were reading their respective roles from a playbook written by none other than the Führer himself. And by that time, they were all prepared for those roles — knew them by heart, actually. When three days later, on 23 January, Hitler in his Secret Conversations (Table-Talk) addressed Himmler sarcastically about the matter, Himmler understood very well what he meant by saying of his policy toward the Jews, “I’m extraordinarily humane. … But if they refuse to leave voluntarily, I see no other solution than extermination.”

Page 15:

Obviously, the Holocaust occurred within the context of a World War; yet it actually drained the attention of Hitler and of his fighting forces away from the war-effort, needlessly hardened the worldwide opposition to Germany, and transformed into outright enemies talented people who might otherwise have been neutral or even supportive as “patriotic Germans.” Judged purely as a military tactic, the Holocaust was at best dubious, and at worst counter-productive. Horst von Maltitz perceptively observed in this regard in his 1973 The Evolution of Hitler’s Germany (p. 171), that “railroad transport trains carrying Jews from the West to extermination camps in Poland were given priority over trains for urgently needed troops and war supplies. Moreover, skilled Jewish laborers, desperately needed in the munitions plants in occupied Poland, were carted off to extermination centers, in spite of strong objections by plant managers.” And according to the Polish Ambassador, Jan Ciechanowski, in his 1947 Defeat in Victory (p. 179), he had personally handed U.S. President Roosevelt in the White House on 28 July 1943 a memo that, “The unprecedented destruction of the entire Jewish population is not motivated by Germany’s military requirements. Hitler and his subordinates aim at the total destruction of the Jews before the war ends and regardless of its outcome.” The basic question thus is posed: what was the relationship between Germany’s war effort and the Holocaust? Which served which; what was Hitler’s ultimate objective?

The Führer’s words right before his suicide — his final, supreme, statement of his war-aims — urged his people to continue the war, until victory, against what he held to be the sole real enemy: “the poisoner of all nations, international Jewry.” The enemy for him was Jews in all nations; this also sheds light on why over 96% of the Jews slaughtered in the Holocaust did not come from Germany. We shall indeed show that, for Hitler, defeat of the enemy entailed nothing less than the extermination of all Jews.

In other words, for Hitler, the Holocaust — the “final solution” — was not a military device, it was a military goal; in fact, it was the central military goal, which took precedence over even the expansion of Lebensraum. In order to understand why the Holocaust happened, it therefore is necessary to understand why Hitler hated Jews so fanatically and so obsessively that nothing less than their total extermination would satisfy him.


Those are the key excerpts regarding the viewpoint that David Irving presents.

Irving states that Hitler didn’t know about whatever extermination of the world’s Jews was intended, if any was intended. However, Irving doesn’t deny that local exterminations were carried out. Irving alleges that Hitler’s subordinates knew about and wanted these local atrocities, but that Hitler wanted only that Jews be expelled from everywhere to be sent to Madagascar. However, such expulsion was actually the intention and expectation of Hitler’s finance-chief, Hjalmar Schacht, and Hitler finally demoted him, perhaps for that very reason. Hitler certainly didn’t want Schacht to know what his plans for the Jews actually were. Hitler just wanted some rich Jews to buy their ways out, since he tried to postpone for as long as possible anyone’s knowledge of what his intended “Final Solution to the Jewish problem” actually was. Furthermore, as my book noted, Hitler wanted to make things as difficult for FDR and for Churchill as he could. He did everything possible to avoid leaks regarding what his intentions were, and especially regarding why he held those intentions. Also, Irving noted, in a footnote, that Eichmann had testified to having been informed by Heydrich that “The Führer has ordered physical extermination,” but Irving simply dismissed that by saying: “There is no primary or secondary documentary support for such a statement. This kind of evidence, of course, would not suffice in an English magistrate’s court to convict a vagabond of bicycle stealing.” He dismisses everything that doesn’t fit with his image of Hitler — “probably the weakest leader Germany has known this century,” as Irving said in the Introduction to the 1977 edition of Hitler’s War. The 1991 edition changed this to “Hitler was a far less omnipotent Führer than had been believed, and his grip on his subordinates had weakened with each passing year.” Of course, that’s saying the closer that events got to the actual perpetration of the Holocaust, the less responsible for whatever it was, Hitler was, in Irving’s view. To Irving, Germans were tragic victims, but many of them overreacted to the abuses that they had received from Britain, Jews, communists, and some others.

While my book doesn’t mention Irving, it does deal extensively with (among others) a writer about the Holocaust who seems to hate Germans as much as Irving seems to hate Jews: Daniel Goldhagen. The problem with both writers is that they are tribal (one a “Jew” and the other an “Aryan” — i.e., pureblooded Christian, or, at least, not “Jew”), though writing from the opposite tribal standpoints. To be a historian, instead of merely some kind of propagandist, requires abandonment of any tribalism at all. Unfortunately, Goldhagen’s tribalism is considered acceptable, whereas Irving’s isn’t. Today’s Palestinians — and many others — are victims of Goldhagen’s particular form of tribalism. But perhaps as the Holocaust recedes from view, with the passage of the decades, tribalism itself is becoming fashionable again, too. In fact, tribalism seems to be coming into vogue again throughout the world. Look, for example, at what the U.S. Government and its Saudi and UAE partners are doing to the Houthis, a Shiite tribe, in Yemen. Even genocide is becoming ‘acceptable’ again (certainly to America’s Government and its allies). The restoration of Irving to ‘acceptability’ is just a part of that broader trend.

PS: In the many reader-comments to this article at The Unz Review, there are few that address the evidence this article presents that Irving’s view of Hitler and of Hitler’s connection to the Holocaust was false. Some of the reader-comments are ad-hominem (and false) against me. But none of them focus on the evidence that’s presented here; and especially I want to repeat here, as I did in responding to one of those reader-comments, these two quotations, as being crucially important evidence:

Having read the reader-comments up to this point (comment #46), I notice that none even so much as mentions the key quotation that I present in this article, which is “in his Secret Conversations (Table Talk) of 21 October 1941, Hitler concluded his long tirade against Jews: ‘By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service …’,” which should settle the matter as to whether Hitler was proud of his “extermination” of Jews, which people he held to be a “pest,” and which “infection” in his other writings he called a “bacterium,” just as did Himmler. So, all these reader-comments evade that admission by Hitler. Furthermore, all till now have been evading: “The Führer’s words right before his suicide — his final, supreme, statement of his war-aims — urged his people to continue the war, until victory, against what he held to be the sole real enemy: ‘the poisoner of all nations, international Jewry.’” I frankly don’t understand how anyone, after seeing those two statements from Hitler himself, at and near his end, can leave any reasonable doubt as to whether David Irving is a liar. This is not the Hitler that he portrays.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Here We Go Again: Our Double-Bubble Economy

Well, folks, here we go again: we have a double-bubble economy in housing and stocks, and a third difficult-to-chart bubble in greed, euphoria and credulity.

Feast your eyes on Housing Bubble #2, a.k.a. the Echo Bubble:

Here’s the S&P 500 stock index (SPX): no bubble here, we’re told, just a typical 9-year long Bull Market that has soared from a low in 2009 of 666 to a recent high of 2802 in January of this year:

Here’s a view of the same bubble in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA):

Is anyone actually dumb enough not to recognize these are bubbles? Of course not. Those proclaiming that “these bubbles are not bubbles” know full well they’re bubbles, but their livelihoods depend on public denial of this reality.

And so we’re inundated with justifications of bubble valuations, neatly bound with statistical mumbo-jumbo: forward earnings (better every day in every way!), P-E expansion, and all the rest of the usual blather that’s spewed by status quo commentators and fund managers at the top of every bubble.

The problem with bubbles is they always pop. The market runs out of Greater Fools and/or creditworthy borrowers, and so sellers overwhelm the thinning ranks of buyers.

Those dancing euphorically, expecting the music will never stop, are caught off guard (despite their confidence that they are far too clever to be caught by surprise), and the panic-driven crowd clogs the narrow exit, leaving a ballroom of bag-holders to absorb the losses.

The other problem with bubbles is that we’ve become dependent on them as props holding up a rotten, corrupt status quo. Since the economy can no longer generate sufficient prosperity to go around via actual increases in productivity and efficiency, those skimming most of the gains rely on “the wealth effect” generated by expanding asset bubbles to create a dreamy illusion of prosperity.

Here’s the third consequence of bubbles: the gains flow to the very top of the wealth-power pyramid: there is no other possible output of the bubble, since roughly 80% of all assets are owned by the top tier of households, and the majority of financial assets are owned by the top .1% (one-tenth of one percent).

Since only owners of assets reap gains from asset bubbles, only those who own assets benefit. That leaves out the bottom 90%, and if we’re honest with ourselves (now verboten), the bottom 99.9%, despite the heady illusion at the apex of the bubble (i.e. the present housing and stock markets).

The bubbles in assets are supported by the invisible bubble in greed, euphoria and credulity. We believe what we believe will make us rich, what feeds our euphoric confidence that the bubble-music will never stop and our credulity that bubbles which we know will pop will not pop until we’ve safely cashed out. 

My new book Money and Work Unchained is $9.95 for the Kindle ebook and $20 for the print edition.

Read the first section for free in PDF format. 

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Are the Poor Patriotic?

We should be very grateful to Francesco Duina for his new book, Broke and Patriotic: Why Poor Americans Love Their Country. He begins with the following dilemma. The poor in the United States are in many ways worse off than in other wealthy countries, but they are more patriotic than are the poor in those other countries and even more patriotic than are wealthier people in their own country. Their country is (among wealthy countries) tops in inequality, and bottoms in social support, and yet they overwhelmingly believe that the United States is “fundamentally better than other countries.” Why?

Duina didn’t try to puzzle this one out for himself. He went out and surveyed patriotic poor people in Alabama and Montana. He found variations between those two places, such as people loving the government for helping them a little bit and people loving the government for not helping them at all. He found variations between men and women and racial groups, but mostly he found intense patriotism built around identical myths and phrases.

I think it’s worth pointing out that wealthier Americans are only slightly less patriotic than poor Americans, and that the moral question of why one should love an institution that creates great suffering for others is identical to that of why one should love an institution that creates great suffering for oneself (and that the greatest suffering the United States government creates is outside the United States). I suspect that much of what Duina found among the poor could be found in some variation among the less poor.

Duina is very respectful of everyone he spoke with, and very academic in his prose. But he quotes enough of his interviewees’ statements to make it quite clear, I think, that their patriotism is largely a willfully delusional religious faith based on ignorance of and avoidance of facts. Just as the less wealthy are a bit more religious, they are also a bit more patriotic, and they draw no clear line between the two. Duina reports that many of the people he spoke with assured him that God favored the United States above all other nations. One man even explained his own and others’ extreme patriotism as a religious need to believe in something when struggling, something to provide “dignity.” There is, of course, a parallel to U.S. racism, as many poor white Americans for centuries have clung to the notion that at least they are better than non-whites. The belief that at least one is better than non-Americans is widespread across every demographic.

Duina notes that even for those struggling most desperately a belief that all is right and just with the system around them can be easier on the mind than recognizing injustice. If people were better off, paradoxically, their patriotism might decrease. Patriotism also declines as education increases. And it seems likely to decline as particular types of information and attitudes are conveyed. Just as people have been found to favor bombing a nation in inverse proportion to their ability to correctly locate it on a map, I suspect people would be marginally less likely to believe the United States treats them better than a Scandinavian country would if they knew facts about Scandinavian countries. They currently decidedly do not.

Duina quotes people who assured him that every Swede flees Sweden as soon as they’ve completed their free college education, that Canada may have healthcare but is a dictatorship, that in Germany or Russia they’ll cut off your hand or your tongue, that in communist Japan they’ll cut off your head for speaking against the president, etc. Can all of these beliefs, all in the same direction (that of disparaging other nations) be innocent errors? One man assures Duina that other nations are inferior because they engage in public executions, and then advocates for public executions in the United States. A number of people declare the United States superior because it has freedom of religion, and then reject the idea that any non-Christian can ever be U.S. president. Homeless people assure him that the United States is the quintessential land of opportunity.

Many speak of “freedom,” and in many cases they mean the freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights, but in others they mean the freedom to walk or drive. They contrast this freedom to move about with dictatorships, despite having little or no experience with dictatorships, although it seems best contrasted with something poor Americans are likely to have a lot more familiarity with: mass incarceration.

The belief that wars on foreign nations benefit their victims and are acts of generosity seems nearly universal, and foreign nations are often disparaged for having wars present (with no apparent awareness that many of those wars involve the U.S. military which is funded with millions of times the funding that would be required to eliminate poverty in the United States). One man believes that Vietnam is still divided in half like Korea. Another believes the president of Iraq invited the United States to attack it. Another simply takes pride in the United States having “the best military.” When asked about the U.S. flag, many immediately express pride in “freedom” and “wars.” A few libertarians expressed support for bringing troops home, blaming other nations for their unwillingness to be civilized — including those of the Middle East, which has “never been civilized.”

There is similar strong support for the incredibly destructive proliferation of guns in the United States as something that makes the United States superior.

One fault attributed to other countries is taking children away from parents, yet one assumes that at least some who condemn that practice have found a way to excuse it or not become aware of it in recent news from the United States.

One of the more common faults, though, is chopping people’s heads off. This seems such a common view of what is wrong with foreign countries, that I almost wonder if U.S. support for Saudi Arabia is in part motivated by such an effective means of keeping the U.S. population sedated.

Somehow, the U.S. public has been persuaded to always compare the United States with poor countries, including countries where the U.S. government supports brutal dictators or imposes economic suffering, and never with wealthy countries. The very existence of countries that are worse off, and from which immigrants flee to the United States is generally taken as proof of Greatest Nation on Earth status, even though other wealthy nations are better off and more desired by immigrants.

The results include a passive public willing to absorb huge injustices, a public willing to follow politicians who promise to screw them but to do so patriotically, a public supportive of wars and dismissive of international law and cooperation, and a public willing to reject advances in healthcare or gun laws or climate policies or education systems if they are made in other countries.

This book tells us more about where Trump came from than the past 18 months of cable news, but Trump is the least of it.


David Swanson’s books include Curing Exceptionalism.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Did Hillary Clinton Violate Any of These 6 Criminal Statutes?

(The U.S. Government still refuses to present any of these 6 criminal cases, against her, to a grand jury.)

Eric Zuesse

On 14 June 2018, the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Justice ruled that the FBI was correct to have recommended that the U.S. Deparment of Justice not prosecute, nor even investigate and place before a grand jury for consideration, a charge that Hillary Clinton had violated, even just a single one of the following 6 U.S. federal criminal statutes. But do you think she violated one or more of them? Here they are:


18 U.S. Code § 2232 — Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure

(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure

Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Impairment of In Rem Jurisdiction

Whoever, knowing that property is subject to the in rem jurisdiction of a United States court for purposes of civil forfeiture under Federal law, knowingly and without authority from that court, destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of impairing or defeating the court’s continuing in rem jurisdiction over the property, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.


18 U.S. Code § 1512 — Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(c) Whoever corruptly

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


18 U.S. Code § 2071 — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.


18 U.S. Code § 641 — Public money, property or records

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use, or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof, …

Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. …


18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information …

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer — 

Shall be fined not more than $10, 000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy, shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.


What do you think? As you consider the matter, you might want to know two things:

First, that the FBI’s ‘investigation’ of Clinton’s privatized email system was faked: it ignored each one of these six statutes.

Second, there were at least two cases that had been mentioned in the news media in which the U.S. federal Government did, in fact, investigate, and bring charges, and win a conviction on one or more of these federal charges, and which at least seem to differ from what Clinton did in only one respect — that she did it far more extensively, and more brazenly, than did that prosecuted person. The independent journalist who goes by the pseudonym “Tyler Durden” headlined, only a day after Mr. Comey on 5 July 2016 exonerated Ms. Clinton, “Meet Bryan Nishimura, Found Guilty For ‘Removal And Retention Of Classified Materials’,” and that conviction of Nishimura was won on the same statute for which the FBI’s Comey, as Clinton’s would-be policeman, jury, and judge, peremptorily exonerated her — refused to bring any charge at all. “Durden,” at his famous “Zero Hedge” site, noted: “Here is the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charging one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom [California], who pleaded guilty to ‘unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials’ without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did (h/t@DavidSirota).” He linked to this case. Nishimura was sentenced to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. He was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance, and to never again seek such a clearance. (Hillary Clinton continued to have her security clearance, and to run for the U.S. Presidency.)

Furthermore, even before Comey had announced Clinton’s exoneration, Josh Gersten at Politico had already headlined on 27 May 2016, “Sub sailor’s photo case draws comparisons to Clinton emails”, and he reported that, “A Navy sailor [Kristian Saucier] entered a guilty plea Friday in a classified information mishandling case that critics charge illustrates a double standard between the treatment of low-ranking government employees and top officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus. … To some, the comparison to Clinton’s case may appear strained. Clinton has said none of the information on her server was marked classified at the time.” Politico’s Gersten took her word for it, that “none of the information on her server was marked classified at the time,” but is the FBI supposed to do that — to take a suspect’s allegation at face-value, instead of to check it out? (Should Gersten even have done that?)

There probably are other such prosecutions that have successsfully been pursued, but the news media don’t seem to be interested in following up on this matter now, any more than the U.S. federal Government has done. If the U.S. federal Government doesn’t want to investigate Clinton on any of these six criminal statutes, then that’s good enough for the news-media — or is it? Will it be “enough”?

So, wherever the present article is published, and if there is a reader-comments section there, then: What do you think? Is this treatment of what Hillary Clinton did, “Equal Justice Under Law”? Obviously, it’s bipartisan, politically (unless Trump will now demand his FBI to examine what she did on each one of these six statutes); but, in terms of justice: Is this matter, thus far, equal justice under law? Or not? And, if it’s not, then what does that say about whether our country is a democracy? What do you think about these questions?


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment