Hillary Clinton Gets Her Revenge on Trump in a Novel

 

I just read the totally engrossing political thriller, State of Terror. On the dustjacket Hillary Clinton is listed first, as co-author with Louise Penny (who's a much more famous writer of mystery fiction and a Canadian). Considering the insider knowledge about the US State Department, the White House, and the previous inhabitant of the White House, I'd say Hillary Clinton's top billing as the author of this truly thrilling page-turner is well earned.

Whether Clinton's inside knowledge of international diplomacy, including trips to the "dark web," also accounts for the actual writing, which is clean, efficient, beautifully paced prose -- that's another question entirely. I've never read "It Takes a Village" or anything else with Clinton's name on it, so I can't attribute the style to her. I have read some Louise Penny. I suspect she did the bulk of the word-smithing because she's much more the professional in the genre.

Whatever. It's the plotting that's all Hillary. The main character, the heroine, happens to be an elegant middle-aged blond who's just been appointed the US Secretary of State by a president she doesn't even respect and whose candidacy she had publicly opposed. She's odd-woman-out in a White House where the prez holds an actual grudge against her and is apparently bent on ruining her out of spite and revenge. (This SecState had previously risen as some kind of media baroness -- TV, print, the works -- achieving international fame with a documentary exposing the true dealings of a Pakistani nuclear-physicist, Bashir Shah, secretly one of the biggest black market arms dealers in the world.) The whole plot of State of Terror revolves around three nuclear dirty bombs which Bashir Shah has supplied to Al Qaeda, with the help of the Russian mafia and the complicity of Russian President Ivanov, who's (natch!) a dead-ringer for President Putin, including that stunt of riding a horse bare-chested. See, these three nuclear devices have been planted in three American cities, set to go off at a day and time certain. The race is against mass casualties at the very least if not the destruction of American democracy. Believe me, it's all delicious.

I took particular delight in Clinton & Penny's ex-president Eric Dunn, a bitter one-termer who now lives in Florida on a vast estate ("a monument to overcompensation"), golfs a lot, and continues to rally reactionaries by decrying "fake news" and to meddle in US foreign relations to the detriment of national security. In Chapter 34, SecState Ellen Adams describes the ex-president with some indelible hindsight:

The world ended for Eric Dunn, Ellen suspected, where his own property ended. Nothing mattered beyond his sphere of influence....

He was large. Immense in fact. Ellen had met him many times, though only in passing at social events. She'd found him amusing, charming even. Though uninterested in others and easily bored when the spotlight shifted to anyone else.

She'd had her media outlets do profiles on Eric Dunn as his empire had grown, then crumbled, then rose again. Each time more audacious. More bloated. More fragile.

Like a bubble in the bath, it was ready to burst at any moment and release a stink.

And then unexpectedly, he'd turned to politics and won the highest office in the land. But not, she knew, without help from people and foreign governments who planned to profit from it. And had....

...There was no denying the force of this man. Ellen had never experienced anyone, anything, like it.

Most successful politicians had charisma. But this went way beyond that. To be in his orbit was to experience something extraordinary. There was a pull, a promise of excitement. Of danger. Like juggling grenades. 

It was exhilarating. And terrifying. Even she could feel it.

Ellen Adams was in no way attracted to this; in fact, she was repulsed. But she had to admit that Eric Dunn possessed a powerful magnetism and animal instinct. He had a genius for finding people's weaknesses. For bending them to his will. And if they didn't bend, he would break them.

He was dreadful and dangerous.

That's some efficient sketching of character, of one who actually plays a pivotal role in the plot -- based on a real-life person who'll never be caught reading this novel.

The writing is never less than competent, utilitarian, always forward-plunging, sparking both fits of humor along with the surprise jolts of terror, and what else could I require from my escapist lit? Plus I come up on passages of political insight that cause me to pause, go back, and read again:

"While you were looking outward, scanning the horizon for threats," [the chief villain, the nuclear-bomb merchant] continued, "you missed what was happening in your own backyard. What was taking root right here, on American soil. In your towns, your shops, in your heartland. Among your friends, in your families. The sensible conservatives moving to the right. The right moving far right. The far right becoming alt-right. Becoming, in their rage and frustration, radicalized thanks to an internet filled with crazy theories, false 'facts,' and smug politicians allowed to spew lies."

That piece of observation comes from the mouth of a foreign terrorist who wants devoutly to destroy the United States and realizes ruefully that others are beating him to it.

What If Hillary Had Won in 2016?

Can you imagine what this election would have been like if it was Hillary's midterm instead of Twitterman's? Slaughter of Democrats, right and left. More Senate seats lost. Governor's mansions? Fuggitaboutit! Because Republicans would have spent the last two years building their cudgels to smite the Devil, and they would have had some form of Trump leading them, aided by Fox News with funny memes about That Bitch in the White House designed for the same voters who wore MAGA hats in 2016 and longed for an American strongman. Instead of the strongman, they got that C-word they hate so much. 

You think Vladimir and his friends wouldn't have been co-producing the attack, heightening the hatred, hedging their investment in Trump with Internet manipulation? Wouldn't the Russkies want Trump active and vital for another presidential run? They'd keep his balloon inflated with constant flattery. Meanwhile, with Hillary taking a beating, nervous Democrats with no devotion to the Clintons would have stayed home on November 6th, and the wreckage would have surpassed 2010.

At least IMHO. I've thought about it a lot. I thought about the future of a Clinton presidency way back in the early Fall of 2016, when she was supposedly winning. Because I am a political animal and I want the progressive movement to thrive, I thought about the 2018 midterms with Hillary in DeeCee. The thought gave me the shudders.

(Full disclosure: I was a Bernie Sanders Democrat. I never felt any fire for Hillary. I despise triangulation.)

"It might actually be best for the Progressive movement if Clinton loses," I thought, "because with that man Trump in the White House, the Democratic Party would be forced into radical evolution and rebirth." I was and am a political animal, and I very much wanted to see the Democratic Party mean something and live, not die from self-inflicted wounds, or smothered in its sleep by Wall Street cash. Any political animal might foresee how Trump as president could help rebuild the grassroots of the Democratic Party, much withered from 2010 and stonecold brittle in some broad precincts. Trump stood to do exactly what he did: poke awake a sleeping opposition, a resistance that would find its voice and fight back against our mutual brush with strongman government, and bring many good people to their senses. 

I never uttered that thought to a soul. Uttering it now is probably folly, but it's a slow news Friday. 

With Trump, the Democratic Party, in all its chaotic and glorious variety, is back strong. The best candidates -- at all levels -- with the ability to raise small-dollar donations and compete as champions of community values, standing for simple justice, and fairness, and basic human decency. Those first-time candidates this year were riding the wave of a rising tide of activism especially among people who had never been involved before or had not been encouraged to poke their heads up. You can't create that kind of psychic energy out of boredom or complacency. The bravery and the personal commitment to sacrifice isn't birthed by 30-second TV spots. You can't purchase it with Soros money, chumps. That energy came from a mass reaction to human baseness.

Read This Spy Novel Now!

Forget your "beach reading"! Put down that latest issue of US Weekly. The published indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers offers 18 pages of thrills and chills straight out of the truly frightening world of computer hacking.

Seeing in black and white that the Russians could impersonate official email from Google, ordering a user to log on and fix this or that "on your account" -- I recognize that I've received those "spearphishing" messages myself. I bet most people reading this have too. That's only one way into your secrets. If they can gain access to one of your best friends, they can gain access to you too. It's chilling.

On or about April 6, 2016, the Conspirators created an email account in the name of a known member of the Clinton Campaign (with a one-letter deviation from the actual spelling).  The Conspirators then used that account to send spearphishing emails to the work accounts of more than thirty different Clinton Campaign employees. In the spearphishing emails, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators embedded a link purporting to direct the recipient to a document titled “hillary- clinton-favorable-rating.xlsx.” In fact, this link directed the recipients’ computers to a GRU [Russian Military Intelligence]-created website.

Once they're inside, look what they can do:

The keylog function allowed the Conspirators to capture keystrokes entered by DCCC [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] employees. The screenshot function allowed the Conspirators to take pictures of the DCCC employees’ computer screens.

One Obvious Reason Twitterman Is So Cowed by Putin

The indictments released yesterday drop this tidbit: They stole "opposition research" off Democratic Party and Clinton campaign computers. Opposition research. Get it? The Russians know everything bad about DJT that the Democrats were able to dig up -- not to mention, obviously what the Russians themselves already have on him.


Russians Subvert Actblue

"On or about June 14, 2016, the Conspirators registered the domain actblues.com, which mimicked the domain of a political fundraising platform that included a DCCC donations page. Shortly thereafter, the Conspirators used stolen DCCC credentials to modify the DCCC website and redirect visitors to the actblues.com domain."

What the Russians Did with the Stolen Documents

Oh, you know about Wikileaks ("Organization 1" in the indictment) and their publication of stolen material. But did you know about this "candidate for the U.S. Congress"?

On or about August 15, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, received a request for stolen documents from a candidate for the U.S. Congress. The Conspirators responded using the Guccifer 2.0 persona and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate’s opponent.

Asked for and received stolen documents. That's a new detail, and doesn't that suggest that other indictments are sure to come? Receiving stolen property. Asking for stolen property.

Aaron Nevins.
Butter won't melt in his mouth

Not only a sitting member of Congress but also an enterprising lobbyist:

On or about August 22, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, transferred approximately 2.5 gigabytes of data stolen from the DCCC to a then-registered state lobbyist and online source of political news. The stolen data included donor records and personal identifying information for more than 2,000 Democratic donors.

"State lobbyist." Puzzling over what that means, Google sends me to a Florida newspaper. That "state lobbyist" appears to be one Aaron Nevins (according to the Sun-Sentinel), "a state and local lobbyist and operator of the political news website 'Mark Miewurd's HelloFLA!' (The name is a play on 'mark my words.') "

We also learn that the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, contacted a U.S. reporter with an offer to provide stolen emails from Hillary Clinton’s staff. "The Conspirators then sent the reporter the password to access a nonpublic, password-protected portion of dcleaks.com containing emails stolen from Victim 1."

We've known since at least February of this year that the Russians attempted to penetrate the computers of 21 state boards of election, but "an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated" (NBC News). The indictment specifies just one, "SBOE 1." Was that Illinois, which admitted in 2016 that its system had been breached? Or some other state, like North Carolina?


"With Others Known and Unknown"

Other shoes are yet to drop. Obviously.

In the section of the indictment that specifies which American laws have been broken, there are a couple of references to "others known and unknown" as having participated in theft and conspiracy with the Russians. Some -- most? -- of those persons -- especially the known ones -- are likely American citizens, aren't they? And aren't we likely to see yet a cascade of additional indictments of persons who don't enjoy the protection of Vladimir Putin?

Gorka Sees the Future, and You're Not in It

Sebastian Gorka, Trump's former White House Lucifer-lookalike, told an auditorium full of College Republicans last night in Chapel Hill that he predicted and firmly believed that Trump will complete eight years in the presidency and will be followed by eight years of Mike Pence. The students cheered. According to the News and Observer, there were about 200 in the room.

I love political prognosticators. They make my corpuscles bunch and run. I listen to them avidly and read their opinions wherever I can find them, and then if they're writers, I want to see what they look like and whether I can take what they predict as possible. Or anyways likely. Or merely self-congratulatory fantasy based on living in a box.

Gorka is not clothed in credibility. He's all about macho dominance of perceived enemies. He famously bragged about Trump, “the alpha males are back,” and he itched to give Islam -- the whole religion apparently -- some alpha male comeuppance. He was in on drafting the first Muslim ban. He was and still is a satellite of Steve Bannon and a regular contributor to Breitbart News. He had an ill-defined job in the White House -- like Omarosa -- and new Chief of Staff John Kelly got rid of him on August 25, 2017.

Gorka wrote a "resignation letter" that was excerpted in The Federalist. It's a "kiss my white ass!" directed at John Kelly:

“given recent events, it is clear to me that forces that do not support the MAGA promise are – for now – ascendant within the White House. As a result, the best and most effective way I can support you, Mr. President, is from outside the People’s House.”

So Gorka tells the students in Chapel Hill last night that he wasn't fired. He resigned. And then predicted an Era of Trump/Pence. He described Trump as “Kryptonite to political correctness” and an “unstoppable steam locomotive.” Macho authoritarianism? Yes indeedy, there's authoritarianism, but it's all coming from the Middle East, or from anyplace Muslims are in the majority. Trump is, in essence, an alpha male saving the race.

What a time we live in! Members of churches all over Alabama have become winkers at child molestation, perhaps in concert with also thinking Trump was divinely appointed to the job. Trump has finally bullied Sessions into pursuing Hillary Clinton with a Special Prosecutor, and the president just appointed his lawyer's husband to a federal judgeship (in Alabama, no less), a man who only became a lawyer three years ago and has never tried a case and has a social media history that strongly suggests he lacks a judicial temperament, and oops! he failed to tell Congress he has a conflict of interest with the Trump White House.

So in such a whirling world, Gorka predicts 16 years of Trump/Pence. I ask you, in a world so warped, who can confidently prognosticate otherwise? (Though my corpuscles are telling me another story altogether.)

Ready To Say It Out Loud: I'm Relieved Hillary Lost

By November 8th last fall, I was secretly thinking what I could not utter to another living soul: It might be better for the Democratic Party if Hillary lost.

Why?

1. Hillary would have been under constant and threatening investigation by two houses of Congress. Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- would be getting passed if Hillary suggested it or wanted it or -- Heaven forbid! -- needed it. I dreaded the ferocious feeding frenzy that a Hillary presidency would serve up for Republicans, red in tooth and claw.

2. The Democratic Party would continue its slide, defending her. Long range, who would look forward to Hillary's first mid-term Congressional elections? Jeebus!

3. With Trump, we get a rejuvenating backlash from Democrats and by Democrats and for Democrats. Decent people everywhere -- but especially in the suburbs -- suddenly discover what they never realized before -- that they want Democrats to win. Cutting off Hillary was like pruning a puny tree in the spring: new growth springs forth.

4. The election of Trump galvanized a whole new troop of non-professional office-seekers who stepped forward and have ideas that are good ideas and who aren't beholden. A national Big Thumb of the establishment Democratic Party doesn't squelch them because it's in disarray, arguing over who to blame for Hillary's loss.

5. Trump is the death of the Republican Party. What replaces it? Maybe the Trump Party, or several different parties arguing over who has to pick up the tab for the last four years. If it's to be the Trump Party, we can watch it collapse rapidly into a chain of Beauty Pageant Accessories and Gun Stores

Opportunity, Knocking

We see these things every day on Facebook: "Sign this petition to force Congress to impeach Trump!" Petition, petition, petition. Different wording, same message.

People, please!

I already hate all the things that Facebook wants me to do every time I turn on the computer (you know what I'm talking about). Why on earth would I take time to do something as futile as signing a petition to the Republicans in Congress?

Do you honestly believe those people are going to slap Trump when they can't even repeal Obamacare?

Granted, there have been and will continue to be the occasional party kamikazes, like Corker and Flake, on suicide missions to save the Republic, not to mention the Republican Party. And expect more resignations by senior Republican members of Congress, opting not to run even in safe districts, like Jeb Hensarling in the Texas Fifth. Not an old guy. Why is he dropping out?

But prosecution/legislative action against malfeasance or obstruction in the Trump administration? Not gonna happen.

We have one more year of this hilarious nightmare. Then the people get to strike back. Until that is over, Congressional Republicans are going to grab the gunwales and sit tight until almost exactly one year from today, when comes a major mid-term general election. They're going to have to be kicked in the gut before they do anything about their disaster that keeps on giving. Serve them the election they deserve, and they'll do something about Trump. However many of them are left by then.

Attendance and enthusiasm are both up at Democratic events since January 20, starting the very next day -- January 21 -- with the Women's March on Washington. People are donating money and responding to phone calls to volunteer to work, and are already working, with more people than ever talking about filing to run for public office. The front-burner skillet is heating up.

Meanwhile, Trump is easily one of the most unpopular figures in American life, let alone the presidency. He works at alienating independent and swing voters. He flails around like a shadow-boxer. Remember his campaign. It was all him, and his superior brain didn't think he needed an infrastructure supporting him of experts and advisors, so when he suddenly needed "foreign policy experts" to look legit, he picks a bunch of people with no experience and no smarts and he gets Carter Page and George Papadopoulos and Sam Clovis, who nevertheless work very hard to do what the boss wants.

IMO, the Democratic Party is our only hope as a bulwark against crazy, and anything to do in Washington, D.C., that includes the name Hillary Clinton is crap. Some things we just need to let go of.

From Russia, With Hillary

Jon Favreau‏Verified account @jonfavs

Jon Favreau Retweeted Kyle Griffin

1. Fund dossier 2. Say nothing 3. Let Russia steal your emails 4. Lose election 5. Scheme complete!

Jon Favreau added

Jon Favreau is the founder of @CrookedMedia and co-host of @PodSaveAmerica.

"He Has Moved the Bar of Outrage"

Peter Baker, and the signs of the times:

GLEN JEAN, W.Va. — Remember that time President George W. Bush told his attorney general to investigate Al Gore for his “crimes”? Or President Barack Obama called for a Justice Department prosecution of John McCain?

No. Neither thing ever happened.

Trump has:

refused to release his tax returns 

refused to divest from his private businesses

put his son-in-law and daughter on the White House staff

without proof, accused his predecessor of illegally tapping his phones

fired the F.B.I. director who was leading an investigation into certain of his associates

 undercut his “beleaguered” attorney general in public, presumably so he'll resign so Trump can appoint a more compliant A.G., who'll behave like an employee 

On the same day Trump called for a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton by his Justice Department, he also asserted that he had the “complete power to pardon” his friends, relatives, and very possibly himself if necessary, to short-circuit a special counsel’s investigation into any possible collusion between his team and Russia.

This can't go on. This must not continue.

Isn't It Amazing That Coincidences Always Seem To Happen at the Same Time

A year ago on June 6, 2016, after clinching the nomination of the Republican Party, Donald Trump boasted, “I am going to give a major speech ... Probably Monday of next week. And we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting!” -- his voice modulated in that reality show hype style of his.

"Monday" never came. According to Abby Philip, Trump never gave that speech.

Here's a coincidence: Just hours earlier, Junior Trump had hit send on an email confirming a meeting with Natasha from Russia who supposedly had dirt on Hillary -- free dirt. International dirt.

Incidentally, Daddy Trump Senior now denies that he ever even as in never knew about the meeting until "a couple of days ago."

Another coincidence: When -- or because? -- the actual meeting between Junior, Jared, Manafort, and Natasha from Russia produced no new dirt on Hillary, the promised Trump speech evaporated. Makes me actually believe what Junior's been claiming --- that they didn't get any actionable intelligence out of Natasha.

I'm also believing the whole Russian espionage tradecraft of "the dangle," to see if a potential asset will bite at bait. The Trumps bit.

Upshot: The dangle worked. Later, through the agency of Michael Flynn or some other intermediary, or several, a deal got made between the Trump campaign and representatives of Putin to strategically release stolen emails guaranteed to hurt Mr. Trump's opponent. And that wasn't a coincidence.

Moscow on the Potomac

Come on, Bubba, didn't we know it all along? American intelligence sources have "high confidence" that Russia was interfering in our election to cripple Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump get to the White House.

Worse, American officials -- including, very likely, Mitch McConnell -- knew it, knew it in spades, and chose to stay quiet about it. James Comey at the FBI decided that inconsequential emails on Anthony Weiner's computer were far more earth-shaking than the subversion of our government by the Russians.

Trump knew it. When he invited the Russians to hack his Democratic opponent's email at that press conference on July 27th, he was projecting what he already knew was going on, because he can't resist bragging and wagging his dick. Ever.



Tell me that ain't treason.

BTW, Trump hasn't had another press conference since.

It's also come to light that the tiger they've bedded down with -- Vladimir Putin -- -- also hacked the National Republican Party and has their shit in his back pocket. High stakes blackmail, should prominent Republicans with embarrassing emails in their past choose at any time in the future to oppose Mr. Putin and his newest butt-buddy, Donald J. Trump, in their world conquest. (FBI Director James Comey, who had a Trump sign in his front yard [see below], was very recently saying that the Russian attempt to hack the Republican Party had been unsuccessful.)

When the CIA's secret conclusion came out yesterday about overt Russian shenanigans undertaken for Trump, the "Trump transition team" (Jared Kushner?) could not resist another big lie while also attacking the intelligence agencies:

“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” the statement said. “The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.’ ”

One of the Biggest Electoral College victories "in history"??? No, not even close. That's total bullshit. Trump took 306 electoral votes, to Hillary's 232. How does his number compare?

Dwight Eisenhower, both elections, 442 electoral votes, 457 electoral votes

Lyndon Johnson (1964), 486 electoral votes

Nixon's reelection (1972), 520 electoral votes

Reagan's first and second elections (1980 and 1984), 489 electoral votes, 525 electoral votes

It is way more than merely a good thing that Mr. Obama has ordered intelligence agencies to assemble a detailed report of “lessons learned” about the Russian hacking before he leaves office on Jan. 20 -- a comprehensive history of the Russian effort to undermine democracy ... so that the truth isn't somehow lost shortly following "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office...."

Liveblog: The Third Presidential Debate

How bad can it get?

Here we go.

Chris Wallace: Supreme Court ... next prez will have appointments to make. Where do you want to see the court take the country, and how should Constitution be interpreted?

Clinton: What kind of country are we going to be? What opportunities, what rights? Court needs to stand on side of people, not on side of powerful corporations. Court needs to stand up for women's rights, minority rights, stand up against Citizen's United. No reversal of Roe v. Wade, no reversal of marriage rights. Senate should do its job and confirm nominee that Obama sent them.

Trump: Supreme Court--it's what it's all about. Justice Ginsberg made inappropriate comments against me, and she was forced to apologize. Uphold the 2nd Amendment. I've named 20 justices that I'd draw my nominees from. They will protect the 2nd Amendment. They will interpret the document the way the Founders wanted it interpreted. The Constitution the way it's meant to be. [Duh.]

Wallace: Quotes Clinton: "The Supreme Court is wrong on 2nd Amendment."

Clinton: I support the 2nd Amendment, understand and respect gun ownership, but also believe there can be reasonable regulations. We lose 33,000 people a year from guns. Close loop-holes that allow people who shouldn't have guns to have guns.

Wallace: How will you insure that the 2nd Amendment is protected?

Trump: Doesn't answer, talks about how "extremely upset" Hillary was over Heller decision.

Wallace: Why do you support a National Right to Carry Law?

Trump: New York has tough gun laws and is one of the most violent cities. We are going to appoint justices that feel very strongly about the 2nd Amendment.

Wallace: Abortion ... Mr. Trump, you're pro-life. Do you want the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Trump: Roe v. Wade will be overturned if I put two or three justices on the Court.

Clinton: I strongly support Roe v. Wade. Many states are putting stringent restrictions on abortion, defunding Planned Parenthood. I support Planned Parenthood. Donald has said that women should be punished for abortions. Roe says there can be restrictions on abortion so long as the life of the mother is protected. You can regulate if you're doing so with the life and health of the mother in mind.

Trump: Late-term abortion, not okay with me.

Clinton: You wouldn't talk like that if you knew some of the women I've known who've faced those decisions.

9:20
Immigration ... Mr. Trump, you want to build a wall, and Mrs. Clinton, you've offered no specific plan for immigration.

Trump: She wants amnesty. Open borders. ICE has endorsed me. Heroin is pouring across our borders. [The snot-nose has returned!] I want to build the wall.

Wallace: Why are you right and Mr. Trump wrong?

Clinton: [She personalizes the issue] ... young woman she knows whose parents are not legal. Donald has said that every undocumented person will have to be deported. Rounding up people and putting them on trains, buses, to ship them out of the country -- think about that. We need to get rid of any violent persons, of course. We are both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. I'll introduce legislation first 100 days with a path to citizenship.

Trump: Clinton wanted a wall in 2006, or thereabouts.

Clinton: Bringing immigrants out of the shadows will be good, so that employers can't exploit them.

Trump: Under Obama, millions of people have been deported. Nobody talks about it. [So he admires Obama?] "Bigly" makes an appearance.

Clinton: We will not have open borders. That is a gross mischaracterization of my plan.

Wallace: Quotes from Wikileaks about a dream of open borders.

Clinton: I was talking about energy, an electrical grid that crosses borders. The Russian government has engaged in espionage against American citizens, given stolen emails to Wikileaks to influence our election. Finally, will Donald Trump admit and condemn the Russian government for their espionage?

Trump: That was a great pivot away from open borders! People are going to pour in from Syria. We are going to stop radical Islamic terrorism. I don't know Putin. He says nice things about me. It would be a good thing if we got along well. We're in very serious trouble. Nuclear warheads, and she's playing chicken. Putin has no respect for our government. No respect for her.

Clinton: That's because Putin wants a puppet for president.

Trump: No puppet! No puppet!

Clinton: [Drills in on Russian espionage.]

Trump: She has no idea who's doing that. No idea!

[Wallace losing control]

Wallace: Mr. Trump, America's top security experts say Russia is behind these attacks. Do you condemn Russia for that?

Trump: Of course I condemn Russia! Putin has outsmarted her every step of the way! Nuclear weapons!

Clinton: Ironic he brings up nuclear weapons, since he's been very cavalier about giving bombs to other countries. He's said, "What's the point of having nuclear weapons if we can't use them?"

Trump: All I said was we have to renegotiate nuclear treaties.

Clinton: Donald wants to tear up our treaties.

9:36
Economy. You both have different ideas about getting the economy on track. Mrs. Clinton, you see a bigger role for government. Mr. Trump, you want to give big tax breaks to the rich.

Clinton: Alternative energy ... new sources, new jobs. Small businesses. An education system that prepares our kids. College should be debt-free. We're going to have the wealthy pay their fair share, more contribution from wealthy corporations. Donald's whole plan is to cut taxes, adding $20 trillion to our debt. Trickle-down economics on steroids.

Trump: Her plan is going to raise taxes. It's a disaster. [He goes back to Japan, Saudi Arabia, Korea, Germany]: "They've got to pay up!" They've got to help us out. Trade deals will be renegotiated. Jobs have fled. Cut taxes massively.

Clinton: Let me translate that if I can. He advocates for the largest tax cuts we've ever seen. He'll add $20 trillion to the debt. When my husband was president, we went from a huge debt to a huge surplus. One of the ways we go after the debt is to invest in people, skills, infrastructure. Cutting taxes on the wealthy -- we've tried that. It doesn't work.

Wallace: Mrs. Clinton, is your plan even more of the "Obama stimulus"? [Trump smiling very smugly at that question.]

Clinton: We have to stimulate the economy from the bottom up, not the top down.

Wallace: Mr. Trump, even very conservative economists who've looked at your plan say it doesn't add up.

Trump: The last jobs report was dismal -- I should win easily if that's the last jobs report! NAFTA the worst thing that ever happened to our country.

Clinton: Only one person on this stage has shipped jobs to Mexico. In fact, he's shipped jobs to a lot of other countries.

Trump: If you become president, this country is going to be in some mess!

Clinton: [Does a litany of her last 30 years of advocacy, compared to Donald's being sued for racial discrimination, taking $14 million from his daddy, insulting Miss Universe ... she pushed all his buttons. But he manages to hold it in the road.]

9:52
Fitness to be President of the United States. Mr. Trump, you denied that you ever did what you bragged about doing to women. Yet many women have come forward since saying that you did exactly that.

Trump: Those stories have been largely debunked. I don't know those women. It was Clinton who brought all this up. She and Obama have paid people at my rallies to cause violence. I didn't know any of those women. Her campaign did it. She got those people to step forward and she paid people at my rallies $1,500 apiece to cause violence.

Clinton: He's said that he could not possibly have sexually harassed those women because they weren't attractive enough.

Trump: I did not say that.

Clinton: He thinks that belittling women makes him a bigger man. We know who Donald is. It's up to all of us to demonstrate who we are and who this country is. America is great because America is good.

Trump: Nobody has more respect for women than I do, nobody. Those stories have been largely debunked. All of this was started by her and her sleazy campaign. What isn't fiction are the 30,000 emails that she destroyed. That's really what you should be talking about.

Clinton: Every time Donald is pushed on something, he immediately goes to denying responsibility. He never apologizes or says he's sorry for anything. [She runs down the list.] It's not one thing: it's a pattern of divisiveness. That is not who America is.

Trump: She caused the violence at my rallies. I'd love to talk about other things [rather than sexual assault].

Wallace: Mrs. Clinton, you promised to avoid even an appearance of a conflict of interest in dealing with the Clinton Foundation. Can you really say you kept your pledge? Why isn't it "pay to play."

Clinton: I'm thrilled to talk about the Clinton Foundation. It made it possible for 11 million people around the world to get AIDS treatment.

Trump: It's a criminal enterprise. Why don't you give back the money you've gotten from countries that have treated people horribly?

Clinton: Clinton Foundation spends 90% of the money that's donated, giving it to people around the world. I'm happy to compare our work to the Trump Foundation. Who spends big money for a six-foot portrait of himself? Who does that?

Trump: 100% of money in Trump Foundation goes to charity.

Wallace: Didn't some of that money go to settle a lawsuit?

Clinton: There's no way to know anything about his charity because he won't release his tax returns. He hasn't paid a penny in income tax. We have undocumented immigrants who pay more in taxes than this billionaire.

Trump: We're entitled to take all the deductions. If you don't like what I did, you should have changed the law [because a single U.S. Senator can single-handedly change laws!].

Wallace: Will you accept the results of this election.

Trump: I'll look at it at the time. Media has poisoned the minds of the voters. If you look at the voter rolls, you'll see millions of people who are registered to vote who shouldn't be registered to vote. [WTF is he talking about?] She should never have been allowed to run for president because of all the things she's done.

Wallace: It's a tradition in this country that the loser concedes to the winner. Are you saying that you're not prepared to do that?

Trump: I'll keep you in suspense. I'll decide at the time.

Clinton: Every time things aren't going his way, he claims things are rigged against him. Trump University gets sued for fraud, and he claims the courts are rigged. He didn't get an Emmy for The Apprentice, and he claims the Emmys are rigged.

Trump: I hould have won it!

Clinton: He's talking down our democracy, he's denigrating the very foundations of our democracy.

10:10
Foreign hot-spots. Ah, ISIS! Something Trump has been totally incoherent about.

Clinton: I'm encouraged that there is an effort, led by Iraqi Army and aided by the Kurds, to take back Mosul. I'm not for using American ground troops. I'm hopeful that the hard work that American military advisors have done will pay off. I'll push for a no-fly zone and safe havens in Syria.

Wallace: Mr. Trump, if we're able to push ISIS out of Mosul, would you be for putting ground troops in there?

Trump: Stupidity of our country. No element of surprise. Only reason they're doing it [Mosul?] is because she's running for president. [WTF?] Iran should write us a letter, "Thank you very much." Iran is taking over Iraq. We shouldn't have been in Iraq. But once we were there, we never should have left.

Clinton: I'm amazed that he thinks the Iraqi government and our allies started this military operation to help me run for president.

Wallace: You were asked about Aleppo in the last debate. You said several things that weren't true. You said it's fallen. [Trump snarls: "Have you seen Aleppo?"] Russia has admitted that they have been bombing and shelling Aleppo. You said they weren't.

Trump: [Wanders down several rabbit holes at once. What is he talking about? Apparently, it's Hillary's fault that so many Syrians are migrating.]

Wallace: You're in favor of a no-fly zone, but Obama has refused to impose one. The generals say we'll be drawn into a war.

Clinton: I'm not going to let anyone into this country who is not vetted.

Trump: Our country is so out-played by Assad, Putin, Iran.

10:25
National debt. Both of you are ignoring the problem. Why?

Trump: Because I'm going to create so many jobs! A tremendous economic machine.

Clinton: When did Donald think America was great before? He's been running down this country for decades. He took out a full-page ad when Reagan was president and criticized what Reagan was doing in the same terms he uses against Obama and my husband. He's never thought that anyone was as smart as he thinks he is.

Trump: I disagreed with Reagan very strongly on trade.

Wallace: Biggest driver of our debt is entitlements. Neither of you has a serious plan for dealing with that. Would President Trump make a deal to save Social Security and Medicare by raising taxes and cutting benefits?

Trump: Repeal Obamacare!

Clinton: My plan to raise taxes on the wealthy should replenish Social Security. The Affordable Care Act extended the life of the Social Security Trust Fund.

Clinton closing: I'm reaching out to all Americans. We need everyone to make things work for everyone. I've been privileged to see the presidency up close, and I know the awesome responsibility. I will stand up for families against powerful interests, corporations. I will make sure your kids have good educations.

Trump: She's raising the money from the people she wants to control. [Huh?] We're going to make America great again. [Slogan time!] Police are disrespected. You get shot walking to the store in our cities. All she's done is talk. We're going to make America strong again and we're going to make American great again. We can't take another four years of Obama, and that's what you get with her.

My Take on This Year's Election -- President

PamsPicks.net, guest blogging:

I come from a long line of inadequately paid, hard-working, conservative folks in southwestern Virgina. Trump Country. And for a while I understood his attraction for them. He promised to get rid of the trade deals that many (including me) believe make for slave labor and slave wages. He promised not to mess with Social Security and Medicare. He supported Planned Parenthood (he's since "un-evolved" on that), and he wanted to run some bankers out of town. He promised to shake up the system.

I am a Bernie Democrat. Hillary Clinton is in my opinion far afield of anything close to a perfect candidate. For one thing, poetry's just not her thing and that sucks and it hurts her on the campaign trail too. The email server decision was dumb as hell, at best. She is prone to secrecy. She supported the war in Iraq and is hawkish, believing, it seems, that America needs to police the world. She supports fracking, for Pete's sake. And she's not a revolutionary (sigh). Clinton triangulates and compromises too much for me. I don't like her ties to Wall Street and corporate CEOs, and I don't trust her on trade or financial regulation.

But I do trust her on overturning Citizens United, pushing through debt-free college; a path to citizenship for immigrants; paid family leave; big investment in jobs; very progressive appointments to the Supreme Court; inclusion of more women and minorities in her administration; championing the rights of women and children; fighting for civil rights; addressing climate change; criminal-justice reform; LGBTQ rights; the expansion of Social Security, a public option for Obamacare (the single best way to force down insurance costs for everyone), and a hike in the minimum wage.

Besides, folks, the real Donald J. Trump is for the same things I fault Clinton for and is a certifiable nutjob with (or maybe without, who knows?) money to boot.

Trump is an authoritarian and a con man. He makes up things (sometimes just for the hell of it), and he encourages violence and fear. He is completely unqualified for public office. He is opposed to basic justice for anyone but himself, and he is selfish and a sleaze. He is incoherent on important issues like defense and trade. He is a misogynist, a xenophobe, a racist, and a sexual predator. He's a hypocrite.

I am still very concerned about Clinton, but, let's face it, she's not running against Bernie anymore. And, while I provide profiles below of both Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, I'm voting for Clinton because, bottom line, either she or Trump is going to end up in the White House, and I'm gonna make the most of the field I'm forced to play on.

Besides, I'm getting a little long in the tooth.

I don't want to spend the next four years trying to keep bad crap from happening. I want to spend the next four years trying to make progress. I don't want to spend my time trying to keep Trump from dumping millions of newly insured people off Obamacare. I don't want to spend my time trying to keep Trump from deporting five million immigrants (at least!) or forcing them to inform on their neighbors.

I don't want to spend the next four years having to fight a national stop and frisk program. I'd rather spend my time considering legit proposals that will stop the violence between minorities and community police. I don't want to spend my time fighting against yet another huge corporate tax cut. I want to spend the next four years pushing for a minimum wage and for making the very rich, like Trump, pay their fair share for building roads, and bridges, and schools, and community care clinics (and pay their taxes too).

I don't want to spend the next four years having to fight back against violations of basic human rights and decency, and respect: voter rights, abortion rights, equal pay for equal work, gay rights, and dealing with the neanderthals who insist climate change isn't real. I don't want to spend my next four years having to fight against hate and greed.

I don't want to spend the next four years freaking out about WTF/OMG does this mean: Trump has said, “We’re going to have to do things that are unthinkable."

Besides, I'm sure I'm not the only woman sick to death of men who say they "cherish women" and then go about the business of groping and assaulting us on airplanes and then bragging about it to their buddies -- in the locker room or anywhere else for that matter.

And most of all, I don't want to spend the rest of my life having to live with the inevitable devastating decisions of a right-wing Supreme Court. As noted over at FiveThirtyEight by Oliver Roeder, who simulated 10,000 hypothetical future courts under a President Trump and a President Clinton:

“If Donald Trump is elected president, the Supreme Court may, seat by vacated seat, will move rightward toward its most conservative position in recent memory. If Hillary Clinton is elected, the court may quickly become the most liberal it’s been in at least 80 years.”

Now of course it's up to us to force her to put what is the most progressive platform in the modern history of the Democratic Party into action. As Sanders put it recently: “I’m not going to sit here and say to you that Hillary Clinton is going to be great on all these issues with absolute confidence…. I’m saying that on many, many issues, her views are progressive. In many areas, they are awesome. Where they’re not progressive, we’ve got to push her."

So, it's a fact. Clinton's not progressive enough for me and many other Bernie Sanders' supporters. But I'm old enough to remind my fellow progressive activists to consider the fact that we don't think she's progressive enough has as much to do with how we have managed to push our politics leftward as it does with a rightward drift by her. And that's a good thing. And that's what I'm willing to work with because that's where we are.

Gary Johnson (Libertarian): www.johnsonweld.com and Gary Johnson President 2016 on Facebook

Johnson is the former Republican governor of New Mexico. I have to confess that I have a soft spot for Gary Johnson (just like my other favorite Libertarian, Sean Haugh, running for US Senate). I find myself agreeing with some of his policy positions (civil liberties and Internet freedom, for example), and I also like his demeanor (in a presidential year when candidate demeanor went completely rogue!)

Johnson supports abortion rights, gay marriage, and supports the legalization of marijuana, and he believes that the federal government should keep its nose out of these issues, but when it comes to state and local governments, Johnson believes their ability to restrict all of these rights is fair game. Johnson has some other policy positions that negate my support for him: wants to cut Medicare and Medicaid, wants to eliminate taxes for corporations, favors Charter schools over public schools, opposes any laws regulating gun ownership, and supports "Citizens United and no limits on corporacandidates." Johnson opposes government protections of civil rights, government regulations of financial institutions, and government policies to preserve the environment.

Jill Stein (Green--Write In): www.jill2016.com and Dr Jill Stein on Facebook

If you write in Jill Stein's name on your ballot under the Presidential race, your vote will be counted.

Stein has a medical degree from Harvard but has only been elected to one position: representative to the town meeting of Lexington, Massachusetts. Wanting to vote for a candidate rather than merely against one is obviously where we all want to be. Me included. I agree with Stein's opposition to fracking, her assertion that Obamacare isn't good enough, and her support for a single payer system, among other things.

Some of my progressive friends argue I should write her name in for this election because "she's not Hillary Clinton." But I prefer building authentic grassroots alternatives, instead of the Green Party's top-down vehicle for protest.

Besides, rather than articulating a compelling progressive vision for America, Stein is all about conspiracy theories. She seems to me at times to traffic in fear and paranoia, like her opposition to vaccines and her belief that WiFi is potentially dangerous. Stein believes that Trump and Clinton are equally bad. It may disappoint some of my more progressive readers, but I do not. Clinton doesn't get it for me on issues like fracking, trade and war, but Trump is a misogynist, racist, xenophobic billionaire with poor impulse control.

I agree with Noam Chomsky, a Stein supporter:

"In a swing state – a state where it's going to matter which way you vote – I would vote against Trump, and by elementary arithmetic, that means you hold your nose and you vote Democrat," he said. "I don't think there's any other rational choice. Abstaining from voting or, say, voting for ... a candidate you prefer, a minority candidate, just amounts to a vote for Donald Trump, which I think is a devastating prospect."

The bottom line is that the Green party is only on the ballot in 39 states and the District of Columbia. In North Carolina Stein is a write-in candidate, and North Carolina is in a position to make or break Trump's march to the White House this year. We don't cast our ballots in a vacuum, simply accepting or rejecting a single candidate. We have choices and the ones we make have consequences.