Jimmy Carter Again Says He Voted For Sanders; Does Not Think Russia Changed Any Votes

We already learned in May that Jimmy Carter voted for Bernie Sanders in the Georgia primary. As I noted then: In 1992, he declined to endorse Bill Clinton, saying “people are looking for somebody who is honest and tells the truth.” In an interview with The New York Times he repeated that he had voted for Sanders. Carter was also asked about whether he agreed with Clinton’s claim that Russia altered the election results. From the interview:

Carter is also not as bothered as some by Trump’s Putin bromance. “At the Carter Center,” he said, “we deal with Putin and the Russians quite frequently concerning Syria.”

Did the Russians purloin the election from Hillary?

“Rosie and I have a difference of opinion on that,” he said.

She looked over archly. “They obviously did,” she said.

He said: “I don’t think there’s any evidence that what the Russians did changed enough votes, or any votes.”

Rosalynn pressed, “The drip-drip-drip about Hillary.”

Carter noted that in the primary, “We voted for Sanders.”

I asked the famously ethical Carter what he made of Obama’s post-presidential string of $400,000 speeches.

Carter was also asked about the Clinton Foundation:

When I compared the Clinton Foundation with the Carter Center, Carter noted: “Rosie and I put money in the Carter Center. We never take any out.”

In other news on the Russia investigation today, NBC News reports that Robert Muller is now investigating Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group. Tony Podesta is the brother of Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta:

Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group are now the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, three sources with knowledge of the matter told NBC News.

The probe of Podesta and his Democratic-leaning lobbying firm grew out of Mueller’s inquiry into the finances of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to the sources. As special counsel, Mueller has been tasked with investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Manafort had organized a public relations campaign for a non-profit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU). Podesta’s company was one of many firms that worked on the campaign, which promoted Ukraine’s image in the West.

The sources said the investigation into Podesta and his company began as more of a fact-finding mission about the ECMU and Manafort’s role in the campaign, but has now morphed into a criminal inquiry into whether the firm violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA.

Be Sociable, Share!

18 Comments

  1. 1
    Bob says:

    At this time the point isn’t that the Russians changed the outcome of the election. It’s that they tried to do so and will continue if not stopped. Why not just admit you think free speech rights cover hostile foreign powers conducting propaganda campaigns in the US as long as they embarrass your perceived political enemies?

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    So now you resort to distorting what I said–a sure sign that you don’t have a leg to stand on.

    The controversy most definitely is over whether the Russians changed the outcome–and all available evidence is that they did not.

    It has not even been established that they tried, with this question still open and many of the claims that they did falling apart when investigated. We do not know if the rather small amount of Facebook ads (over half not even seen until after the election) were truly to influence the election or if they were from troll farms making provocative statements to get hits to increase page loads. Even if this was an attempt to influence the election, it is rather trivial compared to US efforts to influence elections around the world.

    Your ending is a gross distortion of what I have been saying. That is a long way from my opposition to censorship of political views, and now allowing politically motivated hysteria being spread to promote censorship, including of Americans. I support freedom of speech regardless of what is said and whether it embarrasses my “political enemies” is totally irrelevant.

  3. 3
    Bob says:

    Do you even read a newspaper?

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    I read several newspapers. Do you read beyond the headlines? If so you would see that the initial hysterical headlines are often retracted as further evidence shows they were incorrect. Do you exercise any critical thought?

    Did you also believe the claims of WMD in Iraq? Did you believe the government’s reasons for Viet Nam?

  5. 5
    Bob says:

    Here’s just one example from hundreds. Note the date:

    “WASHINGTON — The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee delivered a stark warning on Wednesday to political candidates: Expect Russian operatives to remain active and determined to again try to sow chaos in elections next month and next year.

    At a rare news conference, Senators Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina and the committee’s chairman, and Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia and its vice chairman, broadly endorsed the conclusions of American spy agencies that said President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a campaign of hacking and propaganda to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/politics/senate-intelligence-committee-russia-election-trump.html

    Where’s the hysteria? You seem to be suggesting that since some politicians lied about WMD and Vietnam we should trust the Russians.

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    Still claiming I said things I haven’t said.

    The “conclusion” from the spy agencies remains questionable and they have backtracked quite a bit. Any conclusion has to be taken with a grain of salt when the suggested evidence repeatedly is shown to be questionable.

    Most likely it is more a matter of perspective with the alleged Russian campaign currently appearing to be far less than US meddling in other countries. Take appropriate action without going overboard.

    I said nothing about trusting the Russians, but our own history shows the perils of accepting unsubstantiated claims.

  7. 7
    Ron Chusid says:

    The hysteria is in claiming that the 2016 election was stolen based upon what the Russians may or may not have done. The hysteria is in failing to put any of this in perspective. The hysteria is in playing into the neocons’s desire for taking on Russia based upon questionable and exaggerated claims. The hysteria is in using unsubstantiated claims to justify suppression of First Amendment rights.

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    It was not just “some politicians” lying about WMD and Viet Nam. It was about the official positions of the US government, allegedly based upon intelligence, being used to lie the country into wars.

  9. 9
    Ron Chusid says:

    Plus it isn’t just Iraq and Viet Nam. The US government has lied us into many more wars:

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/9419-lies-and-consequences-in-our-past-15-wars

    Hillary Clinton, one of the prime movers of the claims re Russia, both assisted Bush in lying us into Iraq (with clams of ties between al Qaeda and Saddam) and later lied us into disastrous military intervention in Syria.

  10. 10
    Bob says:

    You claimed “It has not even been established that they [the Russians] tried, with this question still open and many of the claims that they did falling apart when investigated.”

    That is obviously not true in the main.

  11. 11
    Ron Chusid says:

    It is most certainly true. That is why you have to read beyond the headlines and the statements from people in government. As I also said, it is most likely true to some degree (although even this has to be taken with some skepticism due to the questionable nature of the evidence presented) that Russia tried to influence the election, this also must be kept in perspective compared to the history of US efforts to meddle in other elections around the world.

  12. 12
    Bob says:

    Your attempts to change the subject really don’t help your argument.

  13. 13
    Ron Chusid says:

    I have not changed the subject at all. I’m just responding to your attempts to distort what I have said and engage in straw man arguments.

  14. 14
    Nick says:

    Bob says "Where’s the hysteria?"

    Umm Bob, the Russia hysteria is seen all thru your comments. I agree with Ron. The US government's interference in other countries and lying us into wars is the subject here, but you seem to miss that.

  15. 15
    Ron Chusid says:

    Exactly. We have seen it so many times before as they scare people to the point where they abandon critical thinking, allowing for unnecessary actions ranging from suppression of civil liberties to war (with the two frequently combined).

  16. 16
    Bob says:

    I can assure you I’m not hysterical. Your proposition that our politicians are dishonest and malicious but other countries’ aren’t is silly on its face.

  17. 17
    Ron Chusid says:

    Bob, yet again you resort to grossly distorting what I have said.

    I have always considered Putin to be dishonest and malicious, and your claim I have proposed otherwise is also quite dishonest

    And yes, you do appear quite hysterical about all of this.

  18. 18
    Bob says:

    I do not! I’m not reading you! My fingers are in my eyes! La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La La …

Leave a comment