- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Will Putin Get a Pulitzer?

Waving off the clerics who had come to administer last rites, Voltaire said: “All my life I have ever made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord, make my enemies look ridiculous.’ And God granted it.”

The tale of the thieved emails at the Democratic National Committee is just too good to be true.

For a year, 74-year-old socialist Bernie Sanders has been saying that, under DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the party has been undercutting his campaign and hauling water for Hillary Clinton.

From the 19,200 emails dumped the weekend before Clinton’s coronation, it appears the old boy is not barking mad. The deck was stacked; the referees were in the tank; the game was rigged.


For four decades, some of us have wondered what Jim McCord, security man at CREEP, and his four Cubans were looking for in DNC chair Larry O’Brien’s office at the Watergate. Now it makes sense.

Among the lovely schemes the DNC leaders worked up to gut Sanders in Christian communities of West Virginia and Kentucky, was to tell these good folks that Sanders doesn’t even believe that there is a God. He’s not even an agnostic; he’s an atheist.

The idea was broached by DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall in an email to DNC chief executive officer Amy Dacey:

“Does [Bernie] believe in a God. He has skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and atheist.”

Dacey emailed back, “Amen.”

In 1960, John F. Kennedy went before the Houston ministers to assert the right of a Catholic to be president of the United States. Is the “Marshall Plan,” to quietly spread word Bernie Sanders is a godless atheist, now acceptable politics in the party of Barack Obama?

If Marshall and Dacey are still around at week’s end, we will know.

The WikiLeaks dump came Friday night. By Sunday, Clinton’s crowd had unleashed the mechanical rabbit, and the press hounds were dutifully chasing it. The new party line: the Russians did it!

Clinton campaign chief Robert Mook told ABC, “experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke in to the DNC, took all these emails, and now they are leaking them out through the Web sites. … some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.”

Monday, Clinton chairman John Podesta said there is a “kind of bromance going on” between Trump and Vladimir Putin. Campaign flack Brian Fallon told CNN, “There is a consensus among experts that it is indeed Russia that is behind this hack of the DNC.”

Purpose: change the subject. Redirect the media away from the DNC conspiracy to sabotage Sanders’ campaign.

Will the press cooperate?

In 1971, the New York Times published secret documents from the Kennedy-Johnson administration on how America got involved in Vietnam. Goal: discredit the war the Times had once supported, and undercut the war effort, now that Richard Nixon was president.

The documents, many marked secret, had been illicitly taken from Defense Department files, copied, and published by the Times.

America’s newspaper of record defended its actions by invoking “the people’s right to know” the secrets of their government.

Well, do not the people have “a right to know” of sordid schemes of DNC operatives to sink a presidential campaign?

Do the people not have a right to know that, in denying Sanders’ charges, the leadership of the DNC was lying to him, lying to the party, and lying to the country?

What did Clinton know of Wasserman Schultz’s complicity in DNC cheating in the presidential campaign, and when did she know it?

For publishing stolen Defense Department secrets, the Pentagon Papers, the Times got a Pulitzer Prize.

If the Russians were helpful in bringing to the attention of the American people the anti-democratic business being done at the DNC, perhaps the Russians deserve similar recognition.

By the Times‘ standard of 1971, maybe Putin deserves a Pulitzer.

Undeniably, if the Russians or any foreign actors are interfering in U.S. presidential elections, we ought to know it, and stop it.

But who started all this?

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has used cyberwarfare to sabotage centrifuges in the Iranian nuclear plant in Natanz. We have backed “color-coded” revolutions in half a dozen countries from Serbia to Ukraine to Georgia—to dump rulers and regimes we do not like, all in the name of democracy.

Unsurprisingly, today, Russia, China, Egypt, and even Israel are shutting down or booting out NGOs associated with the United States, and hacking into websites of U.S. institutions.

We were the first “experts” to play this game. Now others know how to play it. We reap what we sow.

Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority [1].

19 Comments (Open | Close)

19 Comments To "Will Putin Get a Pulitzer?"

#1 Comment By Kurt Gayle On July 26, 2016 @ 8:00 am

“What did Clinton know of Wasserman Schultz’s complicity in DNC cheating in the presidential campaign, and when did she know it?”

CBS’s Scott Pelley did an interview with Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine and aired it Sunday evening on 60 Minutes…Pelley asked Clinton and Kaine about the leak…Pelley read some of the DNC staff emails that suggested ways to undermine Sanders’s campaign.

“Did you know anything about any of that?” Pelley asked Clinton.

Clinton: “No, I didn’t know anything about it, and I haven’t read any of those,” Clinton answered.

Pelley: “You have people in the Democratic National Committee who are supposed to be, if you will, agnostic about who the nominee is going to be, and they seem to have their thumb on the scale for you. They seem to be working against Bernie Sanders, their fellow Democrat.”

Clinton: “Again, I don’t know anything, I don’t know anything about, uh, about these emails. I haven’t followed it.”

Pelley: “In your view, any effort in the DNC to favor one candidate or another would have been improper?”

Clinton: “Again, I don’t have any information about this, and so I can’t answer specifically.”

(“Where are the gold pieces now?’ the Fairy asked.”I lost them,” answered Pinocchio, but he told a lie, for he had them in his pocket. As he spoke, his nose, long though it was, became at least two inches longer.)


#2 Comment By mrscracker On July 26, 2016 @ 9:18 am

I have to admit I’m kind of enjoying watching the Democrats scurry about trying to cover up the disarray. But really, to be truthful this goes on everywhere in politics.
Hillary’s just a bit more creative in her denials.

#3 Comment By LouisM On July 26, 2016 @ 10:01 am

First, I don’t think its as much a 100% certainty that Russia is to blame for hacking the DNC and releasing the emails. If so, wouldn’t the emails deleted from Hillary’s server be floating to the surface? There seems to be 100+ ways Russia could release emails or some such interference / manipulation and yet the only thing surfacing is the DNC emails.

Second, there are strong constituents of warmongering neoliberals in the democratic party and warmongering neoconservatives in the republican party. Both of which have interfered in Syria where Russia has a naval base, Ukraine where Russia has a naval base in the crimia and elsewhere around the world. To which, Hillary is bought and sold member along with John McCain and George Bush II. Probably the only thing that Trump has in common with Obama is that Trump is more focused on domestic policy than foreign policy. Both see foreign policy as a net minus. In that sense, of course Putin and Russia would not like to see another interventionist presidential administration but I don’t think the Russians are the only one’s with that feeling. China has very good reason to want a less interventionist administration.

#4 Comment By oldlib On July 26, 2016 @ 1:27 pm

Oh, irony. The uber-nationalist who wrote this column cheerleading a foreign strongman for attempting to rig a US presidential election.
Look…I think NATO should have been disbanded in 1990, I’m against arming the Ukrainians, and the idea that we’re on the hook for Montenegro is ridiculous.
But PJB, for crying out loud, you aren’t disgusted by Putin’s interference? Would you still sing his praises if he’d hacked the RNC and dumped its (carefully abridged) emails on the eve of the election?
Do you really believe in nationalism or is it only a club to beat Democrats over the head with?

#5 Comment By EngineerScotty On July 26, 2016 @ 1:54 pm

Well, this is an interesting way to spin the prospect of a foreign intelligence agency interfering in US elections.

Something tells me, though, that if German intelligence were to dox Trump (Deutsche Bank, remember) and embarrass the GOP candidate, Pat wouldn’t view it as a public service…

#6 Comment By VikingLS On July 26, 2016 @ 2:55 pm

“Well, this is an interesting way to spin the prospect of a foreign intelligence agency interfering in US elections.”

Seriously? With all the money and resources that Clinton and her deputies put into influencing elections in other countries neither she, nor her supporters have ANY right to complain about that.

You don’t like countries meddling in the affairs of other countries, you can vote for Johnson, or Stein, maybe even Trump, but Clinton spent years of her life doing exactly that.

If the DNC hadn’t done what it did, the emails wouldn’t have been there to hack.

#7 Comment By Anthony M On July 26, 2016 @ 3:15 pm

The emails weren’t even that juicy. A fat lot of nothing. Some staffers sent a few emails that were dumb, the leadership shot them down or ignored them, and nothing came of it. This has far more to do with the fact that people just don’t put juicy details in email form. A leak of RNC emails would be similarly scandalous/boring. You would see RNC staffers conspiring against Trump, but nothing damning. Emails are such a tease. Give me voice recordings or I’m not going to waste my time on A faux-scandal.

#8 Comment By Viriato On July 26, 2016 @ 3:33 pm

Oldlib wrote: “Oh, irony. The uber-nationalist who wrote this column cheerleading a foreign strongman for attempting to rig a US presidential election.”

EngineerScotty wrote: “Something tells me, though, that if German intelligence were to dox Trump (Deutsche Bank, remember) and embarrass the GOP candidate, Pat wouldn’t view it as a public service…”

Pat Buchanan wrote: “Undeniably, if the Russians or any foreign actors are interfering in U.S. presidential elections, we ought to know it, and stop it.”

Where in this column does Pat Buchanan cheer what the Russians allegedly did? He says clearly that if they did it, we have a right to be angry.

When Pat writes, “By the Times‘ standard of 1971, maybe Putin deserves a Pulitzer,” he is not literally advocating that Putin get a Pulitzer. He is hyperbole to make a point about media hypocrisy. That is all.

#9 Comment By Viriato On July 26, 2016 @ 3:34 pm

Sorry, in my last comment, I should have written, “He is *using* hyperbole to make a point about media hypocrisy.”

#10 Comment By oldlib On July 26, 2016 @ 5:05 pm


True, PJB added that sentence, but the rest of the column is positively exultant.
And of course, there’s another sideways defense of Buchanan’s old boss, the Tricky one himself.
I find it hard to believe that anybody who still condones Nixon’s shenanigans has any room to criticize the DNC.
And no, the people don’t have the right to know. The Republican and Democratic parties are private organizations. They nominate candidates for elective office but neither of them are the government.
There’s a huge difference between Robert McNamara lying to the American public about a war American boys were being drafted to fight in, and internal emails of DNC operatives discussing how best to win an election.

#11 Comment By Clint On July 26, 2016 @ 6:35 pm

Will the press cooperate?

The Mainstream Media is attempting to orchestrate a Hillary Clinton presidency, as they orchestrated Obama’s. The Mainstream Media is liberal and corrupt.

#12 Comment By EngineerScotty On July 26, 2016 @ 7:13 pm

Ah… Pat’s just bitter about the NYT shivving his old boss way back when.

An interesting question, though–would it be acceptable journalism for a reporter to hack a computer system (or hire someone to do so), if the information gleaned was only used for reporting? Whether or not the Republican candidate had anything to do with this (so far there’s no evidence of that); the DNC email business was not a leak, but an intrusion.

And other than the head of Debbie Wasserman-Schwartz, which is now mounted on a pike somewhere in Burlington, VT, this seems to have had little ill effect on the Democratic Party. Clinton is now the nominee; Sanders is fully on board and politely told has told the busters to stow it, and the media is wondering whether Trump might be in cahoots with Putin. No solid evidence of that has surfaced, of course–common interests does not imply conspiracy–but questions are being asked.

#13 Comment By max skinner On July 26, 2016 @ 7:33 pm

Just what action(s) do the emails show were taken to derail Sanders? There was a lot of talk, but no action. No one breaking into his campaign office or searching in his medical or business records to discredit him. There were no changes in the party rules that disadvantaged him. The DNC was less than thrilled with his candidacy, that is clear, but what did it actually do? What did the DNC owe to a guy who wasn’t a member of the party for most of his political career?

#14 Comment By Carol On July 26, 2016 @ 8:17 pm

Oh, if only we could see into rnc discussions when it became clear that Donald, the apprentice, trump was going to be their nominee. Perhaps the rnc was smart enough not to use emails, but never mind. We can see by the number of republican who have left your party what the discussion were about

#15 Comment By Alex (the one that likes Ike) On July 27, 2016 @ 12:19 am

Something makes me believe that no Russians / Chinese / anti-liberal plotters in America’s own intelligence agencies would be required. Given what I’ve heard about DNC’s level of security, a mediocre teenage hacker would be enough. And that guy/lass would do it for a new VGA instead of those millions you’ll have to pay even to former intelligence officers.

#16 Comment By Kiza On July 27, 2016 @ 12:19 am

I am not a hacker, but let me explain what I do now. Any good hackers will:
1) avoid detection by the built-in security of the system he/she attacks, and
2) always leave a re-direction honey-trap clues for post-festum analysis by the IT forensics “experts”. Hacking is a criminal activity and you want to sic the dogs onto somebody else and who could be better than a culprit that the “victim” prefers?

This is how the North Korean’s came to be blamed for hacking of the Sony Studios, the Chinese for so many other and now the Russians for supposedly hacking DNC. Any decent commercial firm of information security “experts” would know about honey-trap clues left for them to find and would avoid embarrassment by blaming the usual suspects. But DNC does not hire such quality firms.

Finally, no commercial security firm then only the NSA has the records and the resources to do a reliable Whodoneit and you can rest absolutely sure that NSA will not venture into this DNC cesspit (plus blaming the Russians may be positive for their budget). Thus, we will never know for sure. The Russians are the culprits of convenience to divert attention from the rigging of the Democratic Primaries. So typically North American: go onto offensive when caught doing corrupt things, blame Trump.

#17 Comment By John S On July 27, 2016 @ 8:22 am

Actually, we were not the first experts to play this game. The KGB mastered “active measures” long ago. Buchanan’s blind spot for the Russians is rather tiresome.

#18 Comment By Viriato On July 27, 2016 @ 11:56 am


“And no, the people don’t have the right to know. The Republican and Democratic parties are private organizations. They nominate candidates for elective office but neither of them are the government.”

Indeed, that’s the way it is. But is that the way it ought to be? If, for one, find it appalling and undemocratic that private organizations are tasked with nominating candidates for public officers.

Abolish all political parties now.

P.S.: As you may know, the argument that political parties are private organizations was once used to deny African-Americans in the South the right to vote in primaries.

#19 Comment By Kiza On July 27, 2016 @ 10:01 pm

From reading the comments here, it is absolutely clear that it had to be the Russian hacking the DNC computers, so many Clintonistas are absolutely sure. Otherwise, how to justify the future Hillary’s nuclear war on Russia then by their interference into the elections: the Russians are rigging the POTUS elections by proving that DNC have been rigging the elections. The US is truly becoming a complete joke of a country, even Trump cannot make it great again. It is a military giant who has knocked himself out and is now lumbering towards a fall which may take the whole planet out.