Projection, Hillary Clinton, Respecting Elections, and Honduras

democracy-now! Sep 18, 2017

Hillary Clinton won’t shut up. And, it’s magnificent. I can’t imagine a politician more out of touch with reality. That provides hours of endless entertainment. Following her career, at this point in time, provides more comedy than any comedian could ever hope to achieve.

What is projection?

From OED online:

The unconscious transfer of one’s own desires or emotions to another person.

Or, from Merriam-Webster:

the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially :the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety

On to Hillary!

Secretary/Senator/First Lady Clinton (seriously, 20 years in government and not a single nameable accomplishment?) did an interview on NPR. Here in the transcript:

Interviewer: Democrats have said that they think there was Russian interference in the election, but that they’re not challenging the results of the election. As more and more information comes out about the depth of Russia’s interference in the election, do you think, at some point, that it would be legitimate to challenge the legitimacy of the election?

Ms. Clinton: I don’t know if there’s any legal constitutional way to do that. I think you can raise questions. In fact, I think part of the reason Trump behaves the way he behaves is that he is a walking example of projection. Whatever he’s doing and whatever he thinks is happening he will accuse somebody else of. And there are examples during the campaign when he did just that, like when he called publicly on Russia to hack my personal emails.

He knew they were trying to do whatever they could to discredit me with emails, so there’s obviously a trail there, but I don’t know that in our system we have any means of doing that, but I just wanted to add to the point you made. There’s no doubt they influenced the election: We now know more about how they did that.

Let me just put it this way, if I had lost the popular vote but won the electoral college and in my first day as president the intelligence community came to me and said, “The Russians influenced the election,” I would’ve never stood for it. Even though it might’ve advantaged me, I would’ve said, “We’ve got to get to the bottom of this.” I would’ve set up an independent commission with subpoena power and everything else.

I really want to look at Hillary’s first comment. She states that President Trump behaves the way he does due to projection. Then she states that there are examples… like calling on Russia to hack her emails.

Projection is the subconscious act of blaming other people for things they’ve done. In her example, President Trump isn’t blaming anyone for anything. Consequently, there can be no projection. This is a recurring theme. I see a lot of people claim President Trump is always projecting. Then, they can’t provide examples.

But, let’s look at the context here. She is claiming that the election was not legitimate. Remember this Tweet?

That’s projection.

Also, she’s blaming Russia for influencing the election and President Trump for his response (she claims it’s incontrovertible, it isn’t). But, for the sake of argument, can we find a real time when a foreign country exerted undue influence on an election? Perhaps in 1996 when China supported a certain presidential candidate…? Maybe you remember the indicted Charlie Trie (CNN)? Y’know, the one who raised money for the Clinton defense fund. The one that Hillary ignored warnings about (NYTimes). Anyway, please, look into it further. And, please, please, please, look for any instance where Hillary said anything like “We’ve got to get to the bottom of this.” I can’t. That’s ancient history in politics, though.

Perhaps a more recent example of government intervention in foreign elections. Remember Honduras in 2009? You might remember that Manuel Zelaya was ousted by a coup. Because the US is the world military force, the President and Secretary of State had to be involved. The question was always how…

During an interview with Democracy Now! President Zelaya stated:

MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I interacted with Secretary Clinton publicly on several occasions, especially when she was here in Honduras in 2009, one month before the coup d’état, and sanctions against Cuba that the OAS had imposed 40 years earlier were lifted. The decrees against Cuba were repealed, and that was the beginning of getting rid of the blockade. It began in Honduras. Secretary Clinton had many contacts with us. She is a very capable woman, intelligent, but she is very weak in the face of pressures from groups that hold power in the United States, the most extremist right-wing sectors of the U.S. government, known as the hawks of Washington. She bowed to those pressures. And that led U.S. policy to Honduras to be ambiguous and mistaken.

On the one hand, they condemned the coup, but on the other hand, they were negotiating with the leaders of the coup. And Secretary Clinton lent herself to that, maintaining that ambiguity of U.S. policy toward Honduras, which has resulted in a process of distrust and instability of Latin American governments in relation to U.S. foreign policies.

Hillary’s response to the coup? From The Intercept:

A week later, Clinton and her top aides reportedly brokered a deal to bring Zelaya back to power through a national unity government. . . . The supposed plan fell apart, and the “de facto” government sponsored what many considered a fraudulent election while denying Zelaya’s return.

The election, on November 29, 2009, was beset by violence, with anti-coup organizers murdered before the election and the police violently suppressing an opposition rally in San Pedro Sula and shutting down left-leaning media outlets. . . . The election paved the way for coup-supporters from the National Party to solidify power.

Rather than seeing this as a failure, the Clinton emails released last week further confirm that the State Department had sought the permanent ouster of Zelaya all along.

State Department officials bucked the demands of most Latin American countries and rushed to recognize the election as “free, fair and transparent.”

Hillary’s goal, it appears, was to encourage a fake election so that the ouster of President Zelaya would be seen as legitimate. Who knows, maybe murdering opposition organizers counts as a good election to Ms. Clinton. Anyway, now, she blames other for interfering in an election. She’s been on both sides. If you want the exemplification of projection it is Hillary Rodham Clinton.