February 18, 2020 in Columnists, News by RBN Staff


Former Vice President of the United States Joe Biden speaking with supporters at a community event at the Best Western Regency Inn in Marshalltown, Iowa 
Gage Skidmore –


By Harley Schlanger | LaRouche PAC

The failure of the Democratic Party to accurately count the votes cast in the Iowa caucus, which is the first test of the candidates competing for the party’s nomination to run against President Trump, has made it into a national embarrassment, and an international laughingstock.  The final count of the caucus, which took place on February 3, has yet to be released, as of February 14.  Given that the total number of participants was only about 176,000, how is it possible that the final figures remain unknown?  President Donald Trump ridiculed the party, asking how Americans could trust it to run the largest economy in the world, when it cannot even properly count the number of votes cast in a gymnasium?

The inability to tabulate the results has been blamed on an app, which was supposed to streamline the process of counting the votes to determine the winner.  The breakdown of the counting process meant that the announcement of the results on election eve was shut down with only 62% counted, which allowed the Mayor of a small town in Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, to declare victory, although Senator Bernie Sanders received the most votes.  As the scandal stretched into the second week, the chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, Troy Price, resigned, and the race moved on to New Hampshire, where Sanders won again, with 26% of the vote.  The New York Times columnist Frank Bruni, in summarizing the hysteria gripping the Democratic Party establishment, which is panicked that Sanders, who cannot beat Trump, will win the nomination, wrote that there was no resolution from New Hampshire due to “near-crippling anxiety” about Trump, the “flawed candidates” running, and the reality that voters “have stopped taking cues from the institutions and traditions they frequently turned to in the past”—in other words, voters are still in a full-scale revolt against the political establishment.

But a deeper look into what is happening shines a spotlight on the corruption of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which is attempting to rig the nomination process in favor of Green fascist Michael Bloomberg.  Further, it provides additional proof that the story of “Russian meddling” in the 2016 election was fabricated by the DNC, in collusion with the intelligence services of Britain and the Obama administration, to cover up for their corruption, in rigging the nomination process in 2016 in favor of Hillary Clinton.


The company which produced the app, the suspiciously-named Shadow, Inc., was founded by Tara McGowan, a veteran of the Obama campaigns, whose husband is a strategist for Buttigieg.  The campaign of Buttigieg provided funds to Shadow.  Top officials of the company worked for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and many have extensive ties to Obama, such as David Plouffe, a member of the board of Shadow’s parent company, ACRONYM, and the campaign manager for Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008.  Others who invested in ACRONYM and its PAC include the notorious regime change funder and vicious anti-Trumper George Soros, and Reid Hoffman, who funded “Project Birmingham”, to discredit Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore in a special election in Alabama in December 2017.  Hoffman was caught creating fake bots, with Russian writing, which led to the false charge that Moore was supported by the Kremlin.

Given the involvement of Clinton and Obama operatives in the Iowa caucus, there are charges that it is not a coincidence that the debacle in Iowa targeted the Sanders’ campaign, at the point when he is emerging as the top Democrat.  Max Blumenthal of Grayzone, an astute observer of Democratic Party misconduct, and a harsh critic of the Russiagate narrative, reported that this appears to be more than a “coding mistake with an app.”  He said “there does appear to be some kind of deliberate campaign to deny Bernie Sanders an opening victory that would generate momentum.”

As in 2016, Sanders is running as an insurgent against the Democratic Party leadership, winning support of mostly anti-establishment voters, especially among alienated youth.  He has been attacked by Hillary Clinton directly, as well as by Obama and John Kerry, who even mused that maybe he might enter the race, to stop Sanders.

Buttigieg, a former intelligence officer with little political experience, is being portrayed as a “moderate”—in contrast to the attacks on Sanders as a “radical socialist”—and has been the subject of extensive “positive” coverage in the mainstream media, which has propelled him into second place behind Sanders.  There is suspicion in the Sander’s camp that Buttigieg is a stalking horse for the campaign of the would-be Mussolini, billionaire green fascist Michael Bloomberg, who did not compete in Iowa or New Hampshire.  Bloomberg has been accused of trying to buy the nomination, as he is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising in states holding upcoming primaries.

President Trump commented on the DNC/Bloomberg operation against Sanders in a tweet on February 11.  “Frankly, I would rather run against Bloomberg than Bernie Sanders, because Sanders has real followers, whether you like them or not, whether you agree with them or not….”  In contrast to such support for Sanders, Trump tweeted of Bloomberg, that he “is just buying his way in.”


The new round of dirty tricks against Sanders legitimately brings up how the party leadership reacted when it was exposed by the release of emails of the DNC by Wikileaks on July 22, 2016.  The emails, along with some from the Clinton campaign and later Clinton operative John Podesta, provided voluminous evidence of biased and illegal actions by the campaign and the DNC against Sanders, during their fight for the Democratic nomination.  Instead of addressing the systemic corruption of party leaders, which was demonstrated by the emails, party leaders, with full support from leaders of the Obama intelligence team, concocted the story of Russian “hacking”.  This narrative was calculated to divert attention from the DNC/Clinton corruption of the nominating process, while targeting Trump as a colluder with Russia.  It further served the intention of Clinton’s backers to escalate geopolitical tensions with Russia.

This narrative fit what was already in the works by Obama intelligence networks to undermine Trump in the election.  Following reports in late 2015 from the British GCHQ—the equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency—of “aggressive” and “suspicious” interactions between members of Trump’s inner circle and suspected Russian agents, Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan prepared to launch a “Get Trump” task force.  This was officially constituted when GCHQ’s chief Hannigan briefed him in the summer of 2016.  Brennan said there was a “fair amount of information” by then of Russian activity.  By July, the FBI opened a Trump-Russia counterintelligence investigation.  The Wikileaks release of the DNC/Clinton emails provided the occasion for the official launching of the Russian “hacking” charges, which was “confirmed” when the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the office of the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper—a close ally of Brennan—reported that the U.S. intelligence community was “confident” that Russia had illegally obtained the emails through hacking, and turned them over to Wikileaks.

This fraudulent story was then supplemented by the “dirty dossier” produced by “ex”-MI6 operative Christopher Steele, whose fake research was financed by the Clinton campaign.  Steele claimed that Trump was being blackmailed by Putin, and supported by Russian cyber warfare operations.  To this day, despite compelling forensic evidence from former NSA Technical Director and whistleblower Bill Binney, which proves that there was no hacking involved, the story of Russian hacking is still promoted as gospel by those imperial geopoliticians seeking to remove Trump, and their facilitators among the lying mainstream media.

The role of Brennan, Clapper, Comey, in Russiagate and the failed Ukrainegate impeachment coup attempt against Trump, and their collaboration with operatives from the intelligence agencies of the U.K., Australia, and Ukraine, are the subject of an ongoing investigation by Attorney General Barr and prosecutor John Durham.  The activities of the Clinton-Obama networks in the Iowa fiasco should be seen as part of their continuing effort by these networks to remove Trump, through attempting to rig who wins the Democratic Party nomination.

It remains to be seen whether Bernie Sanders will tell the truth about his corrupt opponents, or will sell out his supporters as he did in 2016, when he campaigned to support Hillary Clinton, who defrauded him, in the general election.