“Jill Stein is a useful idiot for Russia. After parroting Kremlin talking points and being propped up by bad actors in 2016 she’s at it again,” DNC spokesman Matt Corridoni said in a statement to The Bulwark. “Jill Stein won’t become president, but her spoiler candidacy—that both the GOP and Putin have previously shown interest in—can help decide who wins. A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump.”
Probably doesn’t help that Stein refuses to call Putin a war criminal.
https://www.newsweek.com/jill-stein-vladimir-putin-war-criminal-1954965
"Hasan later asked Stein why she had labeled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal, but not Putin.
“Well, as John F. Kennedy said, we must not negotiate out of fear and we must not fear to negotiate,” she replied. “So, if you want to be an effective world leader, you don’t start by name-calling and hurling epithets.”
“So, how will President Stein negotiate with Israel then if you’ve called Netanyahu a war criminal?” Hasan asked in response.
“Well, because he very clearly is a war criminal,” Stein said, prompting Hasan to ask: “So Putin clearly isn’t a war criminal?”
“Well, we don’t have a decision—put it this way—by the International Criminal Court,” Stein said.
The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Putin, alleging that he is responsible for war crimes. No such warrant has been issued for Netanyahu, whose war on Gaza has killed more than 40,000 Palestinians. However, the chief prosecutor of the ICC has applied for an arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister.
“There’s an arrest warrant for Putin and there isn’t an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, so why is Putin not a war criminal, but Netanyahu is?” Hasan asked.
“Yeah. Well, let me say this. We are sponsoring that war. We are sponsoring Netanyahu,” Stein responded. “He is our dog in this fight. That is why we have a responsibility to pull him back.”"
Fwiw after that whole thing made news she released a press statement that did call him a war criminal
And anyone paying attention realizes she only put out the statement after she got called on it and had time to think about what it meant that she was actively avoiding doing so. This is 100% optics and nothing more.
Her statement is about as believable as a kid with crumbs on their face saying they didn’t eat all the cookies…
Way too little, way too late. Medhi cut her up so surgically I don’t even know if she’s gonna have the stones to resurface four years from now. Hopefully being a Russian asset pays well, Shill is done
Aha, you fool! You think she feels shame?
“Hey, Vladimir? I need to actually call you a war criminal now, yeah, I almost got found out. Thanks! I knew you’d understand!”
You forgot this part from the beginning
"Mehdi Hasan: Vladimir Putin is a war criminal?
Jill Stein: Yes, we did condemn —"
She called him a war criminal several times in the interview
Not directly though, that’s why she got roasted. It was a lot of dissembly.
Yes, directly and specifically about Putin. The quote is right there.
“Yes we did condemn…” is not the same as “Yes, Putin is a war criminal.”
The passive accusations run all through it.
“So, what we said about Putin was that his invasion of Ukraine is criminal. It’s a criminal and murderous war,”
“Well, by implication, by implication,” Stein said.
“In so many words, yes he is,” Stein said. “If you want to pull him back, if you are a world leader, you don’t begin your conversation by calling someone a war criminal.”
It…is when the question is literally “is putin a war criminal?”
No, it’s not. “In so many words” does not have a direct meaning.
“Yes he is” does. Im sorry but the headlines youve been given are an outright lie this time
“Yes he is” is a subordinate to “in so many words”.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/in-so-many-words
“If you say that someone has said something, but not in so many words, you mean that they said it or expressed it, but in a very indirect way.”
Is he a war criminal?
“In so many words, yes he is.”
“I’m not going to say he is, but he is.”
Not the same thing as:
“Well, because he very clearly is a war criminal,”
(What she said about Netanyahu).
The comparison between what she’s willing to say about Netanyahu and unwilling to say about Putin, in the same interview, to the same journalist, is striking.
LOL, that just proves his point. I read the transcript, and Stein had every opportunity to clearly and definitively repudiate Putin. Not only did she refuse to do so, she continues to refuse, dishonestly misrepresents being called out on her bad faith as a “misunderstanding,” and doubles down with bullshit "both sides"ism.
In fact, that press release has sealed the deal on convincing me that she’s a deeply unserious piece of shit and a Russian asset.
So congratulations troll farm vatniks, you’ve played yourselves.
I must’ve missed when Kamala Harris called Netanyahu a war criminal.
Just out of curiosity, do you think it would help her win the election if she did? She boycotted his speech in congress. She is treading a really thin line, and the only winning gambit seems to be keeping her messaging neutral until after the election. Rocking that boat right now gives the Republicans further ammunition to use against her, and will embolden Netanyahu to militarily escalate.
At the moment she can hide behind the veil of the current policy being driven exclusively by Biden rather than inserting herself in the middle of things, and therefore presenting additional leverage to her enemies. I don’t like the situation, but I don’t see how it was possible to play things any differently while still preserving a serious chance to win the election.
We normally see eye to eye on a lot of things, but in this case I think it is disengenuous to conflate the motivations of Jill Stein & Kamala Harris.
I don’t think it would help Harris to call Netanyahu a war criminal. I understand the reasoning. But, to attack Stein for inconsistencies in an interview, which she has since corrected by releasing a statement, is hypocritical. If Harris isn’t willing to call Netanyahu a war criminal, because of the election, then how can it be possible to hold Stein to a different standard?
Because Stein has notthing to lose. She could easily take a stand on something like Netanyahu but it was pulling teeth to condemn Putin. When the stakes are so low she can make any statement she wants.
Well, I think for one thing because Jill Stein seemingly had nothing to lose in that interview with Mehdi. The whole thing just came off as weird to me, and clearly that sentiment was pretty widely shared. I just don’t understand it I guess. If she had provided more context around her initial hesitancy perhaps I would feel differently.
I am also totally willing to admit that it is an intellectual double standard, but it isn’t a strategic one because the outcome of Kamala Harris’ speech has the ability to affect the outcome of this election in a huge way. I guess you could argue that Jill Stein’s does too since she is potentially peeling votes from the Democrats, but if she was actually serious about affecting change she could be lobbying Kamala Harris for policy concessions behind the scenes instead of just grandstanding.
Jill Stein in that Mehdi interview really gave off the same energy as Kim Iversen in her debate with Destiny yesterday. Neither one of them did much to counter the narrative that they were sympathetic to Russia at best, or closeted Russian assets at worst. It was all just weird as fuck to me…
She had to get the fax from Putin. Puppets don’t talk for themselves