Against the backdrop of anti-Russian hysteria in the States, American reporters unearthed who started it all. The Washington Post wrote: the topic of Russian interference in the presidential election was inflated by Hillary Clinton's campaign. There also appeared the so-called “Russian dossier” on Donald Trump, whom Clinton’s supporters are hounding, although she lost almost a year ago.

The masterminds behind the scandalous dossier on Trump did everything for almost a year to avoid being exposed. Representatives of the company that collected the incriminating evidence, Fusion GPS, even refused to testify in Congress. However, the Intelligence Committee, in order to still identify the sponsor, requested a bank statement from the organization's account. On the same day, an article appears in the Washington Post with a loud revelation: the incriminating evidence was collected by order of Hillary Clinton’s headquarters.

The Washington Post writes: “Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped finance the investigation that ultimately led to the controversial “Russian dossier” on President Trump, according to sources familiar with the situation. Marc Elias, a lawyer for the Clinton campaign, commissioned an investigation from the Washington firm Fusion GPS.”

They started collecting incriminating evidence seven months before the elections, in April 2016. Fusion GPS turned to the Europeans and hired the author of the dossier, Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent MI6, who, as the newspaper's sources emphasize, has connections with the FBI and CIA. Perhaps this fact explains the surprising absence of any leaks about customers throughout the year, while newspapers write about Trump’s so-called connections with Russia every week, provoking new scandals. The day before, the US President was pelted with Russian flags, right in the Congress building.

According to the Washington Post, it was Clinton who, by sponsoring the collection of incriminating evidence, launched anti-Russian hysteria in the United States, which continues to this day. Moreover, as the newspaper emphasizes, the Republicans initially began collecting dossiers on the future president. However, when Trump officially became a candidate, the Democrats seized the initiative.

Steele argued that Moscow allegedly has some compromising information on Trump, forcing him to act in its own interests. However, no one has ever presented any evidence of Russian interference. And in light of the new sanctions and the scandal with Russian diplomatic property in the United States, these allegations look even more ridiculous.

But not for Clinton. She also blames the Kremlin in her recently published book “What Happened,” and names Vladimir Putin and Julian Assange as her main enemies:

“Putin, like Julian Assange, has had a grudge against me for a long time. The thought that these two opponents of mine could be working together to harm my campaign infuriated me. Not only did I waste my energy on confronting my billionaire opponent and the whole Republican Party, so I was still forced to take into account these vile external forces.”

Julian Assange gave exclusive interview, It will be aired in its entirety next Monday, October 30, on the Posner program. In particular, he said that Clinton is ready to do anything to achieve her goals. When asked by Posner to comment on Assange’s statement that “Clinton is a war dog and should not become president,” the WikiLeaks founder said:

“According to our information, Hillary Clinton was the main proponent of the destruction of Libya by the US administration. She wanted to prove that she was capable of destroying the state. That she is cruel and bloodthirsty enough to destroy an entire country and thus be accepted into the fight against the Republicans. And she did it. She achieved this. She killed tens of thousands of people because of her political ambition. Although CIA analysts and the Pentagon command said that we do not have a plan for waging this war, it could end badly. She did it! She ignored these objections, killed tens of thousands of people, leading to the rise of ISIS. It also facilitated the transfer of Libyan weapons to Syria, where similar problems began. This is a highly professional, highly professional and very dangerous, very dangerous person.”

“We came, we saw, he died.” This is how, with a cheerful laugh, Hillary Clinton - US Secretary of State in 2011 - commented on the murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. The reaction to the bloody footage was also inadequate.

After this, the press started talking about Hillary Clinton's mental problems. Even after the defeat, she did not hold back - she called Trump a scumbag and directly called for protests, so the latest revelations in this light do not look so surprising. Clinton herself has not yet commented on the Washington Post publication.

“I really want to hope that the liberal American establishment has finally understood and come to the conclusion that they have gone too far. And America must find a way out of this impasse in Russian-American relations, which they have made a victim of internal political struggle,” says the head of the Center for Media Relations Russian Institute strategic studies Igor Pshenichnikov.

How much the compilation of the scandalous dossier overall cost is unknown. The Washington Post writes that the Clinton campaign paid law firm five million 600 thousand dollars for legal costs, and the national committee - almost three and a half million for “legal consulting”.

Since yesterday, the news “Hillary Clinton: “The United States is considering the territory of Ukraine as a place to move”” has spread on the Internet.” It is not clear how reliable the situation described in it is, but what is important is not so much the fact of resettlement, but the fact that this program has finally been semi-officially and fully publicly launched to the masses. So, first we will give the news itself, and then we will give some explanations to it.

“Democratic US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made an unexpected statement in an interview with our correspondent regarding the future of the United States,” reports ABC News anchor Ros Childs.

When asked by a reporter about the future of the country, Hillary Clinton unexpectedly replied that the United States cannot ignore the significant deterioration of the geophysical situation in the area of ​​Yellowstone National Park and the San Andreas Fault, which threatens with catastrophic consequences for North America and threatening its very existence.

According to Mrs. Clinton, there is very little time left to preserve the independence and further prosperity of the United States, and, therefore, it is necessary to more decisively and consistently consider the issue of transferring American statehood to European territory. The main option for such relocation should be considered the territory of Ukraine, the climatic conditions of which are most favorable for American citizens, but due to a combination of certain circumstances, the solution to this issue is in jeopardy.

“We should not give up this territory, as the most favorable for global American relocation, because of Russia’s position and will continue to coordinate international pressure to return Crimea to a single territorial space as of February 2014. In addition, it is necessary to carry out preliminary work on the inclusion of the territories of several Eastern European states - Poland, Hungary, Romania and the Baltic countries - into the future European United States. In this way, we will be able to expand the necessary living space so as not to feel cramped and have the prospect of further industrial and economic development,” Clinton said.

On the issue of the future of citizens of the countries indicated to her, Hillary Clinton noted that this issue is not a priority, since based on the current situation, residents of these territories will be happy to have the opportunity to become citizens of the new European United States, but not everyone will have such an opportunity and some part will be settled in the countries of the Middle East and Africa, since this is, unfortunately, an inevitable process during geopolitical changes, where strong countries occupy the vital territory of weak and unpromising states, which, as history shows, cease their further existence.

“It is natural that the European United States will in the future occupy the territory where statehood is in a coma, without hope of recovery. At the moment, this is, without any doubt, Ukraine, located on a significant and economically advantageous territory, which the Ukrainian authorities have not been able to rationally manage for more than a quarter of a century, where from year to year the whole world observes only a progressively growing state, social, demographic and economic degradation. The same can be applied to the countries of the Baltic region. I hope that the European United States will be able to adequately replace these sub-state misunderstandings on the European platform.

And with Russia and China, we, in the end, mutual language Let’s find and become good neighbors and equal trading partners who don’t need any wars or upheavals,” Clinton concluded.

Commentators online express their doubts about this news. Clinton has not officially confirmed this. But history knows a lot of examples when the “leak” was organized by the “victim” herself. Isn't this the case? Moreover, there are moments that allow you to treat what is said in the news with confidence.

The main points of the news are a geophysical catastrophe that will wipe out the United States from the face of the earth. The second is the need to resettle “precious” Americans somewhere in Europe or somewhere even better.

The newspaper "President" is about, which can literally be like in a computer game.

And in December 2015. This statement was very strange, but it was followed by a similar speech by the Queen of Great Britain. .

It's unclear why Christmas should be the last, but the forces that destabilize political life planets are not located in the Yellowstone volcano. The main instigators of the world's "earthquakes" wear white shirts and pretend to be the world's "deciders." This .

They are joined by various other “world governments”, which contain groups of schizophrenics who consider themselves gods.

We must understand that the most dangerous gang are believers. They intend to implement it - otherwise they will simply stupidly stop believing in the Bible. In Europe, the complete collapse of churches is due to the lack of flocks, and in Asia, crazy people go crazy in their own way: they raise not their hands to heaven, but their butts.

This is sadism and masochism. It seems that this is fiction. But last president The USA, as the “holy” books predicted, is truly black. And he really led the country. Perhaps it is the American resettlement that precedes.

Recently, the news “” seemed incredible. But today many already know that this was the case, and a new head of state has already been appointed. The only question is whether the Elizabethan scenario is being realized or not?

Interview with Hillary Clinton biographer Diana Johnston given to the Italian newspaper Il Giornale.

The interview is so interesting that we present it here in its entirety, without exceptions.

Particular attention should be paid to the fact that everything stated below is not the opinion of the Italian media or Italian official circles, known for their goodwill towards Russia.

This is the opinion of an American journalist who is well acquainted with both Hillary Clinton herself and the American “political kitchen” from the inside, i.e. substantively and professionally.

And therefore it certainly deserves attention.

Another important point The point here is that almost everything stated in this interview is true, and anyone who is interested in international politics can easily confirm this.

So here's the interview:

"With Clinton as president there will be World War"

The neoconservatives surrounding Hillary Clinton and the large oligarchs who support her could push her to start a war, writes Matteo Carnieletto in a material published in the newspaper Il Giornale.

Carnieletto interviewed the author of Hillary Clinton's biography, Diane Johnston. In particular, she recalled that Hillary was born in 1947 into a Republican family. Her father always played a dominant role and probably passed on his unfulfilled ambitions to her. Hillary's philosophy has always been based on an aggressive nature American dream. Hillary feels great surrounded by billionaires, and they are in her company. A Methodist, she demonstrates her religiosity by using it as a means of support, Johnston said.

According to the author of the biography, Hillary Clinton's role in destabilizing the situation in the Middle East was enormous. "If there is a military option, she supports it. She voted for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and she is proud to be responsible for destructive war in Libya, because the dictator was destroyed: if things went wrong in Libya, they say, it is because the United States should have done more, not less. It has always demanded aggressive action against Assad in Syria, and its hostility towards Iran knows no bounds. All this has made her a favorite of Israeli supporters. Any enemy of Israel is an enemy of the United States," Johnston said.

In her opinion, Hillary is a supporter of a tough anti-Russian policy. "Foreign policy is a product of the aggressive side of the American dream. America is the best, the strongest and will most likely dominate if it uses force. Clinton is confident that if the United States acts, it will surely win. As for Russia, Hillary fully subscribes to the prevailing interpretation in Washington that America "won the Cold War."

“Hillary’s ideology serves the interests of the military-industrial complex and the financiers who benefit from it,” explains the biographer. “Her hostility towards Russia is a consequence cold war, when US military power was built as a counterbalance to the enemy Moscow. But I think that to a large extent it was the result of an innate hostility towards anything that is not American or does not recognize American hegemony. The coming to power of a Russian leader who defends Russia’s interests was perceived in Washington as a betrayal of history.”

“Vladimir Putin,” Johnston continues, “has become a clear obstacle to the unspoken policy of gaining economic control over Russia’s vast resources. There is also a strategic explanation for hostility to Russia, outlined in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book The Great Chessboard: United States hegemony depends on from the destruction of unity between Western Europe and Russia. Current foreign policy The US was designed to erect an "iron curtain" to isolate Russia, especially from its natural trading partner Germany. Motivations of an ideological, economic, psychological and strategic nature were combined to carry out an anti-Russian propaganda campaign that was frightening and not based on real facts. To say that Russia is a "threat" is pure fantasy. But NATO, surrounding Russian borders, really. Hillary Clinton uses both fantasy and reality,” said the publication’s interlocutor.

Hillary often lies, her biographer continues. One of bright examples was her story at the 2008 Democratic National Convention that she was attacked by snipers while on an official visit to Bosnia. There were witnesses and video materials exposing this version. Later, Hillary, answering questions from reporters, said that a person who has to talk a lot can make mistakes. The correspondent's interlocutor also said that Hillary very often, in order not to answer awkward questions, starts laughing or coughing.

If Hillary wins presidential elections, what scenarios will open up for the United States? There is little hope that Hillary will do what she says, Johnston said. “But what she is saying is alarming: she is threatening to escalate American intervention in Syria against Assad, which will provoke a conflict with Russia. She is threatening to sever normal relations with Iran, to give full support to Israel against the Palestinians, and she is threatening uncompromising hostility to Russia. The future is full of surprises. ", says Clinton's biographer. The power of the American president is limited: he must satisfy the dominant oligarchy. "But in this case, the oligarchy is backing Hillary. She will be surrounded by neoconservatives and liberal interventionist politicians who may encourage her to go to war."

What is most to be feared is Hillary's "activism", her willingness to use military force instead of diplomacy, her dualistic vision of the world divided into "friends" (those supported by the United States) and "enemies" (anyone, depending on the circumstances). "She will increase military power"NATO is against Russia until World War III starts due to some incident," Johnson said. - I don't predict this. I'm just trying to warn Europe. Only your renunciation of the war policy of the United States can be decisive."

A. VENEDIKTOV - 9 hours 24 minutes in Moscow. Good morning everyone. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on the air of Echo of Moscow. Good morning, Madam Secretary of State.

H. CLINTON - Good morning.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Madam Secretary of State, we just held a vote among our audience and asked: should President Medvedev trust President Obama. 68% of our listeners – yes, it’s worth it, 32% – it’s not worth trusting. What would you say to these people who do not believe, these 32%?

H. CLINTON - First, I would ask them to first acknowledge that President Obama is very forthcoming and very committed to working with President Medvedev and with Russia. There is no doubt that this is challenging for various reasons, but the 60% that said yes, they said that Russia and the US have so much in common that we should work more closely together. And we now have the opportunity with our two presidents to create new relationships. And we are moving in this direction.

A. VENEDIKTOV - In this regard, yesterday you held a very long meeting with Mr. Lavrov. Why did you meet with Mr. Medvedev? Was this protocol, just a courtesy call?

H. CLINTON - I often meet with several officials in the countries where I travel. It is quite usual that I meet with presidents and foreign ministers and the prime minister. For three reasons. First, to convey the continuing commitment that I and President Obama and others feel towards higher levels government. Secondly, to take a deeper look with other officials at the issues that we are working on together and then even though we live in a period where everyone is connected via the Internet, there is nothing that replaces personal relationships. And ultimately the president sets policy. I am following President Obama's policies. Minister Lavrov carries out the policies of his president. And therefore we need to make sure that we are all in contact. It is very important.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Russian schools have such a grading system. They give you a one if you didn't succeed and they give you a five if you succeeded. How would you rate your meeting with President Medvedev on this scale? According to the school scale.

H. CLINTON - I think we had a very successful meeting. I don't want to give ratings because it's not my business. But I am very satisfied with the meeting, it was open, I find that in the meetings that I participated in both in London and in New York with President Obama and Medvedev, that President Medvedev is very knowledgeable, he is interested in the issues. There is no topic on which he cannot react, on which he does not want to express an opinion. The two presidents have excellent personal chemistry, they trust each other, I don’t know if we will agree, even in a family you don’t agree on everything, but this means that there is a certain atmosphere of goodwill, a positive feeling that we can do a lot of things together that we couldn’t do before we maybe couldn't do.

A. VENEDIKTOV - In this regard, do you regret, Madam Secretary, that you were not able to meet with another strong man in Russia - with Mr. Putin, who is in China.

H. CLINTON - I would be pleased to meet with Prime Minister Putin. And of course we had the intention to do this, but it didn’t work out on time. Hope to see him in the future.

A. VENEDIKTOV - In this regard, a lot of agreements were signed in China by the Prime Minister just yesterday. Is the alliance between Russia and China a threat to US interests? How do you view this rapprochement, Madam Secretary?

H. CLINTON - Look, I believe that there is a world that recognizes our interdependence and our connections. We do not live in a bipolar world or a multipolar world. We live in a world that is interdependent. We need different partners. This is a world in which there are many partners. It is far better to have an environment in which countries like China and Russia cooperate to improve the welfare and economic prosperity of their peoples. And this is good not only for China and Russia, but for the whole world. America is not under threat from relations between other countries. We just want to make sure that there is a sense of equality, equality in the new world that we are creating. Because we face so many complex tasks and challenges. Therefore, it is necessary for countries such as Russia, China and the United States to move against the forces of disunity and destruction. We must stand up to those who try to undermine the efforts we are making.

A. VENEDIKTOV - In this regard, do you think that the positions of Russia and the United States and China on Iran are now closer than six months ago?

H. CLINTON - Yes, I think so. We have proof of this. During the UN General Assembly, I was at a meeting with Minister Lavrov, Minister Yang from China. As well as our other colleagues. And we agreed on a very strong statement that told Iran that the international community expects Iran to live up to its obligations and responsibilities. And we said there that we want to engage in diplomacy, but that may not work, we prefer that. But as President Medvedev said, sometimes sanctions and pressure are inevitable, we are trying to work this way. And at the 5+1 meeting in Geneva in October, we agreed on very important steps. Firstly, Iran is opening its secret facilities for inspection, secondly, they have agreed to send their low-enriched uranium to Russia for overproduction, and thirdly, they have agreed to continue this dialogue. I think we have come a long way in the last 6 months. And how to achieve our goal - which is to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. First, they have the right to peaceful nuclear energy, but they do not have the right to create nuclear weapons. And therefore we must cooperate closely and work, which is what we are doing. And President Medvedev confirmed this just yesterday.

A. VENEDIKTOV - In this regard, we are talking about nuclear non-proliferation, Madam Secretary. Tonight in Moscow, your favorite Fox TV channel announced that you have agreed with Mr. Lavrov that the Russian military, our military, will be able to inspect American nuclear facilities. Will be able to conduct inspections. Could you confirm or deny this information that you have agreed on such inspections?

H. CLINTON - We agree on the reduction of strategic weapons. As part of this agreement we want to establish a system of checks. And such inspections will include visits by our experts to the facilities of each party. We approach this openly, we want Russia to know that we are fulfilling the terms of the agreement and we want the other side to also have the same understanding. We hope that we will complete our work with this agreement by December 5th.

H. CLINTON - That is our goal. Because the current agreement expires on December 5th. And that's why we want a new treaty that will replace the old one.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Are you optimistic that this is possible?

H. CLINTON - Yes. And I was very encouraged by what President Medvedev said yesterday. Let's do that. He said: our negotiators should go to Geneva, they should be locked in a room, let them talk there and finish the job. I said: okay, let them start packing their suitcases.

A. VENEDIKTOV - But this is some kind of Roman conclave, until the Pope is elected, they will not leave the room.

H. CLINTON - Yes, they need to reach an agreement so that they can start important work reduction of nuclear arsenals.

A. VENEDIKTOV - In this regard, today the Secretary of the Russian Security Council, Mr. Patrushev, this is our General Jones, or rather, since you have General Jones, announced that the military doctrine of Russia will be slightly changed and that this new military doctrine provides for preventive nuclear strikes by the aggressor. Preventive - I emphasize, nuclear strikes against the aggressor. Doesn't this bother you?

H. CLINTON - I can't react now because I don't know what he said. But of course President Obama has committed to taking steps that will move the world toward a nuclear-free state. I know that this will not happen in the near future, but it is important for both Russia and the United States to be ahead of this process. Our countries not only have the largest arsenals in the world, but we are also the custodians of nuclear weapons, others do, but we set the tone and show leadership. President Medvedev will be at the Nuclear Security Summit in April that President Obama is organizing, we want to detect and contain vulnerable materials so they don't fall into the wrong hands, I think our cooperation is constantly growing.

A. VENEDIKTOV – Does America’s doctrine include preventive nuclear strikes against an aggressor?

H. CLINTON - No. There is no such.

A. VENEDIKTOV – Another question that was discussed with Mr. Lavrov. This is a question on missile defense, and Mr. Lavrov said that Russia does not understand everything about this in the new US proposals. In particular, as far as I know, it is not very clear where radars or missiles could be located in the Caucasus. Mr. Lavrov may not understand, maybe you can explain to us. Where in the Caucasus it is planned to be located, and we will hand it over to Mr. Lavrov. Madam Secretary of State.

H. CLINTON - No decisions have been made yet. Ideally, we would like to cooperate jointly with Russia on missile defense. You see, we believe that the threats of the future will come from states and terrorists who behave irresponsibly with respect to the enormous destructive power of nuclear weapons. And it may even be impossible to contain it. During the worst days of the Cold War, the U.S. Soviet Union, we never stopped talking about nuclear weapons, we never broke our lines of communication, we may have approached the line too quickly and then pulled back, but we prevented the world from suffering from such weapons. Missile defense is designed to protect people from the ambitions of countries such as perhaps Iran or al-Qaeda. So when we looked at the previous administration's decision on missile defense, we saw that it would not address the threats that we see. We do not believe that Russia and the United States pose a threat to each other. We believe that other parties, actors, pose a threat to both our countries. And so we proposed the idea of ​​immediate cooperation between Russia and the United States. We are happy to make these decisions together with Russia. We haven't made a final decision yet, but we have changed what we do. Because we believe that this reflects much more closely the real threats that face us.

A. VENEDIKTOV - What are the deadlines for making final decisions? A year, six months, two years?

H. CLINTON - I don't know for sure. This is a question for technical experts.

A. VENEDIKTOV - In this regard, we understand Mr. Lavrov’s concern, I will ask you directly: can missile defense elements be located on the territory of Georgia, on which we have differences?

H. CLINTON - I have no reason to think that anything will be placed on Georgian territory. I have no reason to think this. I know that this worries the Russian Federation very much. But again, this is why we want to address this concern. We want to have a joint missile defense program that will protect our people, your people and our European friends and allies. And create the most extensive missile defense system possible, which will protect us from medium and short-range missiles using nuclear weapon.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Madam Secretary of State, did Mr. Lavrov raise the question of the rearmament of the Georgian army on the part of your country and what did you answer him?

H. CLINTON - We discussed Georgia. We have differences on this. And while we are working hard to reset our relationship, we will still disagree on Georgia. Georgia provides troops in Afghanistan, we train Georgian troops to work in Afghanistan, but we also clearly say that we expect that the South Ossetians, and Georgia, and Abkhazia and everyone else should avoid provocative actions, solve their problems through peaceful means.

A. VENEDIKTOV - But rearmament and assistance to the Georgian army, Madam Secretary of State, is something that worries Russia very much.

H. CLINTON - Minister Lavrov did not ask me this question. But we will help the Georgian people feel that they can defend themselves.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Minister Lavrov, therefore, behaved like a gentleman. He usually asks questions like this. He behaved like a gentleman with you.

H. CLINTON - I think he knew the answer, so he didn't ask the question.

A. VENEDIKTOV - And the last two topics. First topic. Information is being spread in Russia that in order to achieve agreement between the United States and Russia on Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, you decided, the United States, President Obama, you decided to curtail the criticism that the previous administration and the administration of President Clinton expressed at one time regarding human rights, according to about the judicial system, the development of democracy in Russia. Is this really so and are you really ready, as many listeners ask, to exchange such pragmatism, an alliance with Russia to repel threats, to curtail criticism of human rights?

H. CLINTON - No, that's absolutely not true. Yesterday at Spaso House I had the honor of addressing a group of activists in the name of civil society, the fight against corruption, for human rights, and I made it clear that the United States adheres to our values. We support those who fight for universal rights for men and women. And who want to see their country improve and become stronger. We are, of course, committed to supporting those people who stand for democracy in every sense of the word. We also believe that we can have more effective government-to-government relationships than the previous administration had. Because we have a lot that we can work on together. We also need to do much more with regard to human relations. I think there is some misunderstanding among the Russian public about what we are doing, why we are doing it and calling for certain actions. But I have no doubt that democracy is in the interests, the best interests of Russia, that respect for human rights, independent courts, a free press is in the interests of creating a stable political system, which provides a platform to thrive. We will support this, and we will support those who stand for these values.

A. VENEDIKTOV - We have three more minutes. Please tell me, in conversations with Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Medvedev, for example, did you mention the names Politkovskaya and Khodorkovsky?

H. CLINTON - I mentioned the murder of journalists. And she said that this seriously worries not only the United States, but also the people of Russia. And not just activists, but also those people who are concerned that unsolved murders are a challenge to order, to the fair functioning of society and that we do not believe that enough is being done to ensure that people have freedom from persecution in courts for their criminal actions.

A. VENEDIKTOV - You are talking about Politkovskaya. What about Khodorkovsky?

H. CLINTON - You know, I think that all these issues: being held in prisons, beatings, murders are damaging when you look from the outside. In every country there are criminal elements, there are people who try to abuse power. But in the last 18 months and even before, there have been too many such incidents. Yesterday I met with an activist at Spaso House who was terribly beaten, people want their government to stand up for them, say that this is wrong, and prevent such conditions. And it attracted to the law those people who are responsible for this.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Last question, Madam Secretary of State or last topic. Why Kazan? Why are you going to Kazan? We have many questions from Kazan. Why is she coming to us, what does she want in Kazan.

H. CLINTON - Firstly, I heard that Kazan is very beautiful city. When I travel, I like to go to places that are not the capital. When I come to Moscow, I spend most of my time meeting with officials, although yesterday I was able to go to see the opera and the Boeing Design Center and talk with Russian engineers. But in my country I also like to travel to other cities, you leave Washington and see America. What attracts me to Kazan is that there is both a mosque and a Russian Orthodox church. They stand side by side in this capital. And Tatarstan is basically Muslim for the most part, but the people there live interfaithly, very peacefully with each other. I just wanted to see it. To be able to hear from them how successful their lifestyle is.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Thank you very much. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, was on the air. Is there anything you want to say to our listeners? You have 30 seconds for such a small speech directly without my questions.

H. CLINTON - First of all, thank you for the opportunity to be here for this interview, to speak directly to the Russian people on this radio station that is working positively for change in Russia. I'm very excited about those opportunities. collaboration. We have a lot more in common than people think. But we must continue to work to better understand each other, to find general provisions and thank you for this opportunity to reach out and speak to your listeners.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Thank you very much. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was on our air.

In fact, she was more inclined to talk about politics. But when a correspondent from the Politiken newspaper met her in Amsterdam, we were interested in something else: how you manage to force yourself to get out of bed in the morning when the dream of your whole life is broken in the face of the whole world. How can you convince yourself that the little you can achieve now is also worth a lot? Hillary Clinton's book What Happened? (What Happened?) has just been translated into Danish. We sat down with its author to discuss why she lost to Donald Trump, why so many Americans hate her, and what she says is the dilemma every woman with ambition faces. Yes, and she also loves the Danish TV series “Government” (“Borgen”)

The day has finally come. After for long years preparation, humiliation and failure. For a decade, she stood at the forefront of the unofficial line of female contenders for the most powerful post in the world. The triumph was delayed eight years after Obama's victory, but the moment is approaching when the way seems to be open. This is the day Americans elect their first female president, the proverbial glass ceiling is broken, and Hillary Clinton secures her place in history.

Hillary Diana Rodham Clinton

Born October 26, 1947 in Chicago. The father is a textile merchant and a staunch conservative. Despite this, the parents believed that their daughter should succeed.

In her youth, Hillary supported the Republicans, but switched to the Democratic camp in 1968 under the influence of presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy, who was against the Vietnam War.

Hillary Clinton has a degree in political science from Wellesley College in Massachusetts and a law degree from Yale University, where she met Bill Clinton in 1971. Four years later they married, after which their daughter Chelsea was born.

While Clinton was pursuing a successful legal career, Bill Clinton served twice as governor of Arkansas (1979-1981 and 1983-1992).

Clinton served as first lady from 1993 to 2001.

From 2001 to 2009 - Senator from the State of New York.

In 2008, she lost to Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

From 2009 to 2013 - US Secretary of State

It seemed that even this moneybag and reality TV star with extensive media support could not interfere with her triumph. And Hillary herself had no doubts about her victory, having arrived with her husband on the evening of November 8, 2016, at the penthouse of the Peninsula Hotel in New York, so that among her friends and associates she could watch the results from different states gradually add up to an unconditional victory.

“It never occurred to me that we might lose,” Hillary says.

Here she is sitting in front of me in the middle of a large conference room in an Amsterdam hotel at a small square table with a white tablecloth. She arrived on our continent to lecture, and I have only 20 minutes at my disposal. Obviously, we will talk more about politics than about emotions. A candle flame flickers between us. There is a vase of tulips nearby, and around us here and there the shadows of guards and bodyguards can be seen - they are silently watching us.

“By all our data, and by all available information, victory was in our pocket,” she explains.

However, alarming information began to arrive from North Carolina, and Bill Clinton nervously paced around the room, chewing an unlit cigar. Hillary reassured herself that it was not necessary to win all the states, so she decided to take a nap and let the elections take their course.

While she was sleeping, things took an unexpected turn. The world seemed to rush past her. When she woke up, results from Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were still awaited. It seems that nothing has been decided. But Michigan turned red (the color of the Republicans - approx. transl.). And when Pennsylvania went to Trump at 1:35, it was all over.

According to Hillary Clinton, it became difficult for her to breathe, as if all the oxygen had been pumped out of the room.

“I was in real shock. It was very painful".

People gathered around the buffet table - family, friends and old colleagues.

“And they were all as discouraged as I was.”

How to simultaneously say “Sorry, I lost” and “Where the hell have you been?” Hillary Clinton responded with a 478-page book, which she co-wrote with two speechwriters. This book is filled with personal, blood-soaked experiences - from grief and rage to guilt and outright bewilderment.

Recently the book “What Happened?” published in Danish. And the story of Hillary Clinton's defeat from her own lips came out much more raw, angry and straightforward than her previous autobiographies, observing the boundaries of decency. But, in addition, this is a sincere attempt to figure out what really happened, because as she herself writes: “It still seems incredible to me.”

Politiken: They say Americans don't like losers. Why did you decide to write a book anyway?

Hillary Clinton: On the one hand, to make amends to herself. But I also wanted to draw attention to many issues that continue to be relevant. After all, other forces were also involved in our defeat, which I could not influence. We began to guess about them only recently. Now our intelligence says that Russia is constantly interfering in our elections, and we have new elections in November. We did not take into account the larger perspective, and a perfect storm was approaching, orchestrated according to the laws of reality television. We need to keep talking about this, and that's what I'm going to do. If no one else, then I will do it.

Strange moment

Hillary Clinton began her campaign night by discussing her upcoming victory speech with speechwriters. They were deciding how to bring the nation together and how to reach those who voted for the loser. That is, for Donald Trump.

At the end of the evening, she took time to open the thick folders containing the transition plan and the first issues she would tackle as president. Here is an ambitious program of new infrastructure that will create new jobs. Is everything ready. When her victory is officially announced, she will take to the luxurious stage of the glass Javits Center in Manhattan, where the floor is shaped like a map of the United States. That's where she will stand, in the middle of Texas, in a white suit, the first woman to become president of the United States. White color as a sign of the importance of the historical moment. She and Bill even bought a house next door in the suburbs of New York to make it more convenient for guests and staff.

But when she woke up after a short sleep, the world had changed irrevocably.

“Questions rained down one after another,” says Hillary, “What happened? How could we have missed this? What the hell is going on?

The White House said Obama fears the result will be controversial and that a lengthy trial will ensue.

“You know, I had to talk to Trump.” A smile runs across your face. “I still have many questions, but the TV channels have already declared him the winner.”

We sit on opposite sides of the white tablecloth and are silent. According to Hillary, it was the strangest moment of her entire life. Donald Trump spent months calling her “corrupt Hillary.” During a televised debate, he promised to put her behind bars. And at rallies he led the crowd chanting: “Prison her!” And suddenly these antics became decent. And at the same time, Clinton writes, “there was a terribly mundane feeling, like calling your neighbor and telling him you can’t come to his barbecue.”

The servants were sent home for the failed celebration. And while Bill sat and watched Trump's jubilation on television, Hillary went to prepare tomorrow's address. She asked her team to prepare a conciliatory speech. Little by little people dispersed. In the end, she and Bill were left alone. They lay down on the bed and he took her hand.

“I just lay there and stared at the ceiling until it was time to give my speech,” Hillary writes.

Others are to blame

The fact that this world can sometimes be ridiculous and more like someone's fantasy than the well-trained choreography that we consider reality was brought home to me in my modest hotel room in Amsterdam, where I saw a CNN report about how the US President declared a global trade war.

An elderly, slightly overweight gentleman with orange hair and sharp gestures on the flat screen looked more like a nightmare than a character from real politics. He's more of an eccentric Batman villain than a typical political elite.

And as I walk a few hundred meters to the luxurious Krasnapolsky Hotel, where I will spend 20 minutes alone with Hillary Clinton, I have the feeling that something has been changed somewhere. The woman who received more votes than any white man gave her time to me, a journalist for a small newspaper in a small country. This simply does not fit into the boundaries of what we are used to calling reality.

When "What happened?" hit the shelves in the fall, some reviewers found the book intelligently written and quite witty, and that Hillary had a sharp tongue and did not spare anyone, not even herself. Others seemed to be reading a completely different book. “A poorly conceived text that speaks volumes about the reasons for defeat,” said The Guardian, which called the book “a post-mortem examination of a failed campaign.” According to the Guardian, the masses did not follow Hillary because her cold calculations went wrong when she mistakenly decided that American politics still revolved around political agendas. But Trump understood perfectly well that now this is nothing more than a continuation of show business.

According to the New Yorker, Hillary lost because she "could not find the language, the talking points, or even the facial expression to convince enough American proletarians that she was their true hero." not a caricatured rich man.” And as you read, you notice how she tries to present herself in a favorable light in the face of history - because this is how she creates her legacy.

As she herself repeatedly emphasizes, responsibility for the defeat lies with her alone. But at the same time, he does not hesitate to shift some of the blame onto others.

Bernie Sanders for fueling Trump's campaign by accusing her of being a Wall Street creature. To the Russians - for spreading fake news. On Trump for turning the presidential race into a clan war. On former director James Comie's FBI - for promising to re-open the case about her work correspondence eleven days before the election, which, in her opinion, cost her victory.

And, of course, on the media. She said they “led to victory the most inexperienced, most ignorant, and most incompetent president in the history of our country by making my gaffe using private email as Secretary of State a key campaign issue.”

What does Hillary Clinton know that we'd like to know too? In other words, what should you ask her? We see for ourselves what is happening in the White House. And how the Democrats can quickly recover from her defeat is already a task for the new generation.

"Who are you really?"

In a bright conference room, a middle-aged journalist from a Dutch newspaper persistently continues small talk about submarines while I re-read my questions for the umpteenth time. Suddenly there is movement in the corridor, the Dutchman is asked to leave, they nod at me, and a second later she appears on the carpet, a radiant blonde in a golden yellow kimono. She smiles widely and has everything but defeat written all over her face.

“Hello, Nils. Nice to meet you. I kept hoping that I would be able to get to Copenhagen,” she says as we shake hands. “I love your country.”

So we started. She is here and ready to communicate. And although even here, in a corner of the old world, she continues to work on her image, she still seems more sensitive, alive and real than I imagined - as if she were improvising. Her voice can jump from a joyful chirp in just a few sentences to we're talking about about the personal, to dark half-whispers when it comes to politics and global issues.

Like many, I imagined Hillary Clinton as someone whose image was choreographed and whose true face could only be guessed at when she appeared on stands around the world like a sunny blonde, or rather an elderly Teletubby dressed in primary colors. cheerfully winking and waving his hand at seemingly random people in the crowd.

Apparently, none of this is new to her. She herself admits in her book “What Happened?” that it is strange for her to hear the questions “who are you really?” and “why do you want to become president?” It is implied that there must be something bad behind this - ambition, vanity, cynicism. It seems strange to her that the widespread belief that she and Bill have, in her own words, “some special agreements.” After which she admits that they, too, are ashamed, “but this is what we call marriage,” she writes.

She has come to terms with the fact that millions of people can’t stand her. “I think part of it is that I was the first female presidential candidate. I don't think my followers will have to endure the same thing. “We’ll see,” she answers my question about the reasons for such widespread dislike. “I was the first baby boomer woman and working mother to become First Lady. I think people thought: uh, no, she doesn’t look like just the president’s wife, but rather part of his staff. Hence their anger."

And yet, it is Hillary Clinton that most Americans consider a woman, worthy of emulation, according to a Gallup poll. “That’s what’s strange. When I do something, people respect me and praise my work. But when I'm looking new job, everything changes. This happened when I first was a senator and then became secretary of state. And when I ask people for support, it always evokes conflicting feelings, as is always the case with women who have achieved power.”

- Why is this happening?

“It seems to me that people think that there is something wrong with women who want to become president.” Like, what normal woman would want this? And others will say: I don’t even know one like that. My wife doesn’t want it, my daughter doesn’t want it. And my subordinates don’t want it either. This means something is wrong here.

Perhaps all this hype, all the intrigue that weaved around her during the election campaign, drove a wedge between her and the voters.

“Various tales were talked about about me, we considered them ordinary nonsense, but, as it turned out, later, it was because of them that many put a tick in front of another surname. They said I was seriously ill and on my deathbed,” Clinton laughs. “It’s like I’m the leader of a pedophile ring that keeps children in the basement of a pizzeria.” And other wild things that were immediately picked up by the Russians, Trump and the right-wing media. Some thought: maybe she really is dying, and she’s fooling us.”

Yoga, white wine and anger

The day after the election in New York was cold and rainy. As she drove through the crowd of her supporters, many cried and others raised their fists in solidarity. Hillary Clinton herself felt as if she had committed a betrayal. “In some ways it was,” she writes. And he adds: “I carried my fatigue like armor.” After her speech in which she admitted defeat, she and Bill went to their an old house in the suburbs of New York. Only in the car did she allow herself to smile. “The only thing I wanted was to go home, change into my clothes and never pick up the phone again,” Hillary recalls. Then it was time for yoga sweatpants and a fleece shirt. For the next few weeks. These included relaxing breathing exercises, yoga and copious amounts of white wine. But at times, Clinton admits, she felt like screaming into her pillow.

She watched TV shows that her husband recorded for her. I prayed to God. I was mentally transported on vacation to the “Neapolitan novels” of Elena Ferrante, devouring detective stories and texts by Henri Nouwen about spirituality and the fight against depression. And she cried when actress Kate McKinnon, dressed like Hillary, sat down at the piano and sang the song “Hallelujah” by Leonard Cohen on one of the TV shows - “Even though I only did what I could // And I walked through mistakes, trials // But I didn’t lie, I didn’t become a jester in a plague feast.”

She almost manically dusted all the closets and went on long walks with Bill, but still, every time she heard the news, the same question rolled in, unstoppable, like tears - how could this happen?

For several days, she simply couldn’t think about anything else, she admits.

And there was also anger. She found it difficult to contain herself when Trump began hiring the same Wall Street bankers with whom he had recently accused her of colluding. And it was even more difficult when people who didn’t vote came to apologize. “How could you?” Clinton muses in the book. “You neglected your civic duty at the most inopportune moment!”

“It was just terrible! she exclaims in response to my question about the first weeks after the election. “I warned our country about the danger posed by Trump. “I clearly saw that he represents a serious threat to our democracy and its institutions.” She catches my eye: “I was hoping I was wrong, Nils, you know?”

For Americans it works flawlessly. Hearing their name, any of them seems to fly half a centimeter above the chair, filling with importance and self-confidence.

“I hoped,” she searches for words, “that he, no matter how he behaved before and no matter what he said during the election campaign... would feel the duty and responsibility of his post and would behave... appropriately. But weeks passed and nothing happened.”

I ask if she has anything to blame herself for.

“For various particulars,” she answers quickly. “For not explaining our agenda to people clearly enough.” I suppose this must mean: it failed to change its image as a protege of the system in the eyes of a disillusioned working class. “And,” she adds, “for not handling Trump during the televised debate.”

— Is that when he came straight at you?

- Yes. He simply followed me around the stage. I immediately figured out what he was trying to achieve and decided to simply ignore him. Now I'm not sure I did the right thing because he turned the TV debate into a reality show.

"I thought people wanted a president modern man, on whom you can rely, who would act like an adult: would not lose self-control and would not behave like a child. I constantly replay these moments in my head and I think now I would try to do things differently.”

“I had a world-class team, they helped Obama become president twice and were real experts in political technology. We planned a modern campaign, a kind of “Obama 2.0”. And we succeeded. But Trump and his allies changed the script, and the campaign turned into a TV show. In my camp, unfortunately, they were not ready for this.”

“During my meeting with Putin, he reminded me of the type of men who sit on the subway with their legs wide apart, disturbing others. They seem to be declaring: “I will take as much space for myself as I deem necessary” and “I don’t respect you at all and will act as if I’m sitting at home in a dressing gown.” We call it “manspreading”.<…>Putin doesn’t respect women and despises anyone who contradicts him, so I’m a double problem for him.”

Hillary Clinton on Vladimir Putin

“We saw that the Russians were planning something. But they didn’t figure out their plan. We understood a lot only now. And then we couldn’t understand where all this dirt on me was coming from,” she says, citing subsequent reports about an entire cyber army of bloggers and fake social media profiles that put Clinton in a bad light.

I ask which of her actions she would most willingly “react.”

“Well, I would never use personal mail as the head of the State Department,” she laughs and immediately adds, “despite the fact that it is completely legal, that’s what my predecessor and my successor did.”

The Alpha Male Advantage

There was also room in the book for other self-claims. For the fact that, unlike Bernie Sanders, she did not make grandiose promises, simply because their fulfillment could take many years, although voters would certainly be seduced by this. During her campaign, Clinton seriously considered offering Americans a guaranteed minimum income, a small, flat salary for everyone ( similar to the one that was introduced in Finland in 2017 for the sake of experiment - approx. transl.), however, she abandoned this idea after weighing the pros and cons.

Now she thinks she should take a risk.

Clinton writes that her worst fears about her own "flaws" as a presidential candidate have been fully realized.

“Some of them are innate,” she explains in response to my question. “I’m a woman, and I can’t change that.” And in our country there are many people who would never dare to support a woman in such a position. This was what all our studies said, but it seemed to me that I could still make it through my experience.”

Barack Obama's mother was very young, and his father returned to Kenya, so the boy was raised by his grandparents. He grew up to become a civil rights activist and law professor. Excellent biography to start a political career. Bill Clinton's father died before he was born. The family lived for years on a farm with no running water and an outdoor latrine. In addition, Bill had to stop his stepfather every now and then, who would lay hands on his mother. And yet he became the first in their family to graduate from university. Hillary Clinton, by her own admission, cannot boast of such a dramatic biography. She grew up in an ordinary white middle class family in the Chicago suburbs and had a happy childhood. Looking back, she only regrets that she didn't emphasize enough that she belonged to a generation of pioneering women who changed the world.

When she ran against Obama, the first black presidential candidate, she did not emphasize her gender. But this time was different, she explains.

“Perhaps I should have conveyed this message differently, more effectively. I don't know. But I’m sure the next woman in my position will face the same dilemma.”

Polls public opinion showed that many Republicans and Republicans were against a woman president. Even among the Democrats there was skepticism. There was also “the inevitable barrier of derogatory sexist comments.”

- What was this expressed in?

- Well, for example, they say that women have too shrill voices. Although I have known many men who literally scream their lungs out. In any case, this criticism does not concern them. It is addressed not only to me personally, but to any woman who dares to stick her head out and say, “So, I’m going to become a governor or a president.” There are many sexist misconceptions that many, I'm sure, don't even notice.

When her husband lost the Arcasas gubernatorial election in 1980, it was partly because she ran on her maiden name Rodham. When Bill decided to participate in the presidential race 12 years later, she added his last name to hers, but then she got it for pursuing a career as a lawyer. And when she replied that it was okay for her to “go home and bake pies and have tea,” she was considered a smug careerist who looked down on American housewives.

When Hillary Clinton read the “deep analysis” of her televised debates with Trump after the election, she had something to be surprised about. “After the elections, I studied everything that was written about them,” she smiles. “And so I read: maybe she really looked more convincing and caught him more than once, but you still couldn’t take your eyes off Trump.”

She looks into my eyes.

“He behaves like an alpha male. He wants to be considered that way. And moreover, in the depths of our DNA, we also believe that this is how a president should be. I have broken many barriers, but this last one was beyond my strength. But I think I managed to clear some space for debate, and next time people will be more attentive.”

We sit in silence for a moment. Suddenly she declares:

“But I love the television series “Government” ("Borgen", a Danish series about a female prime minister - approx. transl.), I just love him.”

Here she starts detailed analysis plot, acting and, last but not least, the trials that befell the main character.

“Balancing family and work is just one of the challenges women face,” says Hillary, adding that when work involves power, the dilemma cannot be avoided.

“On the one hand, no one wants to become a stranger to themselves. On the other hand, you must be able to remain yourself in a situation where others consider you a leader. And it’s not easy.”

Too many opponents

Hillary Clinton pondered for a long time whether she should participate in Trump’s inauguration - she was afraid that she would be booed and greeted with shouts of “jail her!” She agreed when she learned that Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush would be there. Little by little, she began to think about how painful it had been for past losers when they found themselves in the same situation.

AP Photo, Andrew Harnik Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton

She calls Trump's inaugural address "a roar from the abyss of white nationalism."

“It’s dark, dangerous and disgusting,” she says. “I kept thinking: wow, we really are facing difficult times - and my fears were justified.”

"Nils!" — one of the shadows, sitting a few tables away from me, tactfully makes it clear that time is coming to an end.

“Two more minutes,” I ask and turn the conversation to the last questions.

“I’ve always been interested in what people do after they’ve been president...

— And you were first in line for so long, and suddenly it all ended, and you never became president. How are you adapting to your new life?

— I spent a lot of time walking in the forest with friends to look into my future. I was really sure that I would become president and do so much for our country. However, it didn't work out for me. But I'm not used to giving up. So I started looking for new ways to contribute.

She looks up.

“This is not one comprehensive job, but many different interesting challenges. I support new political organizations and young candidates challenging Trumpian ways and the Republican order to restore the balance of democratic forces.”

— What is your goal in life now?

- Fortunately, I have a lot of things that I have been doing for many years. This includes health insurance and all kinds of conflicts in our society. And I also help the struggling party to rise.

“I do what I can to protect and defend our democracy,” she says, apparently unaware that with her “defend and protect” she was unwittingly quoting a presidential oath that she never had to take. (“... to the fullest extent of my ability I will support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States...” - translator’s note).

- And yet, how do you answer the question “what happened”?

“What happened was that there were too many opponents in front of me. A Trump campaign unlike anything we've seen before. Sexism. Russians who constantly influenced the outcome of elections. Information has been used as a weapon, and we are only now beginning to understand the danger it poses to democracies around the world. “I couldn’t overcome it all, and I’m very, very sorry,” she replies.

And he adds with a half-smile:

“Because I think I would make a good president.”