Category Archives: Elections

Leaked DNC Documents Prove Offers of Bribery From Staffers


Leaked documents showing bribes in the form of donations circulating between DNC officials in April could raise legal questions for a party already in turmoil]

Emails and documents contained in the Wikileaks release suggest that top DNC officials were planning on handing out political positions in return for donations, essentially a circle of bribery happening at the top of the Democratic party.

Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group, has issued a warning to the Democratic National Committee via The Daily Caller:

“The disclosed DNC emails sure look like the potential Clinton Administration has intertwined the appointments to federal government boards and commissions with the political and fund raising operations of the Democratic Party. That is unethical, if not illegal.”

This news is among a series of reports of cronyism and election rigging against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton within emails between DNC staffers that were released through Wikileaks on Friday.

The emails regarding appointing of federal political positions started with an email chain in April where the DNC’s national finance director, Jordan Kaplan, asked other staffers to provide the names of donors to be appointed. Kaplan wrote on April 20,

“Last call for boards and commissions. If you have someone, send to [DNC finance chief of staff Scott] Comer – full name, city, state, email and phone number. Send as many as you want, just don’t know how many people will get to.”

To which Scott Comer followed up with,

“Any folks who you’d like to be considered to be on the board of (for example) USPS, NEA, NEH. Basically anyone who has a niche interest and might like to serve on the board of one of these orgs. I should say, though, that the likelihood of landing a spot on ones as prestigious as NEA/USPS is unlikely. It’s much more likely they’ll get something like ‘President’s Commission on the Celebration of Women in American History.’ (no shade to women) But when you submit your names, we don’t need specific designations.”

Boehn told The Daily Caller that this is strong evidence of a quid pro quo.

For a more thorough and investigative analysis of the email chain, see Leaked DNC Documents Show Plans To Reward Big Donors With Federal Appointments at The Daily Caller by Chuck Ross.

UPDATE: These emails prove that the DNC actually violated federal laws regarding elections.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Officially Resigns As DNC Chairwoman


In a statement released through CNN, Debbie Wasserman Schultz officially announced her resignation as Democratic Party leader

After a treasure trove of emails between Democratic party head staffers showed a clear bias towards Hillary Clinton and attempts to undermine Bernie Sanders campaign, Schultz did the honorable thing and resigned as party leader. Too bad it is too late; the damage has already been done.

From CNN,

Wasserman Schultz announced her resignation in a statement Sunday afternoon, saying she remains committed to seeing Clinton elected president. She talked with both President Barack Obama and Clinton before making her announcement.
“Going forward, the best way for me to accomplish those goals is to step down as Party Chair at the end of this convention,” Wasserman Schultz said in her statement.
“As Party Chair, this week I will open and close the Convention and I will address our delegates about the stakes involved in this election not only for Democrats, but for all Americans,” she said. “We have planned a great and unified Convention this week and I hope and expect that the DNC team that has worked so hard to get us to this point will have the strong support of all Democrats in making sure this is the best convention we have ever had.”

Bernie Sanders consequently released a statement saying,

“[Wasserman Schultz] has made the right decision for the future of the Democratic Party. While she deserves thanks for her years of service, the party now needs new leadership that will open the doors of the party and welcome in working people and young people,” Sanders said. “The party leadership must also always remain impartial in the presidential nominating process, something which did not occur in the 2016 race.”

Between obvious actions of election fraud and atrocious underbelly tactics against Sanders via media silence, spin, and smear, the Democratic party showed they never intended on allowing Bernie Sanders to become the presidential nominee.

The bias has most Sanders supporters furious with the party and threatening to leave if he does not become president, some already doing so. Most supporters have stuck with Sanders into his contested convention, but since early 2015 super delegates had already mostly pledged their allegiance to the United States of Hillary. That may change now.

Immediately following Schultz’s resignation, Hillary Clinton sent an email to the DNC saying Debbie will be campaigning with her in Florida. Clinton also said Wasserman Schultz will serve as “honorary chair” of her campaign’s 50-state program to help elect Democrats around the country.

Recent News for Debbie Wasserman Schultz
X
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz Officially Resigns As DNC Chairwoman
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz Loses Speaking Spot At Democratic Convention Over Leaked Emails


    The unprecedented 20k email leak of the DNC has left Debbie Wasserman Schultz in more than a bind on the eve of the Democratic National Convention. Even the Washington Post has accepted the authenticity of the emails (how could they not with such a large amount of data?) and is calling this Schultz’s worst week in Washington.

    What’s worse for Debbie is Bernie Sanders saying flat out (for the what’th time now?) to CNN that she should resign as chairwoman:

    “I don’t think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don’t think her leadership style is doing that.”

    Today, after two days of controversy surrounding the DNC emails, it was announced via Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny’s Twitter account that Schultz would not be speaking at the convention, which is probably the worst possible thing that could have happened to her this entire election season — after all, she is the chairwoman of the party.

    Sanders Campaign Calls for DNC Accountability Over Hillary Favoritism


    “We have an electoral process. The DNC, by its charter, is required to be neutral among the candidates. Clearly it was not,” Jeff Weaver said.

    Jeff Weaver, Bernie Sanders campaign manager, expressed to ABC News the campaign’s disappointment at the Democratic National Committee for favoring Hillary Clinton throughout the Democratic primary as seen in the recent Wikileaks email leak on Friday.

    Weaver also disclosed his surprise that nobody within the DNC had made any effort to reach out to him regarding the email leak and what was enclosed in the documents. Already, however, a top staffer DNC CFO Brad Marshall, apologized for conspiring to use Bernie Sanders’ religious beliefs against him in the states of West Virginia and Kentucky during Clinton campaigning in those states. This, among many other emails between top DNC staffers, proves collusion to undermine the Sanders campaign for presidency while party leader Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and other top staffers told the public they were entirely neutral and that no favoritism had taken place.

    He went on to explain that it’s most likely Wasserman-Schultz who was ultimately responsible for this sort of behavior:

    “We are trying to build unity for the fall to beat Donald Trump and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a figure of disunity in the party, not a figure of unity,” Weaver added. Weaver and the DNC chairwoman have tangled often during this campaign cycle. Asked specifically whether she should resign, Weaver responded, “She should consider what her options are.”

    Weaver said that he was surprised that no one with the party had reached out to him, “given the conduct that was disclosed” in the emails. Several of the emails showed that DNC staff called Weaver names including “a liar.”

    Several members of Sanders staff have expressed specific outrage over the emails, which seemed to suggest attacking the senator’s religion. Sanders’ former Iowa State Director Robert Becker told ABC News that it showed “a total lack of decency.”

    Hillary Clinton had raised support from hundreds of super delegates over a year ago, long before the primaries had started and before she even started campaigning, which has been a topic of contention from the Sanders camp since super delegates don’t actually vote until July 25th, the first day of the Democratic Convention. On Monday, the convention will start and is a contested convention, meaning neither candidate received enough pledged delegates to win the nomination and will rely on superdelegates to make the final decision.

    WATCH: Lee Camp, Wikileaks Prove Democratic Primary Was Rigged By DNC


    Over 20,000 newly leaked Clinton emails from Wikileaks and Lee Camp’s Redacted Tonight round up of important evidence of election fraud prove the DNC sabotaged Bernie Sanders

    Amidst multiple lawsuits against the DNC mounting up, Wikileaks latest Clinton email leak and Lee Camp’s election fraud evidence round-up prove that the Democratic National Convention has rigged the Democratic Primary in Hillary Clinton’s favor. To anyone that values democracy, the worst part about this is the fact that the mainstream media refuses to give the story any real coverage.

    Wikileaks’ recent release has already been analyzed by a few media outlets. From the Observer,

    “In its recent leak of 20,000 DNC emails from January 2015 to May 2016, DNC staff discuss how to deal with Bernie Sanders’ popularity as a challenge to Clinton’s candidacy. Instead of treating Sanders as a viable candidate for the Democratic ticket, the DNC worked against him and his campaign to ensure Clinton received the nomination.”

    That means the party was intentionally working against its own candidate Bernie Sanders and your vote really didn’t matter if you were a Democrat voter this season.

    The Hill goes on to explain how the emails prove that top officials worked hard to undermine Sander’s campaign for presidency:

    One of Camp’s most important points is that all of the discrepancy in voter tallies between exit polls and machine data happened ONLY in the Democratic primary and not the Republican primary. An apt question comes to mind: How is this not evidence of election fraud?

    To see a list of all of Camp’s points from the following video, see: Lee Camp’s Requiem for a Stolen Primary Election

    Watch Lee Camp’s overview of 2016 Democratic Primary election fraud video below:

    Lee Camp’s Requiem for a Stolen Primary Election


    Lee Camp’s Requiem for a Stolen Primary Election

    RT’s Redacted Tonight released a quick list of all the ways the election was stolen. Lee Camp

    1. A Standford paper showed that exit polls didn’t match up with voter machine tallies

    2. The voter machine/exit poll discrepency happened ONLY on the democratic side and not the republican primaries

    3. Voter machine/exit poll discrepency ONLY happened in states where there was no paper trail

    3. The mainstream media refuses to cover election fraud evidence, even after Camp’s hastag #exitpollgate goes viral

    4. A second Stanford paper shows discrepency between pre-election polls vs. voter machine tallies

    5. Pre-election poll/voter machine discrepencies only happened in states where there was no paper trail and only in the Democratic primary, not the Republican

    6. Counterpunch proves Hillary Clinton did best in states where voting machines flunked hacking tests (Counterpunch)

    7. In Arizona, polling locations were cut down by from 200 to 60 causing people to wait in line for hours just to vote. This only happened in districts that were more likely to vote for Bernie Sanders.

    8. Puerto Rico had the same problem as Arizona.

    9. In Brooklyn, NY more than 120,000 voters were purged for no apparent reason. The Board of Elections said it was an error, and the source of the error Diane Haslett-Rudiano was suspended without pay for skipping required steps when cleaning voter records

    10. In Chicago, multiple witnesses at the voting machine audit said the machines were overcounting for hillary, but the auditors were lying to make the numbers fit. When they brought this to the Chicago BOE, they got nowhere. (Inquisitor)

    11. In California, poll workers were instructed to give out provisional ballots to anyone registered as NPP (No Party Preference) on election day. Isn’t that odd? According to investigative journalist Greg Palast, provisional ballots are like “placebo ballots” since they rarely actually count — they’re either never counted or counted way after election day. That means even if Bernie actually won the California primary, it wouldn’t matter because July 25th has already come and gone and the election is over.

    12. Fractional voting, in voting machines, treats votes like fractions and adds non-existent votes to whoever gets more votes and isn’t true voting to begin with

    13. Guccifer 2.0 leaks showing collusion between Hillary Clinton and the DNC

    14. Google manipulating search results to help the Hillary campaign

    FBI Signed Illegal Non-Disclosure Agreement To Interview Hillary Clinton


    FBI sources confirm with the press that they were ordered to signed an NDA in order to interview Hillary Clinton as part of their email investigation

    In what the NYPost calls an “unusual move”, the FBI agents involved in investigating Hillary Clinton’s email server were ordered to signed what is called a “Case Briefing Acknowledgment” form which acted as a separate non-disclosure agreement on top of the usual NDA agents must sign before obtaining security clearance for a case.

    The Post says their sources from the FBI are very disappointed with director James Comey’s recommendation that Hillary Clinton not be prosecuted for negligence:

    Sources said they had never heard of the “Case Briefing Acknowledgment” form being used before, although all agents must initially sign nondisclosure agreements to obtain security clearance.

    “This is very, very unusual. I’ve never signed one, never circulated one to others,” said one retired FBI chief.

    An FBI agent currently on the job admitted, “I have never heard of such a form. Sounds strange.”

    Meanwhile, FBI agents expressed their “disappointment” over FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to recommend charges against Clinton, sources close to the matter told The Post.

    “FBI agents believe there was an inside deal put in place after the Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting,” said one source.

    Another source from the Justice Department was “furious” with Comey, saying he’s “managed to piss off right and left.”

    The document was first picked up by the press when it was referred to by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, on his government website in an open letter to FBI director James Comey regarding the NDA as violating whistleblower protections. Stephen D. Kelly, senior deputy to Director Comey, wrote a letter back to Grassley which Fox News reported on after obtaining. The Whistleblower Protections Act, which Grassley authored, requires a whistleblower exemption clause in nondisclosure agreements given to employees working on the case and was not included in the Case Briefing Acknowledgment form until after the investigation was officially concluded by the FBI.

    An excerpt from Grassley’s letter shows a clear concern for how the FBI has handled the case, listing 17 matters which he feels have not been resolved regarding the case:

    1. When will you reply to my letter asking about the apparent conflicts in this case? Since I sent my letter, Former President Clinton had a private meeting with Attorney General Lynch and the New York Times reported that Former Secretary Clinton was considering retaining her as Attorney General if she is elected President. In light of the other apparent conflicts outlined in my letter and this new information, do you believe there is no appearance of a conflict warranting the appointment of a special counsel, and if not, why not?

    2. How many emails contained classification markings, what were those markings, and why is that not considered evidence of intentional mishandling of classified information? Did the FBI investigation determine how each of those documents marked as classified was transferred from classified systems onto an unclassified system and then emailed?

    3. Publicly-released email indicates Secretary Clinton instructed a subordinate to “remove headers” from a classified document and “send nonsecure.” The document was a set of talking points related to a principals meeting of the National Security Council. Please explain how that is not evidence of intent to mishandle classified information. Was Secretary Clinton asked about that email in her interview with the FBI? Was her subordinate asked about it? What were their responses?

    4. Given your statement that Secretary Clinton and her aides were “extremely careless” in handling classified information, why do you believe it would be unreasonable for any prosecutor to bring a charge based on “grossly negligent” handling of classified information? Is there a distinction between those two standards? Or do you believe that there should be an Executive Branch policy of refusing to prosecute anyone for gross negligence without evidence of intentional conduct, even though the statute does not require it? If so, would you recommend repealing the statute criminalizing gross negligence? If not, why not?

    5. As part of the investigation, did the FBI review the classified cybersecurity briefing Diplomatic Security arranged for Secretary Clinton and her staff in 2011, the Boswell Memorandum regarding cybersecurity threats relating to the use of Blackberries, and the other relevant security warnings given to Secretary Clinton and her staff on these issues? If not, why not? Did you evaluate whether such repeated warnings to Secretary Clinton about specific cyber threats and the use of non-government email, along with her subsequent and continuing refusal to comply with those multiple warnings and instructions, constituted gross negligence? If not, why not?

    6. Were any of Secretary Clinton’s non-government servers, or their backups, located outside of the United States? Did the FBI recover all of the servers involved?

    7. In your statement you said: “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.” Has the FBI recommended that Secretary Clinton or any of her senior aides have their security clearances suspended or revoked as a result of its findings? If not, why not?

    8. One of the people who ran Secretary Clinton’s private server, Bryan Pagliano, invoked the Fifth Amendment when called to testify before the Benghazi Committee, when approached by my Committee, and in related Freedom of Information Act litigation. He reportedly received a limited immunity agreement from the Department of Justice. Did any other people the FBI contacted as part of the investigation invoke the Fifth Amendment? Did Secretary Clinton invoke the Fifth Amendment when interviewed by the FBI?

    9. The head of SES/IRM during Secretary Clinton’s tenure, John Bentel, testified under oath to the Benghazi Committee that he only learned of Secretary Clinton non-government email and server when the story broke in the press in 2015. He made the same assertion to my Committee through his lawyer. Yet, as part of the State OIG’s investigation, two of his subordinates independently told State OIG that they had raised concerns to Mr. Bentel in 2010 about Secretary Clinton’s non-government email and server not complying with federal records requirements, that he falsely told them the State Department’s legal team had approved her email system, and then told them “not to discuss the matter any further” and “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.” Did the FBI interview Mr. Bentel as part of the investigation? If not, why not? Did Mr. Bentel repeat his claim that he only learned of the non-government email and server from the media in 2015? Did the FBI attempt to resolve the conflict between Mr. Bentel’s claims and the claims of his two subordinates? If not, why not?

    10. Did the FBI or Department of Justice raise any concerns about several of Secretary Clinton’s associates using the same attorneys to represent them in the investigation? Did the FBI determine whether Secretary Clinton paid for the attorneys for her associates, especially Mr. Pagliano and Mr. Bentel, and whether such third-party fee arrangements raised conflicts of interest given that those associates were being asked questions whose answers could incriminate Secretary Clinton? In the FBI’s view, would a third-party fee arrangement in which Secretary Clinton paid for Mr. Pagliano’s attorney constitute a conflict of interest when he was given immunity to speak about his involvement in her server? If not, why not?

    11. According to press reports, the Department of Justice made an agreement with Cheryl Mills that certain topics would be off-limits during her interview with the FBI, including questions about her role in sorting and deleting Secretary Clinton’s email. This was purportedly because Ms. Mills claimed to be acting as Secretary Clinton’s private attorney in doing so, and thus sought to shield those actions behind attorney-client privilege. Did the FBI and/or Department of Justice make any agreements, formally or informally, with Secretary Clinton, her associates, or their attorneys, to preclude the FBI or Department of Justice from certain areas of inquiry? If so, please describe these arrangements and provide copies of all relevant records of them.

    12. Did Secretary Clinton invoke attorney-client privilege, or any other privilege, to refuse to answer any questions posed by the FBI or the Department of Justice during her interview?

    13. Rule 1.11 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which covers “Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers and Employees,” specifically states that “a lawyer who has formerly served as a public officer or employee of the government . . . shall not otherwise represent a client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee, unless the appropriate government agency gives its informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the representation.” While working for Secretary Clinton at the State Department, Ms. Mills was personally and substantially involved in Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email and server for official business. Under the rule, it appears that she should have been precluded from serving as Secretary Clinton’s private attorney in the same matter after leaving the State Department. Did the FBI determine whether the State Department had given written consent for Ms. Mills’ private representation of Secretary Clinton in this matter? Did the FBI otherwise raise concerns about the conflicts the representation posed?

    14. When did the FBI first contact Secretary Clinton as part of the investigation? When did it request an interview? When was the date of the interview determined?

    15. Did the FBI investigate Secretary Clinton’s and her associatess possible violations of laws concerning the treatment of federal records, such as 18 U.S.C. § 2071, which prohibits concealing or destroying such federal records? Did the FBI investigate whether any of the thousands of federal records Secretary Clinton and her attorneys deleted were responsive to Congressional inquiries or agency inquiries, such as ones from the State Department OIG, which would have violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505 and 1519, respectively? Did the FBI evaluate the numerous emails released suggesting that Secretary Clinton and her associates may have attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act?

    16. Did the FBI investigate, or is the FBI currently investigating, allegations of public corruption relating to the Clinton Foundation and former President Clinton’s speaking fees from foreign governments? If not, why not?

    17. Under the law, it is a “well-settled principle that false exculpatory statements are evidence – often strong evidence – of guilt.” See, e.g., Al-Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 2010); United States v. Penn, 974 F.2d 1026, 1029 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Meyer, 733 F.2d 362, 363 (5th Cir. 1984). As your statement and the State OIG report both demonstrated, Secretary Clinton and her representatives made numerous exculpatory statements later shown to be false: that she never sent or received any classified information; that she never sent or received any information that was classified at the time; that she never sent or received any information marked as classified; that she established the server setup in order to only have to use one device; that the State Department approved her server arrangement; that her attorneys reviewed each of her emails in sorting them for deletion or production; that she turned over all her federal records; that she would cooperate with any inquiries into the issue; that she would encourage her associates to cooperate as well. Did the FBI weigh the probative value of this cavalcade of false statements in determining her guilt and intent, as it should have under the law?

    As of July 20th, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch has kept her word of not prosecuting Clinton at the advice of Director Comey, despite the controversy surrounding her decision after a brief lunch meeting with former president Bill Clinton which critics claimed was a conflict of interest and influenced Lynch’s decision, to which she denied.

    Bye Bye, Bernie, Hello Jill Stein


    After months of hard work on a revolutionary campaign, Bernie Sanders has finally conceded and thrown his support behind Hillary Clinton. What does this mean for progressives? Jill Stein.

    Bernie Sanders has just endorsed Hillary Clinton and claims the Democratic party platform has been transformed into the “most progressive Democratic platform in history”, but his supporters are understandably skeptical. After all, Hillary Clinton stands for everything he has been complaining about for the past year (and his lifetime): Crony capitalism, U.S. imperialism, rigging elections, a fraudulent economy, free trade deals, etc. The only question on his supporters’ minds right now is “why?!” but it really should be shifting to “who?”

    Jill Stein has been campaigning for everything Bernie Sanders has and has even offered her nomination to Sanders, but he apparently wants to continue fighting to change the Democratic party instead. Many people feel this is a noble cause, but what sort of work can be done when Hillary is involved in so much government corruption and crony capitalism?

    We’ve covered the corruption of Hillary Clinton in previous articles, especially an explosive report by Abby Martin. There are books on the shelves and more coming out about Clinton corruption, from insiders to analysts, yet Sanders seems to think she is best suited for the job. Some people are beginning to say that this wreaks of a conspiracy to never actually have Bernie as president, that he was a plant of some sort, but there are no real signs of this as of yet.

    In the meantime, if you are a true progressive, Jill Stein makes the most sense for the presidential election of 2016.

    WATCH: Abby Martin Explains How Bernie Endorsing Hillary Would Be Disasterous


    Investigative journalist Abby Martin got heated during an interview with Paul Jay of The Real News when he said he felt that Trump had a worse foreign policy than Hillary. And she was right.

    In a heated debate between herself and Paul Jay of The Real News yesterday, Abby Martin gave her reasoning for not supporting Bernie Sanders if he decided to endorse Hillary Clinton.

    Hillary Clinton has a disastrous foreign policy when it comes to carrying out human rights abuses, toppling governments and anything imperialistic that gives wet dreams to neo-conservatives in Washington at night. For Bernie Sanders to endorse her would go directly against everything he’s spoken against throughout his entire presidential campaign for the Democratic Party.

    Media Conducts Major ‘Booed’ Smear Campaign Against Bernie Sanders


    Despite there being no actual sources, an array of mainstream media falsely reported that House Democrats ‘booed’ Bernie Sanders in a close-door meeting the other day.

    Once again, a massive smear against Bernie Sanders has occurred in the mainstream political news with no actual citation for the claim that presidential hopeful was ‘booed’ at a House Democrat meeting in Washington.

    CNN reported “roughly a dozen members booed him inside the room” according to “three Democrats who attended the meeting”, yet doesn’t name who reported this.

    They go on to say that House Democrats, Rep Steny Hoyer told reporters he was sitting in the front row during the meeting with Sanders and didn’t hear anyone booing, and that Rep Gerry Connolly tweeted “Bernie was respectfully received by Caucus. Some disagreements, yes, but a friendly venue” and “Sanders was reflective and thoughtful in responses. Expressions of disagreement are NOT booing.”

    Despite this, other “news” outlets are also spreading the lie.

    Politico wrote, “Some Democrats booed Sanders” while not reporting who or how many.

    The L.A. Times said “boos erupted” despite having no sources for this claim.

    The Washington Post also claimed booing without any sources.

    When using simple critical thinking skills, one can easily deduce that no booing actually occurred since nobody is saying who did the booing and nobody is giving their name to the press besides two people who said there was no booing. (Three, if you count Sanders himself).