Tag Archives: corruption

DOJ Stops North Dakota Pipeline Construction … For Now

The construction of an oil pipeline across North Dakota’s Native American tribal land of Lake Oahe “will not go forward at this time”, according to a press release from the Department of Justice, Department of the Army and Department of Interior.

In a joint statement between the Department of Justice, Department of the Army and Department of Interior on Friday, the three offices of the United States government intervened in the Dakota Access pipeline fiasco. One federal judge had already failed to appeased the community, only upholding the decision to construct.  However, the federal government said that it needs to evaluate “previous decisions” regarding the construction and that, in the meantime, all construction will be halted.

This hails as a victory for the scores of protesters who visited the site to show their support of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe of North Dakota, whose lawsuit against the Corps of Engineers is responsible for today’s decision to halt construction. The tribe says that the Corps of Engineers failed to adequately consult it before granting permits that allowed construction of the pipeline that began earlier this summer about a half mile north of the tribe’s reservation in North Dakota. What’s more is that the pipeline could actually hurt the drinking water supply, yet the Dakota Access company said that it followed standard procedure and no harm has been intended.

The statement from the federal government explains that the three departments fully intend to include all Native American tribes in discussions regarding changes to the country’s infrastructure moving forward:

“This case has highlighted the need for a serious discussion on whether there should be nationwide reform with respect to considering tribes’ views on these types of infrastructure projects.  Therefore, this fall, we will invite tribes to formal, government-to-government consultations on two questions:  (1) within the existing statutory framework, what should the federal government do to better ensure meaningful tribal input into infrastructure-related reviews and decisions and the protection of tribal lands, resources, and treaty rights; and (2) should new legislation be proposed to Congress to alter that statutory framework and promote those goals.”


One of the main issues regarding constructions like Dakota Access is that the corporations responsible for the constructions are using the often slow legal process to their advantage, continuing construction while lawsuits are in play, until ordered by a judge to cease construction either temporarily or permanently. This gives the corporation an advantage, where so much construction could have already taken place. At the same time, it doesn’t change the fact that there is a moral question at hand that is being ignored by corporate greed.


WATCH: Melissa Dykes Explains What Really Happened At The Democratic Convention

From white noise machines to isolated black outs and more, reporter and activist Melissa Dykes reviews all the madness of the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia this summer

People have long suspected the Democratic Party of being corrupt and not really “of the people”, but reporter/activist Melissa Dykes didn’t expect to see the length to which the Democratic establishment would go to suppress supporters of Bernie Sanders. Of course, the DNC emails had been leaked by Wikileaks the Friday prior to the convention, but to see the suppression in action was something else altogether. As Dykes points out in her video, it’s almost surreal to see the extent to which the establishment insisted on shutting down democracy at their own convention.

Watch the video below from Dykes’ Youtube channel Truth Stream Media:

Common Confusion About Voter Fraud vs. Election Fraud Helps Rigged Elections To Continue

If you look up election fraud in any search engine, you’ll see numerous articles from mainstream media regarding voter fraud instead, making it difficult for the general public to understand the difference.

Election rigging, as I’ve stated in a previous article, is as old as democracy itself. Today, a major part of the problem with discussing the issue is the confusion the general public in the distinction between voter fraud and election fraud, and the mainstream media really doesn’t help.

From the New York Times to Politico to even PBS, the first results you see in Google for “election fraud” related queries are all from mainstream news sources referring primarily to “voter fraud” in the current 2016 presidential election and how it’s “rare” — and I’m inclined to agree. That’s because voter fraud isn’t primarily how the elections are being rigged. And the reason why it happens so rarely is because it’s easy to catch, so people don’t do it. But before we get into this in depth, let’s first go over the difference between voter fraud and election fraud.

The distinction is easily missed because voter fraud is a type of election fraud. Election fraud encompasses quite a few acts of election rigging. For example, voter suppression can be election fraud, such as the case of the 120,000 voters mysteriously purged from Brooklyn, NY this year, to which the New York Board of Elections said was “an accident”. Diane Haslett-Rudiano, the Board of Elections’ chief clerk, was suspended without pay for the supposed mishap, but the voters who couldn’t vote were not satisfied because it was such an obvious disenfranchisement stunt that it really should have been investigated as election fraud. Another form of voter suppression that caused disenfranchisement within the Democratic party this year was switching people’s party affiliation to independent or republican, some cases even involving forged signatures on the registration application. Again, this is a form of election fraud, but is not voter fraud, yet mainstream news continues to use the terms interchangeably.

Voter fraud is when votes are faked. An example would be, as Fox News’ Eric Shawn pointed out, absentee ballots being filled out by the same person on behalf of multiple people. In Shawn’s report, he actually spoke to people whose votes had been robbed and they explained on camera that it’s not their handwriting and that they did not fill out the ballots — this isn’t voter fraud, it’s . He also reported on vote bribery and unauthorized proxy voting. (see video below)

The most shocking form of election fraud also is not voter fraud: voting software that is rigged for a predetermined winner, otherwise known as electronic election fraud. And it’s become a major method of rigging both primaries and general elections.

In my interview with Ohio election fraud lawyer Cliff Arnebeck, he explained that there was a 25-33% difference between the exit polls and the machine totals. To make matters worse, the data that he and Bob Fitrakis, another lawyer from Ohio, had requested from the exit poll takers hasn’t yet been delivered. With only a couple months left before the general election, it’ll be surprising if their RICO lawsuit actually comes through in time.

What’s worse, however, is the latest anti-trump campaign that we’ve seen from Democrats all the way through the White House, with President Obama stating that election rigging is a conspiracy theory, an obvious attempt to discredit Trump as a kook. The fact that there’s a 100-page report proving all the forms of election fraud that happened this primary season shows that even the POTUS will lie to the press on behalf of his party, ultimately becoming a propagandist himself. This was in retaliation for Trump’s statements made recently that Democrats would exploit “weak identification laws” in order to rig the general election for Hillary Clinton. This may actually be true, considering all the evidence we have of a rigged primary, but it isn’t even the real issue we should be talking about, which is electronic election fraud.

I used to have a love/hate relationship with the mainstream media’s coverage of election fraud, but it’s recently turned to only hate. The Washington Post, for example, can give us an important piece about election fraud that is well written — that’s only 150 words long. Really, guys? A RICO lawsuit in the works regarding electronic election fraud and you can only come up with 150 words about it? They then bury it deep within the site, don’t promote the article, and focus more energy on writing articles about how voter fraud rarely happens and Trump needs to shut up about it. It also doesn’t promote an article like the one I’m writing here today to help readers understand the difference between the terms. I’m not even sure the outlet knows or cares, and what we’re left with is a fundamental lack of understanding that while voter fraud itself is rare, election fraud is running rampant and has been for quite some time. Our elections, based on the evidence we have since the 2000 Presidential Election, are getting increasingly worse in terms of election fraud.

Perhaps the worst aspect about this confusion is the fact that people keep saying election fraud doesn’t happen and then point to studies proving voter fraud is rare. This fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between election fraud and voter fraud is what continues the propaganda we hear from the Democratic party, who pushes for lax laws regarding voter identification at every turn. Lax laws, they argue, are to reduce racist voter suppression, but for some odd reason they never seem to want to talk about all the other forms of election fraud for which there is so much evidence of. At the end of the day, both the Republican and Democratic parties seem to engage in extremely dirty, dishonest politics in order to win, win, win, and all it does is allow criminals to become decision makers on behalf of the rest of us.

Zachary Paul
Zachary Paul is an independent investigative journalist living in New York City.

EXCLUSIVE: Interview With Ohio Election Fraud Lawyer Cliff Arnebeck

I spoke with Cliff Arnebeck regarding his strange letter to Obama and Biden about assassinations.. And looked over my shoulder the rest of the night..                             

When I called Cliff Arnebeck for an interview last night, I didn’t expect him to answer. And when he did, I felt a little off-guard and half expected him to hang up on me. It turns out, quite the opposite was true — Arnebeck is an intelligent, matter-of-fact man who was happy to answer my questions regarding the letter he posted on his Facebook page and the election fraud lawsuit he had pending. If it wasn’t for the fact that I had already promised my girlfriend to take her out for her birthday, and that he was preparing for a family vacation and finishing up business with his clients, I have a feeling we would have been on the phone the rest of the night discussing the deep, dark secrets of what he calls the “global cabal” that has taken over the U.S. government, and who will stop at nothing to make sure they retain control over the country and the world — even assassinating the vice president’s son.

If this sounds insane, you may want to stop reading and go back to your Pokemon Go, because it doesn’t get any prettier. Considering the Trans-Pacific Partnership does exactly what conspiracy theorists have been afraid of for years (making it so that bankers rule over  all the world’s governments, shifting all the power into the greedy hands of a few), and considering the vast number of witnesses to political corruption who have died while awaiting court appearances or interviews, even a few who were supposed to testify for Arnebeck on his election fraud cases, it’s almost more of a stretch to think that there aren’t secret operatives working on behalf of a few corrupt people. Cliff Arnebeck seems to agree with me, and that’s why he’s been so adamant about fighting election fraud.

Ohio is the swing state of carnage. It literally is the sole state that can decide an election for a number of reasons, but if you ask Cliff, it’s because it’s so easy to manipulate the voting machines there. The good news is that his lawsuit, he says, is going to put an end to the corruption and stop the Democratic party dead in its tracks. But before we get to all of that, let’s talk about election fraud.

Anyone who doesn’t think the Democratic primaries were rigged needs to wake up. After all, elections have been getting rigged since before any of us were swimming around in utero. In fact, ancient Greece, where democracy was born, was just as susceptible to political corruption as we are today. Rome even had laws referred to as Ambitus which strictly prohibited election rigging and bribery.  That means election rigging is as old as democracy itself, and it’s arguable that you simply cannot have an election without attempts at rigging the outcome.  But that’s why we have laws, to promote accountability and to get a result that is as close to what the population wants as possible. Now, if only we could enforce those laws, we might be able to have an honest person in the White House. This year, we have someone who represents the majority of the American people but the election has been stolen from him, and he may even have been physically beaten into submission. The grave implications of going up against the powers that be are literally being on the wrong end of the barrel of a gun, and sometimes you need to make those hard choices in order to protect the ones you love. I believe Bernie Sanders was put in that position, and it’s a sad day for democracy to have seen it unfold before us.

But all hope is not lost.

Like many Bernie Sanders supporters, I have trouble accepting the outcome of the 2016 Democratic Presidential Primary.  Sanders clearly was the better candidate in a number of ways: he clearly had more people at his rallies than Clinton; he is a true progressive and has been his whole life (and that’s provable), while Clinton flip flops on every progressive issue and ends up being a middle-of-the-road candidate; Bernie stood for the people, Hillary for the corporations; Bernie wants integrity and to save the planet, Hillary wants money and to save her ass from going to jail. So when he said it would be a contested convention, only to end up endorsing Clinton two weeks prior to the convention, something really seemed off. It wasn’t until I noticed a mark on his cheek that I realized all the stuff of TV shows like The Black List, Scandal, and House of Cards might not be that far off from reality.

I’ve been reading about, scoffing at, pondering and cross-referencing conspiracy theories for years. And I’ve been voting Democratic my entire adult life. But I’ve never seen so much blatant disregard for democracy as I’ve seen this year. I’m 36 years old, and I’d like to think I’m not as stupid as the DNC and the establishment think I am. But am I falling for conspiracy theory drivel or was there truly election fraud going on? Well, when it’s gotten so bad that even the Democratic National Committee had to come out and apologize to Sanders, their own candidate, for going out of their way to undermine his campaign in favor of Hillary Clinton, and when I saw that multiple lawsuits were being filed claiming election fraud, naturally I was curious as to the details of the cases being made. Were they legitimate? What evidence do we have? Would the cases be taken seriously or swept under the rug by power players holding political offices?

Luckily we have some internet-only media outlets like The Young Turks and Lee Camp’s Redacted Tonight that are actually reporting on such matters, as I for one can no longer trust mainstream media such as CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX News, the Washington Post and Politico to cover elections fairly, accurately and in depth without any sort of bias and without whitewashing the obvious rigging of elections.

It was on Redacted Tonight that I first recognized Cliff Arnebeck, one of the few lawyers in the U.S. willing to litigate against the establishment on grounds of election fraud, and since then I’ve been interested in who he was and what he’s had to say. Then I saw his letter to the president and vice president of the U.S. and thought, “Now I really HAVE to talk to this guy,” so I gave him a call.

Arnebeck, a Harvard educated lawyer holding a J.D., hails from Columbus, Ohio and has a penchant for change with a serious chip on his shoulder about election fraud that goes as far back as the mid-1990s, and he’s working on a lawsuit that he undoubtedly feels will bring the masterminds behind the rigging to justice. There’s just one problem:  his assertions that people are being assassinated by operatives of Karl Rove are….a bit more than far-fetched for quite a few Berners. It’s also scary as hell. If what he’s saying is true, it means that even I would somehow be connected to all of this just for writing it. Needless to say, when I got of the phone with him and met up with my girlfriend for dinner, I found myself wondering who the guy was at the end of the bar, asking my girlfriend if she’d ever seen him, and wondering if I should be wearing gloves when I ride my bike (that’ll make more sense when you read the interview below).

Anyhow, as Arnebeck told me on the phone, it really doesn’t matter if anyone believes in the assassinations. He only has to prove the rigging of the election, and all will come crumbling down with it. After that, it’s up to the American people to figure out how to proceed with the general election, and that is most likely going to be with Bernie leading the Democrats against a buffoon who’s already talking about leaving the race.

Below is a transcript of our conversation.  I’ve inserted citations in the form of links to any relevant background information I could find.

The first question I had was about the letter you posted to your Facebook account which many are saying contains some outrageous claims. So, first of all, is that your facebook account and are you indeed the person who posted that letter?

Yes I am, Yes I am.

Ok, could you shed some light on who this person Beverly Campbell is?

Well there are newspaper stories from whenever she was practicing law as a prosecutor in Philadelphia. She handled some high-profile cases. And then there are news articles in regards to both the senate and the house in Ohio. In the 2006 election, she actually won the election but we have rigged elections here in Ohio, where they flipped her votes, so she didn’t officially win but she did in fact win. But there was a lot of advertising in that race both for her and for her opponent who was an incumbent Republican, she was running as a Democrat. In terms of her obituary, she had two divorces and the father of one of her sons, they weren’t very interested in letting them know right away that she had passed, so there’s an obituary that was put out by the mortuary but not a full obituary in the main paper.

Where did you end up coming to the conclusion that she was assassinated by Karl Rove’s operatives?

Well, Karl Rove has been stealing presidential elections since 2000, and I had noticed a racketeering claim against him and Tom Donahue at the Chamber of Commerce, who was his partner in this activity in 2008, and there was an immediate tip that Karl Rove had threatened a key witness that I had identified, Mike Connell, and then Mike Connell was assassinated on December 19th (which was about six weeks after I took his deposition) where he had been instructed to take the fall for the theft of the 2004 election in Ohio, and he had been set up to take the fall by the documents, and when I took his deposition he did *not* take the fall. And that’s why he was assassinated. Beverly Campbell, I had represented her since 2006 as a lawyer in election litigation. She was dating this guy who was high-level CIA since at least 2008 and he was giving her all kinds of information, I mean, they were intimate and he was feeding her all kinds of information including the fact that he was killing people and he was torturing people, and he was very candid in the things he was telling her. He was also telling her, “If you share this information, I’ll kill you and also your two sons.” So, she, being scared for her life, told me this information and told me the password to access her information in case something were to happen to her. So, this year, we had had a meeting on January 15th, and I have reason to believe our meetings, as best they could, they were monitoring them — our meetings, generally, we would try to be in a place where they couldn’t monitor them — anyway, the subject was getting information to Joe Biden, for whom she had worked on his campaign, and he had endorsed her two runs for the State House here in Ohio, so they were friends. We were both friends with his top political person, a guy named Greg Schultz. So that was the conversation, and after she had died suddenly — and she was in good health — her doctors expressed amazement that she died, ya know, high blood pressure, hypertension, it was too… too, uh…

Too much of an anomaly?

It was too pat, ya know, she’s sitting in a chair with the blood pressure thing around her arm with a number of high readings. The autopsy doesn’t show anything, and of course there are techniques for killing people that will not show up in an autopsy. So, as we’re going along in this election of 2016 Democratic Primary, I’m getting all these reports of wild, absolutely wild, off-the-charts fraud. So then I’m corresponding with Karl Rove’s attorney, with whom I had issued a subpoena to against Karl Rove back in 2010, so I know the guy and I’m saying, ya know, “Tell Karl I have irrefutable evidence that Karl is applying his considerable talents the rigging of these elections, so please instruct your client not to do this in Ohio.” So then Ohio comes and there’s a 10-point variance between what the exit-polls say was the vote and what the recorded vote is, so it was rigged big time in Ohio. So as I’m continuing to work on this, I have other inside witnesses who are telling me there’s a new technology developed by Mikey Cunnyngham, who’s the traditional guy used by Rove for rigging elections, and he had developed this new technology to use in this primary for the first time. I had come to the conclusion that [Campbell] was assassinated, so I was trying to get the information to Joe Biden and the President before they give their speeches on Wednesday at the convention.

You must be feeling that you’re at risk yourself at this point. Do you feel that this was a bold move to post this online for the public to see? Have you been feeling at risk or have you witnessed anything happening to you personally?

I’ve had clients assassinated, my lead plaintiff in our challenge to the 2004 election, before we asked the Supreme Court was assassinated. The woman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, who we asked to make the challenge on the floor of the Congress, she was assassinated.

How was she assassinated?

She was just driving along, she was in perfectly good health, ya know, an incredible person in all respects, former U.S. Attorney, former judge and U.S. Congresswoman, the top congresswoman in Cleveland, and she was just driving her car and had some sort of aneurysm or something and dies. Ya know, in Detroit, in the days of organized crime activity, there was something that they just put on the steering wheel that would cause a heart attack or a sudden illness, and it was so extensively used that people wouldn’t touch their steering wheels without gloves on. There are techniques for assassination that have been very well-developed which obviously are in play here. Bev Campbell was telling me the techniques of torture and assassination that her high-level CIA guy was telling her about and my client who had formerly worked for Karl Rove was telling me about this stuff and she goes back a long way.. Assassinations are something that we have done that either our rogue CIA or real CIA frequently do. So I formed the opinion, and by expressing the opinion, under oath, in contemplation of the fact that I have been threatened, what I’m doing is protecting myself because if they kill me some other lawyer can take my statement and use it as evidence in a case. So, that’s the reason to making it public is to protect myself. So do I feel threatened? I know I’ve been threatened, but I believe I’m taking reasonable steps to protect myself, and the main one is to get the information out so that it would survive my death, which takes away the incentive to kill me.

What many people would have trouble with is these methods of assassination. When it comes to Joe Biden’s son, the official story is that he died of brain cancer. How do you fake brain cancer? With the number of people that would be involved in faking that..

You have to realize that there is a science to assassinations, there’s a science to torture as well, and it’s been going on for years and years and years, and after World War II, the Nazis developed this stuff and we continued to develop it, in terms of diseases, in terms of biological agents, and there’s all sorts of techniques to induce heart attacks, brain aneurysms, cancer, it’s all within their bag of tricks. They have technology that has been developed that can disrupt your mind, play with your brain **PHONE DISTORTS AND CUTS OUT HERE, THEN BACK IN** ya know, Bev believed that Joe Biden’s son had been assassinated and she believed that Biden suspected it also. Bev saw me as someone that she trusts and that’s why I shared it. The other thing I shared with Obama, this guy boasting that they had intimidated Obama by showing him the Zapruder film. I dunno if you’ve seen the film, but there’s fire, an explosion in his throat and his brains are blown out the back of his head. And his wife is witnessing this. It’s the combination of not just watching it himself but his wife and kids and the trauma of his head being blown off. And this same technique was used with a guy named Robert Vance, who was on the 11th circuit court of appeals, where they delivered a package to his home before Christmas in 1989 and the package looks like it’s sent by one of his colleagues on the bench. So he takes the package from the front door, and opens the package in the kitchen with this wife, and his head is blown off with his wife watching. So these are two major assassinations that have taken place.

I don’t know if you’ve read the book, James Douglass’ JFK and The Unspeakable and it’s irrefutable the case that he makes where exactly how that assassination takes place, all the dynamics of it in terms of Allen Dulles being the guiding hand and so forth, and then in this assassination of Robert Vance, I have an investigator who investigated that and he knows who did it, who planned it, who orchestrated it, and how it was covered up with a patsy, a guy name Walter Moody is used as a fall guy. Every member of the federal judiciary knew that that was an organized conspiracy because letters were being sent to all the courts in the country threatening them. It was designated as a political assassination conspiracy by the FBI at the time. It was not prosecuted as such but it was known as that. These are facts and they were covered up. What is the effect of covering these things up? The assassins go on to do other things. They have lots of money, they continue to be employed in criminal activity and we have a corrupt process. One of the things that struck me about the 2004 presidential election, and the rigging of that, was that the guy that the high-level CIA person had communicated to us who wrote the software for the rigging of that election was a guy named Buck Rivel who had been part of the cover up of the JFK assassination, he has a security firm now. So the consequence of failing to investigate and prosecute these political crimes is that they just continue.

People are absolutely on your side regarding the rigging of the election. But I think once you get into these assassinations, I’m sure this is not the first time you’ve heard someone telling you this, but you start falling into the realm of conspiracy theory and I wonder what you plan to do to prove these assassinations?

I don’t have to prove that, what I have to prove is the election stealing, which I can do. The reason it’s important to make people aware of the assassinations is that that is the cover-up. Another one of my witnesses, there was another attempt on her life. Now if I lose all my inside witnesses then I can’t prove my election case. And they know that, I know that, and one of the ways to protect my ability to prove the election stealing is to make the public aware of the assassination business so that perhaps there will be some protection. Having the FBI director as corrupt, he might as well be viewed as the conciliary of the global criminal cabal that’s behind all this stuff. So here’s the guy who’s supposed to be investigating the crime and he’s part of the crime, he’s an actor in the crime, he has a real conflict of interest. And the attorney general has a real conflict of interest, and the President has a gun to his head in effect. So, I don’t know what to say, you talk about assassinations you get labeled a conspiracy theorist, but if I don’t talk about assassinations then they just keep doing it, keep getting away with it, and the cover-up goes on. That is the key to the cover-up: no potential witnesses where they could testify.

What are your views on this Election Justice USA report that just came out, this 100-page report with all the evidence of election fraud?

It has some good stuff in there, but it doesn’t have the evidence that really takes the story to the truth. The truth is that there’s a new technology that’s been developed. Historically the election stealing has been in the range of 6 points. You look at the 2004 presidential election: the deviation from the exit-poll was 6 points, but now you get to the primary of 2016 and they’re in the range of 25-33 points. And how in the world can that happen? The explanation is that there’s a new technology that’s being applied where they’re not just switching votes but they’re destroying votes. They’re taking the identified Bernie voters and they’re destroying those votes. The people who are sophisticated and familiar with all this stuff, they’re wondering wether the 25-33%, is that the limit with this new technique or is it greater?

I’m 36 years old and I grew up watching these elections being rigged, and it was always pretty obvious and I always wanted to see more from people like you, so I gotta thank you, not just from myself but on behalf on the thousands of people who have been betrayed by the DNC and the BOEs.

What amazes me is that they’ve gone so overboard and have gotten so conspicuous. My wife and I went to one of these Bernie rallies, and this thing was only announced only two days before the rally, and there were 10 thousand people showing up. I don’t know if you’ve gone, but we’re standing around and talking to people there, and you have a sense of the passion and the moral force that is there. I don’t know this personally, but I was told that when Bernie did a rally at Rutgers University, I think it was, there was something like 5 – 10 thousand people there, but when Hillary did an event about a week later and she had Bon Jovi and there was only like a couple hundred people [laughs]. And when you have this kind of contrast, in terms of the contributions, in terms of people showing up at the rallies, are we supposed to believe that Bernie didn’t win at the ballot box?!

There’s also speculation now, after seeing Bernie the day of endorsing her through the last day of the DNC convention and seeing on the side of his face, it looks like he has a bruise and a cut. People are speculating that they even threatened his family and beat him up in order to endorse her. Is that something that you would subscribe to?

I believe it because I wrote a letter, I dunno if you’ve seen all my letters, but I wrote two letters to Attorney General Lynch, I wrote one letter to Bernie, and I wrote the letter to the President, and I wrote a letter to **INAUDIBLE** Anyway, in one of the letters I say that he had won and that there’s all this drumbeat for Hillary because of the reported victory of Hillary. Look at the Washington Post at all these stories about how Bernie was being ego-driven by not conceding and costing the tax-payers for $30,000 a day for secret service protection, and then when he dropped it they’re advertising that he no longer has secret service protection! And this is for a man that’s polling top in the country of any candidate to be the next president. It’s an invitation for a nutcase or any assassin to take out the guy that’s most likely to be the next president. And they probably had someone punch him probably threaten his granddaughter. This guy who I was telling you about, this CIA guy that was intimate with Beverly Campbell, he told her about how effective it was to persuade some peasant in South America they were trying to torture him, he said all they had to do was use liquid phosphorus on his daughters arm and he just burned her arm off, and then he had complete cooperation. These people are, ya know, this is big time stuff. These are people who don’t say, “torture doesn’t work,” — they know how, they’ve perfected the art of torture. Someone may resist the pain themselves, but you start talking about any harm coming to a grandchild or a child, you tear somebody apart. It’s beyond the ability of a normal human being to not concede whatever it is you’re trying to get. You punch him and you make some subtle threat against his life and the life of his grandchild, and I think that’s what they did.

Now, when you say “they”, do you mean the OpSec of Karl Rove?

Karl Rove was carrying George H. W. Bush’s bag when he was director of the CIA, and he became familiar during that tenure with the CIA operations around the world. He’s familiar with the election rigging, the assassinations and all that stuff, there was investigations of the Church Committee and the Pike Committee, that’s where this stuff came out. We were planning the assassination of Castro and others through disease. There’s a book called Drugs as Weapons Against Us, and it talks about how they use drugs to assassinate and neutralize people, mainly entertainers. Paul Robeson, they used LSD to basically destroy him. This was a black guy, he was an all American at Rutgers, football, goes to Columbia at law school, graduates, joins a firm and he meets with a client who says “I won’t have a black guy as my lawyer”, so he quits and goes into drama, singing, arts, and I think he knew like 20 languages, becomes an international figure, he’s highly revered and he has an incredible voice, and he’s in Moscow and he gets into a party where LSD is all over the place, laced, and they get him into a position where his mind has been affected by it, and they get him into a facility in London and do all kinds of things to him and they basically fried his brain.

Do you think this is similar to what could have happened to Joe Biden’s son?

No, I think they have technology for creating cancer pretty quickly, that’s what they did. Didn’t Ted Kennedy die from brain cancer as well? The best book to check out is JFK And The Unspeakable. The guy is absolutely phenomenal. The first reading, it’s like you’re reading the bible. This guy was like me, he was politically conscious at the time that this stuff was going on, that is the assassination of Kennedy, and he didn’t suspect for a minute the reality that’s going on that he discusses and reveals in the book, and when I finished it I go, “How in the world did I go to a liberal college where they’re supposed to be people who are the first tier of political knowledge and understanding of all this, and I went to Harvard Law School where the Archibald Cox was Kennedy’s labor lawyer, this is Kennedy’s school, but NO ONE talked about how there’s a conspiracy within the government, and rogue agencies and so on. That’s a powerful book that will change your view of the world, you’ll never let somebody cause you to dismiss something as a conspiracy theory. Ya know, we wouldn’t have organized crime statutes all over the place, we wouldn’t have conspiracy laws if there were not really conspiracies. The reason we have powerful anti-racketeering laws is because, when you organize on a massive scale to commit crime, and part of your crime your ownership of the law enforcement people, the judges and the politicians, you got a real problem. And now they own the press!

Yeah, they’re putting out polls that aren’t even including millenials, and these are official polls and we’re supposed to believe them? There’s obviously a lot of funny business going on and I think the problem is that people are just accepting it and not questioning what’s going on. People like you are doing a serious service to the public, so I gotta thank you again. Is there any timeline for when we can see your case actually come to fruition, or?

The plan is to file the case as soon as I can, and it’s going to be expidited because it’s an election case. Under the law, an election cases goes to the top of the docket. So where normally somebody files a lawsuit and they say yeah all these lawsuits it’s gonna take years, if you have an election case everything is compressed in time, everything happens very quickly. Think of it this way: if you know who the perpetrators are and you notice their deposition, what are they gonna say? If they take the 5th amendment, you’re halfway there because taking the 5th amendment it suggests that they are worried about being proven by their own mouths that they are involved in organized crime. They’re not entitled to secrecy, so this is a deposition, they get asked the question, they take the 5th amendment, and the people that are deathly afraid of being deposed are Karl Rove, Mikey Cunningham, Tom Donahue, Hillary Clinton.

Sounds like she was already interviewed by the FBI and that went in her favor, so, heh…

Well I guarantee you nobody asked her about this election. To his credit, George W. Bush allowed two special prosecutors to go after Karl Rove after he was out of the White House on the firing of U.S. attorneys for political reasons and on the exposing of Valerie Plame as a CIA person, but no one has ever gone after Karl Rove, other than me, for election stealing. And now I have, heh, such an abundance of facts.. The practical standpoint that things we can go over in a very short time simply by aggressive discovery, which we will do. And once it is clear that this election was rigged, then I believe that what’s gonna happen is the Democratic party, “Well we can’t proceed with the candidate that was designated on fraudulant votes, so we need to rethink this and regroup.”

So you’re saying right now there really is no timeline, you’re just working through it the best you can.

Exactly, well part of it is that things happen, for example, we have infiltration in our community. Through infiltration, we get our funds cut off. Without our funds, essential witnesses who are basically working on the basis of survival level of compensation, can’t be paid. So on the one hand we say, “well, gee, that inhibits our ability to proceed in a timely fashion”, but on the other hand what it does is show us who our enemies are. It’s additional evidence of who our conspirators are. So, everything is happening as it should and I believe we’re gonna prevail. And the evidence, in terms of the reality of what people have experienced as part of this Bernie campaign, if you give them the explanation, you give them the facts, it’ll be like the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union fell, it wasn’t by violence, it wasn’t by a lawsuit, it was by a change of consciousness that brought people out that said, “We don’t want this military domination, we don’t want it!” And it changed overnight, and I think that’s what’s gonna happen in this election.

Have you reached out to Election Justice USA or any other lawyers bringing election fraud cases in the U.S.?

Yeah, I’ve been in conversation with some of the top lawyers around the country.

And have you received any good feedback, any good responses from any of them, or you still kinda working solo here?

No no, I have been working with top, and I mean VERY TOP lawyers in terms of what’s going on, and… It’s gonna happen.


Here’s hoping! 

Zachary Paul
Zachary Paul is an independent investigative journalist living in New York City.

IRS Officially Investigating Clinton Foundation

While everyone was distracted by the Democratic Convention last week, 64 Republican congressmen’s request that the IRS investigate the Clinton Foundation was granted.

The IRS, a non-partisan government organization tasked with collecting taxes from U.S. citizens, has a special office for exempt operations like the Clinton Foundation, a non-governmental organization (NGO) who touts itself as the premier charity to the world. IRS Commissioner John Koskinen had referred congressional charges of corruption by 64 House Republicans on Tuesday, July 26th during the Democratic National Convention, which was too busy dealing with Bernie-or-Bust protesters and the Wikileaks dump of DNC emails the weekend prior to the convention. Clinton Foundation “pay-to-play” activities, a form of indirect bribery, seem to be the ultimate charge.

The request to investigate the Clinton Foundation on charges of “public corruption” was originally made in a letter to the FBI, FTC and IRS on July 15th this year, but only the IRS picked up the investigation. This could prove particularly difficult for the Clinton campaign for presidency after already dealing with an FBI investigation regarding Hillary’s email server for which she illegitimately used to handle classified information. The initiative is being driven by Tennessee Representative Marsha Blackburn (R) who serves as vice chairwoman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which happens to oversee the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC also happens to regulate public charities with the help of the IRS. The IRS investigation could be the first step in getting to the truth about whether or not the Clinton Foundation is as corrupt as Hillary’s opponents have been asserting for years.

In the letter to the IRS, the congressmen charged that,

“The [Clinton] Foundation’s filings with the IRS for 501(c)(3) status appear to prohibit much of its current activity. The Foundation submitted its application to the IRS on December 23 1997. The description of its ‘activities and operational information’ notes that it would construct a library, maintain a historical site with records, and engage in study and research. No mention is made of conducting activities outside of the United States, which is one of the codes included in the IRS ‘Application for Recognition of Exemption’ in effect at the time (See activity code 910). As a result the Foundation’s global initiatives appear to be unlawful persuant to IRS guidance.”

Blackburn recently told Fox News, “There sure is a lot of money going through there and it seems the contributions would touch on Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. It is a hub of some kind of activity and let’s leave it to the IRS, the FBI and the FTC to discern exactly what that is.”

However, as Western Journalism has pointed out, the letter gives a solid starting point for investigation, beginning with Laureate International Universities, who paid former President Bill Clinton an estimated $16.5 million dollars over a five-year term to be Laureate’s “honorary chancellor” while USAID gave over $55 million in grants to the International Youth Foundation, a separate entity run by Laureate’s chairman, Douglas Becker, during the years od 2010 – 2012, while Hillary was Secretary of State (2008 – 2012). Bill Clinton recently resigned from his position at Laureate International Universities.

What may be even more damning of the Clinton’s crony capitalism at work is the Clinton Foundation’s connection to a Russian uranium company named Uranium One, the letter says. Uranium One donated several amounts of money adding up to around $23 million, according to an article by the New York Times’ Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, yet the Clinton Foundation never reported the donations.

But it doesn’t stop there..

Most recently, the Justice Department had indicted congresswoman Corrine Brown (D) of Florida for using over $800,000 in donations as a “personal slush fund”. Brown is also a super delegate who supports Hillary Clinton in Clinton’s bid for presidency and has been a member of the Hillary Clinton Leadership Council of Florida for some time now, and the House Republicans involved in this letter are using Brown as an example of someone who was rightfully indicted for misuse of charitable funds (it also doesn’t help that she had close ties to Hillary Clinton). In a parallel, but perhaps more largely scaled comparison, the Clinton Foundation received a reported $337 million in 2014 alone, most of which was received by foreign donors while weapons deals from the State department took place under Hillary Clinton.

100-Page Report Shows Staggering Evidence of Election Fraud in Democratic Primary

A recent report from Election Justice USA shows as many as 184 delegates were stolen from Bernie Sanders due to election fraud in the Democratic Primary

While it’s unclear whether the super delegates would have voted for Sanders, the EJUSA report does make one thing clear: Bernie Sanders won the majority of pledged delegates in the Democratic Primary at 2030 to Hillary Clinton’s 2021.

These numbers were arrived at by EJUSA’s intensive research and verification into claims of voter suppression, unintended party affiliation changes, heavy voter purging, and registrations never being honored by the Board of Elections in various counties throughout the U.S. during the Democratic Primary. In some cases, signatures were even forged on party affiliation documents and evidence of computer hacking being involved has come to light.

In the following excerpt from the executive summary of the report, EJUSA explains how as many as 184 delegates should have gone to Sanders:

Election Justice USA has established an upper estimate of 184 pledged delegates lost by Senator Bernie Sanders as a consequence of specific irregularities and instances of fraud. Adding these delegates to Senator Sanders’ pledged delegate total and subtracting the same number from Hillary Clinton’s total would more than erase the 359 pledged delegate gap between the two candidates. EJUSA established the upper estimate through exit polling data, statistical analysis by precinct size, and attention to the details of Democratic proportional awarding of national delegates. Even small changes in vote shares in critical states like Massachusetts and New York could have substantially changed the media narrative surrounding the primaries in ways that would likely have had far reaching consequences for Senator Sanders’ campaign.

For the executive summary and the full report, please visit Election Justice USA’s Facebook page regarding the issue. For posterity, we made a backup of the report as well. The original location of the report is on google drive.

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.

FBI Director Says No Criminal Charges Against Hillary Clinton

Just hours before Hillary Clinton’s first joint campaign appearance with President Obama, FBI director James B. Comey stated that he does not recommend criminal charges against the former Secretary of State.

Despite calling Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server for classified emails “extremely careless”, Comey said today that he does not recommend filing criminal charges against the presumptive Democratic nominee. Comey said that an ordinary government official could have faced at least an administrative sanction. He also said there was no evidence that she or her lawyers had intentionally deleted or withheld any emails.

The FBI questioned Clinton on Saturday, only a couple days after it was reported that former president Bill Clinton had held a meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch who is responsible for the government’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails. Lynch later said she would take the FBI’s lead on whether or not to prosecute Hillary.

Hillary had denied that her husband’s meeting with Lynch had anything to do with the email investigation, but critics are extremely skeptical. Not only has Hillary withheld transcripts from speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs, but she even withheld roughly 50,000 pages of emails that she claimed were personal and had nothing to do with work, according to the New York Times.