Monday 31 October 2016

Why the U.S. presidential election has the entire world confused

Well, everyone thought it was a sure thing — Hillary Clinton had the White House in the bag; the entire political system from the DNC to the RNC and the mainstream media had already called the election over and done. Online gambling sites listed Clinton as a sure bet and Irish site Paddy Power even paid out one million dollars on the assumption of a Clinton win.  And then one Weiner ruined everything — Anthony Weiner.

The revelation of an October surprise re-opening of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s misuse of classified data on private and vulnerable email servers does not come as a shock to me, but it certainly does to many people around the world.  Hundreds of mainstream outlets are scrambling to spin the news as misconduct by the FBI rather than a victory for the halls of justice.  Numerous alternative media analysts are rushing to cover their butts and admit that there is now a “chance” of a Trump win.  Confusion reigns supreme as the weirdest election in U.S. history continues to bewilder observers.

The first issue that needs to be addressed is the lack of an open mind displayed by some when it comes to the real purpose behind this election.  The second issue here, of course, is one of timing.

Through the majority of this election cycle the public consensus has been that Clinton will win. Some argued that Trump would not be able to compete with the leftist media empire standing against him, while others have argued that the entire system including the Republican establishment would ensure that Trump would fail.  The alternative media has in the past simply pointed out that elections have always been rigged, either by the elites playing both sides of the competition, or through outright voter fraud.  They have assumed that the elites want Clinton, and therefore, the election has already been decided.

I tend to agree with the latter point of view, though I disagree with the conclusion.  U.S. elections are indeed controlled, and have been for decades, primarily through the false left/right paradigm.  However, as I have been pointing out since I correctly predicted the success of the Brexit referendum, I don’t think that Clinton is the choice of the elites.

I outline my reasons for this conclusion in-depth in articles like 2016 will end with economic instability and a Trump presidency published in August.  For the past several months it seems as though I have been the only person holding the view that Trump will be president.  Only in the past few days have I received emails from readers stating that they used to think I was probably crazy, but now they aren’t so sure…

Of course, the election is not over yet, and if Clinton ends up soiling the already thoroughly soiled Oval Office with her presence, then everyone can color me confused as well.  That said, here are some issues that I think many people are overlooking when coming to conclusions on the election and the events surrounding it.

Clinton is the worst candidate the elites could have chosen

I have been studying the activities and behaviors of establishment elites for over a decade and I have to say… they are not stupid.  They certainly have hubris, and I would not call them “wise,” but they are definitely devious.  They know how to rig a game.  They know how to cheat to get what they want when it comes to politics and how to manufacture consent from portions of the public.  They’ve been doing it a long time.  They have mastered it.

So, in my view it is rather insane for the elites to field a candidate such as Hillary Clinton if the entirety of their globalist empire hangs in the balance.  Though she is fond of BleachBit, the woman is unbleachable.  With a decades-long rap sheet from her work at Rose Law Firm (in which document destruction and “misplacement” was apparently routine) to her interference with investigations into Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions, to the strange odyssey surrounding her lies on the Benghazi attack, as well as her rampant mishandling of classified documents as head of the state department, not to mention the Clinton Foundation’s pay to play scandals, it is impossible to endear her to the masses.  Her dismal crowd turnouts are rather indicative of this.

On top of all this, Clinton’s anti-Russia rhetoric is coming off as absolutely crazy, and I think this is by design.  Many in the alternative media forget that the average person may not be up to speed on the same information we are, but most of them aren’t ignorant.  Clinton’s ravings on Russian hacking and potential war are even putting liberals off rather than inspiring their confidence.

One would think that if the elites have their veritable pick of any politician to represent their interests in the White House and convince the American public to go along for the ride, Clinton would be the worst choice. Even if the intention were to rig the election in favor of Clinton, she would be a lame-duck president the second she took office, and, her mere presence would galvanize conservatives to the point of mass rebellion.

This is not generally how the elites play the game.  Instead, they prefer co-option to direct confrontation.

Which president is better for the elites during an economic breakdown?

Those that follow the underlying economic data that the mainstream tends to ignore know that large swaths of the global financial system are not long for this world. With Europe’s banking system plunging towards a Lehman-style event, the OPEC production freeze deal ready to fall apart yet again, and the Federal Reserve threatening to raise rates into recessionary conditions in December, our already floundering fiscal structure is approaching another crisis.

My questions has always been who would the elites rather have in office when this crisis occurs?  I’ve said it a hundred times before and I’ll say it again here: with Clinton in office, globalists and international financiers get the blame for any economic downturn.  With Trump in office, conservative movements will be blamed.  In fact, I suggest anyone who doubts this scenario watch stock market reactions every time Trump rises in the polls or Clinton faces renewed scandal.  The narrative is already being prepared — a Trump win equals a market loss.

The FBI’s move prepares the way for Trump

Clinton and the DNC argue that FBI Director James Comey’s announcement of a re-opened investigation is politically motivated.  And they are right, sort of.  The real motivation, I believe, is that Clinton was never meant to win the election, and that the elites want Trump in place during the final hours of the U.S. economy.  Everything else is just theater.

The democrats are crying foul and accusing Comey of “working with Putin,” or working with the alt-right.  The nefarious Harry Reid has even accused the FBI of hiding Trump’s supposed ties to the Russian government and violating the Hatch Act.

I think much of this outrage is real, as I believe much of the mainstream media attacks on Trump are coming from people who really think they are waging a propaganda war to get Hillary Clinton elected.  This, however, does not mean that the elites plan to install Clinton.

Some might see my position as bizarre.  I understand.  But equally bizarre to me are some of the rationalizations people attempt to argue when dealing with the Comey revelation.

For example, the argument that the entire re-opening of the investigation is a complex ploy designed by the establishment to distract away from the Wikileaks data dumps.  This makes little sense.  If anything, the re-opening investigation is only bringing more attention to the Wikileaks data, not less.  If the elites were hoping to create a distraction, they failed miserably.

The FBI’s announcement only harms the Clinton campaign.  Period.  Even if it fizzles out, even if they announce that nothing was found, the investigation hitting the news streams so close to election day refocuses all public attention back on Clinton’s corruption and will continue to do so for the next week at least.  The idea that the elites hope to use it to help Clinton is absurd.

I have also seen the argument that Comey is acting to cover his own posterior, perhaps because of a fear that Trump may steal away a victory.  I find this equally absurd. Months back the consensus among alternative analysts was that Comey was a traitor and the FBI was a puppet agency of the establishment.  Now, suddenly, Comey is worried about a possible Trump win and so takes an action which might self-fulfill the prophecy?

Comey does what he is told.  The FBI is an owned and operated elitist franchise.  They do not go rogue.  If the rogue FBI narrative were true and Comey actually feels the need to cover his bases with Trump, then it is only because he knows something the rest of us do not.  With Clinton in office, his goose would be cooked after this little incident.  Comey only gains advantage if Trump is slated to win.

Trump may or may not be aware of the plan

The bottom line, according to the evidence I have seen in terms of elitists influence over U.S. elections, is that if Trump wins it will only be because they wanted him to win. The FBI firestorm this past week  appears to support my view and we still have another week left for further Clinton ugliness to be revealed.  I also expect that if Trump wins, the reaction from conservatives and liberty activists will be that the event was a “miracle,” a shocking upset against the establishment.  Much like the reaction to the Brexit referendum.  I continue to hold that conservatives and sovereignty champions in Europe and America are being set up to take the fall for a coming global destabilization.

My position is truly the losing position, if one thinks about it honestly.  If Clinton wins then I’ll probably never hear the end of it, and that’s a risk that has to be taken, because what I see here is a move on the chess board that others are not considering.  If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong.

That said, if I am right, then I still lose, because Trump supporters and half the liberty movement will be so enraptured that they will probably ignore the greater issue — that Trump is the candidate the elites wanted all along.  It may be like the days of George W. Bush all over again, when people accused me of being a “liberal” for my criticisms.

If I am right, I cannot say either way if Trump is aware that he will be a potential scapegoat for the elites.  With Trump on the way to the White House I can guarantee a Fed rate hike in December.  Imagine what a staged war between Trump and the Federal Reserve will do to the U.S. dollar?  I also suspect that widespread rioting is on the schedule as well from various social justice mobs; a perfect excuse for expansive martial law measures, don’t you think?

The point is, as horrifying as a Clinton presidency might be to conservatives (or everyone), don’t get too comfortable under Trump.  The party is just getting started and our vigilance must be even greater with a conservative White House, because, like it or not, everything Trump does is going to reflect on us.  We can no more allow unconstitutional activities under Trump than we could under Clinton.  If you think the election has been chaotic and confusing, just wait until after it is over.

— Brandon Smith

The post Why the U.S. presidential election has the entire world confused appeared first on Personal Liberty®.


from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/why-the-u-s-presidential-election-has-the-entire-world-confused/




from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/why-the-u-s-presidential-election-has-the-entire-world-confused/

Kasich votes for another Republican instead of Trump

(THE HILL) — John Kasich has made good on his vow not to vote for Donald Trump.

The Ohio governor voted today by absentee ballot, writing in the name of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) instead of the Republican presidential nominee.

Kasich voted for the GOP candidates in other contests, according to his spokesman Chris Schrimpf.


from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/kasich-votes-for-another-republican-instead-of-trump/




from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/kasich-votes-for-another-republican-instead-of-trump/

1 final message for conservatives from Phyllis Schlafly

 

Phyllis Schlafly

Phyllis Schlafly

No woman has so defined the American conservative movement. No organizer has been as feared by her adversaries. No conservative has left such a remarkable legacy.

Phyllis Schlafly died this year at the age of 92, but her legacy lives on. And the legendary soldier of the American right left one final message for conservatives before she went to her reward: It’s time to go all out for Donald J. Trump.

“The revolution to take back America starts now!” proudly declares “The Conservative Case for Trump.”

In her final work, Schlafly linked the Trump candidacy to the book that first launched her into national politics, “A Choice, Not An Echo,” which famously attacked the “kingmakers” of the Republican Eastern establishment.

Schlafly saw the struggle between Trump and his elitist opponents as the last battle in the war she waged from 1952 to 2016, fighting against a Republican leadership she charged was selling out the conservative grassroots.

However, “The Conservative Case for Trump” and the election of 2016 is different, because Schlafly had to confront two other challenges.

First, Schlafly’s last book lays out the case for Trump to grassroots conservatives, many of whom initially supported Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and some of whom continue to question Trump’s conservative credentials. Second, Schlafly argued the stakes of the 2016 election are nothing short of existential, with American survival, sovereignty and identity on the ballot.

“I know that some well-meaning conservatives find Trump puzzling or even offensive, but I trust that this book – the culmination, for me, of more than seventy years of active involvement in Republican politics – might help sway them,” Schlafly wrote.

She pleads with conservatives to understand how the GOP “has proven ineffectual at stopping Obama” and that the historic American nation will not survive another Democrat in the White House.

“President Obama’s effort to fundamentally transform America is on the brink of success – despite our having elected Republican majorities in both houses of Congress,” she said.

It’s a bracing message for frustrated conservative voters who have delivered the Republican Party years, if not decades, of political victories. And yet day by day, year by year, election cycle by election cycle, conservative, patriotic Americans see their culture disintegrating, their traditions mocked, their history deconstructed and the power of the federal government increasing exponentially. The only solution, wrote Schlafly, is nothing short of a political revolution.

“Donald Trump is obviously not Ronald Reagan – no one else is – but I do sincerely believe that Donald Trump can remake our politics as Reagan did, give the Republican Party what has eluded them in five of the last six presidential elections – an electoral college and popular vote majority – and provide dramatic conservative reform,” Schlafly said.

Celebrate the life of one of the greatest Americans in history with the collected works of conservative legend Phyllis Schlafly. From “A Choice Not An Echo,” to her final work, “The Conservative Case For Trump,” they’re available now in the WND Superstore. A great gift for the Christmas season… or for Election Day!

As polls continue to tighten, Schlafly’s postmortem prophecy seems more likely than ever before. Trump is within 2 points in the state of Pennsylvania, a tempting target for Republicans, and within 1 point in the critical swing state of Colorado. Trump also leads in North Carolina and Florida.

But as Schlafly’s book reminds conservatives, Republicans shouldn’t need to worry about winning every single battleground state. The veteran political organizer, in a bittersweet passage, reminiscences how the bluest of blue states, California, was once the launching pad for the Reagan Revolution. And Schlafly’s dire warning needs to be internalized by every conservative who wants the Republican Party to remain viable in a changing America which, absent massive policy shifts, will soon resemble the Third World.

“The prime motivation behind the left’s support for open borders is not to welcome the oppressed … it is a systematic effort to reshape the demographics of the American electorate for the benefit of the Democratic Party,” Schlafly charged. “The model is California, which, largely through immigration, has been transformed from the ‘Reagan Country’ I well remember to the majority minority far left state it is today.”

Her last message warns conservatives that what happened to California presages what will happen to the rest of the country unless there is a President Donald J. Trump in January 2017. In “The Conservative Case for Trump,” Schlafly presents Trump’s immigration policies in detail and urges swift implementation.

“If we’re going to turn this thing around, we have to do it fast,” she approvingly quotes Trump.

While many grassroots conservatives have embraced the Schlafly/Trump position on immigration, the veteran organizer’s last book challenges conservative movement orthodoxy on so-called free trade. “The Conservative Case for Trump” defies corporate America’s support for international trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and calls for the conservative movement to oppose any surrender of American sovereignty. Instead of championing big business, Schlafly told conservatives to stand with American workers.

“Before Donald Trump, there had been no effective national political spokesman for the American worker,” she said. “Now there is.”

In her last book, Schlafly also forthrightly addressed one of the topics that makes conservative uncomfortable – Trump’s tendency to put his foot in his mouth with his blunt pronouncements. But rather than seeing it as a weakness, Schlafly called it a strength. And she told conservatives to stop playing by the left’s rules and succumbing to the deadly taboo of political correctness.

“All politicians say stupid or offensive things, but Democrats – with the help of the Democrat-friendly media – brush their stupid comments aside and move on, while Republicans actually amplify their mistakes, criticizing their own in extreme terms, pandering to the political correctness of the left,” Schlafly wrote. “Like no president since Ronald Reagan, Trump will come into office with his own plan, his own agenda – one that pays no mind to the agenda of the political establishment or the enforcers of political correctness. He is quite happy to say what he thinks whether it is politically correct or not – and he will speak politically incorrect truths that no one else will say.”

B2242_The Conservative Case for Trump_mnSchlafly’s message is a powerful testimony to the conservative voters she fought for her entire life. And as Hillary Clinton is counting on so-called #NeverTrump conservatives to stay home so she can once again enter the White House, “The Conservative Case for Trump” is arguably the most important book during this most important of elections. The climax of one of the most influential lives in American history, “The Conservative Case for Trump” is a must for every conservative activist, every patriot concerned about America and everyone who wants to understand American politics at this extraordinary time.

Celebrate the life of one of the greatest Americans in history with the collected works of conservative legend Phyllis Schlafly. From “A Choice Not An Echo,” to her final work, “The Conservative Case For Trump,” they’re available now in the WND Superstore. A great gift for the Christmas season … or for Election Day!


from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/1-final-message-for-conservatives-from-phyllis-schlafly/




from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/1-final-message-for-conservatives-from-phyllis-schlafly/

FBI director: Hero or villain?

FBI Director James Comey announces July 5, 2016, his agency will not refer charges regarding Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information.

FBI Director James Comey

WASHINGTON – Is FBI Director James Comey a hero or a villain?

The question is the subject of intense debate in Washington right now, with Democrats such as Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., suggesting Comey may even be a criminal, if he violated the Hatch Act prohibiting government employees from influencing elections.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump had called Comey “a disgusting example” of the “rigged system” three months ago, but on Monday lauded the FBI director for having “a lot of guts” in doing “the right thing,” which “brought back his reputation.”

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Sen. Harry Reid, R-Nev.

But Comey isn’t entirely back in all Republicans’ good graces, as exemplified when former Rep. Michele Bachamann told WND, “Even Comey couldn’t cover up the facts. Too many investigators knew the truth.”

Comey was widely perceived as a hero to Democrats and a villain to Republicans in July, when he announced he would not recommend a criminal investigation into Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.

Those general perceptions reversed Friday when the FBI director informed Congress he is reopening the investigation, because of new evidence that emerged when the department discovered a reported 650,000 emails on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

What do YOU think? Is FBI Director James Comey a hero or villain? Sound off in today’s WND poll

Another possibility may be Comey is neither hero nor villain.

He could be at ground zero of a “series of political bungles,” as asserted in an article in Politico on Sunday by a speechwriter for former Attorney General Eric Holder.

One of the nation’s top legal authorities, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, wrote an article titled, “Yes, the fix was in,” in National Review on Sept. 13.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump

But, an article he wrote 11 days later seemed to indicate any fix originated in the Justice Department rather than Comey’s FBI.

McCarthy called it “very strange” that the Justice Department “reportedly gave top Clinton aide and confidant Cheryl Mills immunity from prosecution for any incriminating information located on her personal computer,” because, “In normal cases, the Justice Department does not grant immunity in exchange for evidence when it has lawful power to compel production of that evidence.”

McCarthy concluded, “It appears the Obama Justice Department’s goal was not to make a prosecutable case, but to make it appear that Hillary Clinton was ‘exonerated’ after a thorough FBI investigation.”

So, in an attempt to clarify the FBI director’s role in the Clinton email saga, WND asked McCarthy if Comey was a hero or a “fixer.”

“I don’t think Comey is either a hero or a fixer,” he replied.

But, McCarthy then pointed to where he believed Comey went wrong.

“He made a decision in July to depart from law-enforcement protocols and speak publicly about an investigation in which no charges were brought — including an unheard-of public recommendation against an indictment and pronouncement that the investigation was closed,” said the former federal prosecutor.

Andrew McCarthy

Andrew McCarthy

Later on Monday, McCarthy expanded on the theme that Comey made a mistake in going public in a National Review article that explained how the FBI “is not obligated to make recommendations about prosecution at all; its recommendations, if it chooses to make them, are not binding on the Justice Department; and when it does make recommendations, it does so behind closed doors, not on the public record.”

McCarthy explained to WND why he believed it was proper for Comey to make his announcement of the reopening of the case on Friday, even though he disagreed with the FBI director’s decision to go public in July.

“Whatever one thinks of that decision (my own view is that the director should have stuck to protocol), it is standard law-enforcement procedure that when an official makes a representation which becomes inaccurate when new facts emerge, the official is obliged to correct the record.”

In his article on Monday, McCarthy rebutted Democrats’ assertion that Comey’s Friday announcement was inappropriate because it could affect the presidential election.

“The Clinton camp is in no position to cry foul about anything. In announcing his recommendation against indictment, Comey not only gave Clinton the benefit of every doubt (preposterously so when one reads the FBI’s reports)” he wrote.

McCarthy spelled that out in more detail to WND, and why he believed Clinton had no real cause to complain, by explaining, “I’d also point out that Comey did not implicate Mrs. Clinton in any crimes in his letter last week.”

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton

“He simply said the investigation is still pending. That is a fact. Mrs. Clinton had no right to know the status of the investigation back in July, and she has no right to know it now.”

McCarthy put the onus back on Clinton, telling WND, “That’s the risk you run when you engage in egregious misconduct with criminal implications.”

Even though he disagreed with the FBI director’s judgment in making the July announcement, McCarthy noted, “The real problem here is not that Comey has spoken publicly; it is that Democrats chose to nominate someone who clearly merits a very thorough criminal investigation and quite possibly felony charges.”

Bachmann, who has two law degrees, had a more critical take on the FBI director, telling WND, “Sometimes reality is so bad, even FBI director Comey is incapable of covering it up.”

When WND asked Bachmann if Comey was a conspirator in a “fix” or a hero, she replied, “The only heroic acts are those of federal officials who do their job with a steady eye following the Constitution. Comey, (Attorney General Loretta) Lynch, and President Obama all owed a duty to the constitution and took an oath to follow the law and the evidence.”

She noted that Clinton deserved the protection of U.S. law, due process and the presumption of innocence.

But Bachmann maintained, “President Obama threw the investigation when he unequivocally publicly stated Hillary did nothing wrong in her official capacity. How could the president say that? The investigation was still underway.”

“He also said Hillary did not put American national security as risk, when clearly she did. According to FBI director Comey last July, Hillary was both negligent and reckless in handling classified materials,” she added.

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R- Minn.

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R- Minn.

The former congresswoman also scorched the Justice Department, telling WND, “Lynch thought so little of presenting a fair, unbiased review of the evidence, she thoughtlessly met privately with the target’s husband, former President Bill Clinton. This meeting was conducted in a way to deliberately mislead the public that it never happened.”

Instead of merely focusing on Comey, Bachmann saw plenty of blame to go around.

“All these injustices, these hidden things committed in darkness, are now unraveling.”

Bachmann portrayed Comey as having no option but to reopen the investigation.

“How can an FBI director ignore literally tens of thousands of emails stored on Hillary’s chief aide’s husband’s computer? Either Huma Abedin failed to hand over to the FBI all relevant evidence or someone withheld pertinent evidence.”

That’s when the former congresswoman did take direct aim at the FBI director, concluding,”Even Comey couldn’t cover up the facts, too many investigators knew the truth.”

But she also found reason to spread the blame around.

Huma Abedin

Huma Abedin

Bachmann blamed Clinton for creating her own problems: “That Hillary betrayed America’s most sensitive national security secrets in real time to our enemies on an ongoing basis for four years is now irrefutable.”

Bachmann blamed Clinton’s aide for taking part in a cover-up: “Huma Abedin claimed she wasn’t aware of Mrs. Clinton’s unsecure email server, yet it appears she knew about this unauthorized action from the inception.”

And, Bachmann blamed the commander in chief for being an accessory: “President Obama claims he wasn’t aware of Hillary’s server, yet 18 emails surfaced between the president and Mrs. Clinton. White House security wouldn’t know who the president emails?! Please. Don’t insult our intelligence.”

That’s when she summed up, “Sometimes reality is so bad, even FBI director Comey is incapable of covering it up.”

What do YOU think? Is FBI Director James Comey a hero or villain? Sound off in today’s WND poll


from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/fbi-director-hero-or-villain/




from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/fbi-director-hero-or-villain/

Campaign freakout: Comey now under investigation?

President Obama eats a hot dog while his wife, Michelle, looks on.

President Obama eats a hot dog while his wife, Michelle, looks on.

Democrats are in a panic as their presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, once again is under investigation by the FBI for her handling of classified information while she was U.S. secretary of state.

FBI Director James Comey on Friday informed members of Congress, as he had promised to do when he appeared before them in hearings, that new evidence had come to light and he was bound to investigate it.

Democrats immediately launched a coordinated attack, charging Comey violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits the use of an official government position to influence an election.

Now, a formal complaint has been filed with the Office of Special Counsel alleging Comey violated the Hatch Act when he informed members of Congress of the new developments.

Richard Painter, a lawyer in George W. Bush’s administration, filed the complaint.

The Office of Special Council declined to confirm whether a case has been opened, but spokesman Nick Schwellenbach told the London Guardian the usual procedure is to open a case after receiving a complaint.

What do YOU think? Is FBI Director James Comey a hero or villain? Sound off in today’s WND poll

“Should the OSC find Comey to have violated the Hatch Act,” the London paper said, “the relevant law determining any potential punishment for a Senate-confirmed presidential appointee – such as Comey – places authority for that decision with the president. Should Clinton win the presidency, she may find herself in a position to determine what the law calls ‘appropriate action’ for an FBI director who is slated to serve until 2023.”

Painter charged: “The FBI”s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election. Such acts could also be prohibited under the Hatch Act, which bars the use of an official position to influence an election. That is why the FBI presumably would keep those aspects of an investigation confidential until after the election.”

On Monday, Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, said Comey had promised in his sworn testimony before Congress to provide updates as they developed.

“He said he would update us,” said Gohmert. “I think at the time he said it, he probably did not anticipate that there was going to be any other developments sufficient to get him to pursue the case further.”

But months earlier, when President Obama defended and praised Clinton even while the first investigation was ongoing, discussions of Hatch Act violations were absent.

http://ift.tt/1UyqoPZ

if(typeof(jQuery)==”function”){(function($){$.fn.fitVids=function(){}})(jQuery)};
jwplayer(‘jwplayer_WZMBfkrY_pszPfxYQ_div’).setup(
{“playlist”:”http://ift.tt/2etlQYD”}
);

Long before Comey called Clinton’s handling of national security secrets “extremely careless” and then declined to recommend charges – Obama called Clinton “an outstanding secretary of state.”

“She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy,” he stated. “I continue to believe she’s not jeopardized national security.”

if(typeof(jQuery)==”function”){(function($){$.fn.fitVids=function(){}})(jQuery)};
jwplayer(‘jwplayer_Ompd8svN_pszPfxYQ_div’).setup(
{“playlist”:”http://ift.tt/2dWDkkc”}
);

Obama press secretary Josh Earnest when Obama endorsed Clinton to succeed him said that people doing the investigation “aren’t going to be swayed by political forces.”

Earnest affirmed Obama was encouraging prosecutors to reach “a logical conclusion.”

if(typeof(jQuery)==”function”){(function($){$.fn.fitVids=function(){}})(jQuery)};
jwplayer(‘jwplayer_qYtwcaFJ_pszPfxYQ_div’).setup(
{“playlist”:”http://ift.tt/2etlphi”}
);

But others, including Fox News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, said Obama is sending a subtle but clear message to investigators and prosecutors that he wants Clinton to be cleared on “potential espionage” and other allegations.

“He not only says to Comey and [Attorney General Loretta] Lynch I know you’re investigating somebody but I really want her to succeed me,” Napolitano said.

Agents, Napolitano said, would perceive that as “our boss wants [Clinton] to succeed him.”

“That’s called a conflict,” Napolitano said.

The Clinton campaign and the Democratic establishment is pouring criticism on Comey now months after praising him for not referring charges to the Justice Department. Four top Democratic senators have demanded a briefing from Comey, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has accused Comey of breaking the law to help elect Donald Trump.

The Clinton campaign, meanwhile, is soliciting statements from former federal prosecutors against Comey.

Sign the precedent-setting petition supporting Trump’s call for an independent prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton!

 


from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/campaign-freakout-comey-now-under-investigation/




from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/campaign-freakout-comey-now-under-investigation/

Gohmert explains why Comey had to notify Congress

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas

While many Democrats publicly fume at FBI Director James Comey and many Republicans sense political opportunity, a member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee tells WND and Radio America the letter was really Comey’s way of avoiding a perjury investigation against him in Congress.

On Friday, Comey sent a letter to several committee and subcommittee chairman and ranking members, informing them that new emails “pertinent to the investigation” had been discovered. Twice in the three-paragraph letter, Comey noted his duty to keep Congress up to speed on the case.

“Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony,” Comey stated.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, said this really boils down to Comey keeping his sworn promise to lawmakers given during testimony in the wake of the FBI refusing to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton.

“It is actually the director of the FBI avoiding lying to Congress. He said he would update us,” Gohmert told WND and Radio America. “I think at the time he said it, he probably did not anticipate that there was going to be any other developments sufficient to get him to pursue the case further.”

What do YOU think? Is FBI Director James Comey a hero or villain? Sound off in today’s WND poll

Shortly after the Comey letter was reported, sources within the FBI revealed that the newly discovered emails were found on a device belonging to Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y.

Gohmert said that is significant.

“If it’s true what we’re told that Weiner had emails that were for Huma Abedin, if any of those are classified, then Huma broke the law by allowing her husband – even though they’re married – to have access to those emails,” Gohmert explained.

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas:

http://ift.tt/1UyqoPZ

if(typeof(jQuery)==”function”){(function($){$.fn.fitVids=function(){}})(jQuery)};
jwplayer(‘jwplayer_6vXFwaMQ_pszPfxYQ_div’).setup(
{“playlist”:”http://ift.tt/2eVyZum”}
);

He said that arrangement also made both Weiner and Abedin ripe for blackmail.

“One of the reasons it’s so important for our high officials to be above reproach is the fact that, because Weiner was doing all this sexting, that kind of thing could have made him vulnerable to blackmail,” Gohmert said.

He said the impending Weiner-Abedin divorce could have put Abedin at the same risk.

“If he has emails that Huma should not have let him see, then she could be a target for blackmail,” Gohmert said. “If Hillary were elected, then Huma would be the closest confidante to the president of the United States but very vulnerable to blackmail.”

Gohmert is also struck by the Clinton team demanding the FBI reveal everything it has since this revelation comes so close to Election Day.

“It takes an awful lot of gall to say, in effect, ‘I thought I destroyed all of those emails. I demand to know what emails you have found because I thought I destroyed them all.’ Basically, it’s a bit of an admission of obstruction of justice,” Gohmert said.

The congressman is disappointed the Clinton investigation did not broaden  into a probe of Clinton Foundation activities and how they influenced Clinton’s decisions at the State Department.

“For heaven’s sake, when you’re allowing the sale of our uranium and it ends up going to Russia and our enemies, that’s pretty amazing,” Gohmert said. “None of that seemed to pique the interest. Some of us sure think it sounded like there may have been crimes involved. [It] certainly merited having a grand jury impaneled and at least [having] them look into these things.”

Sign the precedent-setting petition supporting Trump’s call for an independent prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton!

According to reports, the FBI did aggressively push for permission to investigate the Clinton Foundation, but it was forbidden from proceeding by the Justice Department. Gohmert said that proves nothing will happen to Hillary Clinton while Loretta Lynch runs the Justice Department.

“As long as she’s there, Hillary Clinton will never be prosecuted,” Gohmert said. “The only chance there is that Hillary Clinton may eventually have to answer for some of the things she’s done is if Donald Trump is elected.”

He continued, “We have got to clean out the cesspool. It stinks to high heaven.”

While the Clinton campaign demands to see what emails the FBI has and simultaneously insists they are nothing of consequence, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is taking the Comey criticism to a new level.

In a letter, Reid is accusing Comey of violating the Hatch Act by sending his letter so close to the election. What’s more, Reid accused Comey of sitting on “explosive” evidence of Trump’s ties to the Russian government.

“In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government – a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity. The public has a right to know this information,” wrote Reid.

Gohmert minced few words about Reid. First, the congressman contends Comey may have violated the Hatch Act if he didn’t send the letter updating member of Congress on the probe.

“I think it would be a potential violation of the Hatch Act to use his position to prevent Americans from knowing the substantial change, the new evidence that has been found,” he said.

As for Reid himself, Gohmert said the Nevada Democrat’s reputation is already worthless.

“For lying Harry Reid, the guy that said (2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt) Romney didn’t pay taxes for 10 years, it turned out Reid had no basis. He just totally lied. He still says he is so proud he went and lied about Romney because it helped [President Obama] win the election,”Gohmert said.

“That tells us that Harry Reid is a guy who is so unscrupulous, so immoral that I don’t really much care what allegations he makes.”

While he does encourage a quick report on these new findings, Gohmert is pleading with the FBI to do a thorough job examining the new emails and not feel that it has to make a conclusion to meet a political deadline.

“The FBI needs to get their reputation back, and the only way to do that is to handle this more professionally,” he said.


from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/gohmert-explains-why-comey-had-to-notify-congress/




from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/gohmert-explains-why-comey-had-to-notify-congress/

Big 3 TV networks attack Comey over Hillary by huge margin

Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton and FBI Director James Comey (Photo: Twitter)

Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton and FBI Director James Comey (Photo: Twitter)

Since FBI Director James Comey dropped the bombshell Friday that the agency is continuing its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, America’s Big Three TV networks – ABC, CBS and NBC – have downplayed Hillary’s role in the scandal and launched a full-blown assault on Comey.

With only eight days left until Election Day, the networks have covered Comey in a negative light three times as frequently as they report negative news concerning Clinton, according to a Media Research Center study published Oct. 31.

“Beginning with the evening (October 28) of the announcement through Monday morning (October 31), MRC analysts reviewed reviewed all statements (by reporters, analysts, and partisans) that took a position on Comey and Clinton and found arguments against Comey (88) swamped those against Clinton (31) by a ratio of almost 3 to 1,” NewsBusters reported. “There were a handful of statements that praised either Comey (10) or Clinton (4).”

Sign the precedent-setting petition supporting Trump’s call for an independent prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton!

In fact, the Big Three networks’ shows – ABC’s “World News Tonight,” CBS’ “Evening News,” NBC’s “Nightly News,” ABC’s “Good Morning America,” CBS’ “This Morning” and NBC’s “Today” – spent a total of two hours, 19 minutes and 49 seconds airing stories that attacked Comey.

Comey-Hillary-MRC

On Oct. 30, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, a Clinton Foundation donor, said of Comey: “It’s hard to know what’s going through James Comey’s mind right now. Remember when he came out in July? He broke tradition back in July when he gave the press conference. Rather than simply closing the investigation, he said he was doing it because there was such intense public interest in this case. You would think that same standard would drive him to release more details.”

CBS’ Gayle King piled on Comey on Oct. 31: “Former Attorney General Eric Holder, along with nearly 100 former Justice Department officials on both sides of the aisle, said that they were astonished and perplexed by Comey’s decision. Holder wrote this in the Washington Post – that he’s afraid that Comey has unintentionally hurt the public’s trust in the FBI, allowing – quote, ‘misinformation to be spread by partisans with less pure intentions.”

What do YOU think? Is FBI Director James Comey a hero or villain? Sound off in today’s WND poll

And on Oct. 30, NBC’s Willie Geist condemned Comey’s decision in a question posed to GOP nominee Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway: “This is an open investigation. It’s on the eve of an election. That’s why the DOJ recommended to Director Comey not to proceed with this letter because everyone knew it would be leaked out to the public. If you were on the other side of this, would you think this was the right thing to do on the eve of an election to be so vague about it without knowing the content?”

In fact, it’s not just the Big Three TV networks piling on Comey.

The New York Daily News dubbed Comey the “FBI’s mad bomber” on the cover of its Oct. 31 issue.

NYDailyNews-Comey-TW

On Oct. 30, the Washington Post even cited accusations that Comey is “damaging our democracy” by airing the latest in the investigation into Hillary’s emails:

Comey-attack-WaPo-TW

New York Daily News published an Oct. 29 report headlined, “James Comey acted on his own in Clinton email disclosure, violated Justice Department policy”:

NYMage-Comey-TW

USA Today was next, with an Oct. 30 “bipartisan” report blasting Comey’s letter as perplexing and “troubling”:

USAToday-Comey-TW

WND recently reported the results of another Media Research Center study, which found 91 percent of media coverage is hostile to Donald Trump.

“In the twelve weeks since the party conventions concluded in late July, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91 percent) has been hostile,” the report said.

“In addition, the networks spent far more airtime focusing on the personal controversies involving Trump (440 minutes) than about similar controversies involving Clinton (185 minutes). Donald Trump’s treatment of women was given 102 minutes of evening news airtime, more than that allocated to discussing Clinton’s e-mail scandal (53 minutes) and the Clinton Foundation pay-for-play scandals (40 minutes) combined.”

MRC’s Rich Noyes commented, “Even when they were critical of Hillary Clinton – for concealing her pneumonia, for example, or mischaracterizing the FBI investigation of her email server – network reporters always maintained a respectful tone in their coverage.

hillarys-ultimate-weapon-wb-cover-portrait“That was not the case with Trump, who was slammed as embodying ‘the politics of fear,’ or ‘dangerous’ and ‘vulgar’ ‘misogynistic bully’ who had insulted vast swaths of the American electorate,” he said.

The mask is off, the game over, the pretense all but abandoned. As revealed in October’s stunning pre-election Whistleblower issue – titled “HILLARY’S ULTIMATE WEAPON: America’s biased and abusive news media finally abandon all pretense of fairness” – the mainstream media are now falling over one another in a frenzied campaign to put the Clintons back in the White House.

The bias of the media perhaps shouldn’t surprise anyone.

After all, the Center for Public Integrity recently reported 96 percent of the donations to presidential politics coming from journalists went to Clinton.

For example, Carole Simpson, a former ABC “World News Tonight” anchor, gave Clinton $2,800. And New York Times television critic Emily Nussbaum, who spent the Republican National Convention “pen-pricking presidential nominee Donald Trump as a misogynist shyster,” gave $250 to Clinton.

Nearly 430 reporters gave a total of  $400,000 to Clinton, while 50 donated about $14,000 to Trump.

Further, Gateway Pundit pointed out that the WikiLeaks emails reveal that “at least 65 MSM reporters were meeting with and/or coordinating offline with top Hillary advisers.”

“They were invited to top elitist dinners with Hillary campaign chairman John Podesta or chief campaign strategist Joel Benenson,” the report said. “The Clinton campaign sent out invites to New York reporters in April 2015 on their off-the-record meeting on how to sell Hillary Clinton to the public.”

The names include dozens from ABC (Cecilia Vega and David Muir), CBS (Norah O’Donnell and Vicki Gordon), CNN (Brianna Keilar, David Chalian and John Berman) MSNBC (Alex Wagner and Beth Fouhy), the New York Times (Gail Collins and Pat Healy) and many more, including Julie Pace of Associated Press.

Sign the precedent-setting petition supporting Trump’s call for an independent prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton!


from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/big-3-tv-networks-attack-comey-over-hillary-by-huge-margin/




from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/big-3-tv-networks-attack-comey-over-hillary-by-huge-margin/

Facebook censors filmmaker’s political posting

Then-Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Then-Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

Facebook employees tried to censor GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s postings on the social-media site, according to the Fox Business Network, citing unnamed sources.

They may be censoring other Facebook postings, as well, based on their political leanings.

That’s the suspicion of Judd Saul, the director of the documentary film“The Enemies Within,” starring Trevor Loudon.

Saul’s Facebook account was suspended after he linked to a blogpost on Loudon’s website New Zeal that cast doubt on a political candidate’s claim that campaign signs on his property were vandalized with “hateful rhetoric” inspired by Saul’s activist group Patriots for Christ.

The candidate, Chris Schwartz, is a socialist running as a Democrat for supervisor of Black Hawk County, Iowa. Schwartz, a Bernie Sanders supporter, is the state director of Americans for Democratic Action, which is named in “The Enemies Within” as a group being used by communists to influence Democratic Party policies.

Sign the precedent-setting petition supporting Trump’s call for an independent prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton!

Facebook removed Saul’s post for “violating” the company’s policies and temporarily suspended his account.

WND requested comment from Facebook, but there was no response.

Saul told WND he’s been unable to get more information from Facebook.

He said his suspension is scheduled to end this week.

In “The Enemies Within,” Loudon says there are at least 100 current members of the House of Representatives and 20 members of the U.S. Senate who “could not qualify to obtain a basic security clearance to clean the toilets at any military base in the nation.”

An overview of the film on its website says communists first infiltrated the unions, gaining full control in 1995, then “used the union money and leverage to purge the Democratic Party leadership of moderates and conservatives … replacing them with dozens of union and communist sympathizers.”

“Next, they used their bought-and-paid-for-lackeys in the House of Representatives and the Senate to ram through a radical communist/union agenda. Purported Democrat policies such as ‘green jobs,’ the insane New START Treaty with our so-called ‘partner’ Russia, socialization of student loans, the massive easing of voting qualifications and consequent vote fraud bonanza, mass educational indoctrination, the gutting of the U.S. military, Harry Reid’s Senate ‘nuclear option’ and, of course, both Obamacare and ‘immigration amnesty’ all come directly from the union/communist playbook.”

The movie trailer:

http://ift.tt/1UyqoPZ

if(typeof(jQuery)==”function”){(function($){$.fn.fitVids=function(){}})(jQuery)};
jwplayer(‘jwplayer_A5mucF4o_pszPfxYQ_div’).setup(
{“playlist”:”http://ift.tt/2f6IbN1″}
);

Saul said that even after he and Loudon finished their work on “Enemies Within,” he discovered an orchestrated campaign by Sanders, who unsuccessfully challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. Sanders has launched the Berniecrats Network, a website to promote the local campaigns of candidates who share his socialist views.

The site states: “Being a Berniecrat is not about party affiliation; it’s about the issues. Any candidate to publicly endorsed Bernie (Twitter, Facebook, website, etc.) and supports his platform, qualifies for this list. They don’t have to agree with Bernie on everything, they just have to believe that he was the right person for the job.”

It lists hundreds of names of like-minded political candidates on the local ballots.

Saul said there are thousands of socialist-leaning candidates now seeking to gain power in local school board, city and county races, among others.

The offending blogpost by a contributor to Loudon’s New Zeal website said Schwartz, using the slogan “Bottom-up Solutions for a Common Good,” “dutifully toes the socialist line.”

“Schwartz is campaigning on issues such as refugee resettlement support. He believes that Black Hawk County ‘must help refugee support organizations,’ that the county should support ‘community gardens,’ decriminalize marijuana, and raise the minimum wage. Schwartz is also a supporter of gun control, and has expressed support for the Democrat ‘sit-in’ for gun control for those on the ‘no-fly list,’” the blogpost said.

Patriots for Christ drew Schwartz’s ire when it called him out for referring to the Cedar Valley Pridefest in Iowa as his “biggest accomplishment.”

Schwartz, who identifies as “gay,” responded by calling Patriots for Christ a “hate” group.

He claimed that the “hateful” Christian group and its rhetoric led “to his house being vandalized.”

But the New Zeal blogger “smells a rat.”

“Hate crime hoaxes are common on the left. Since they cannot prove their narrative du jour, the radical left simply ‘nudges’ people to accept their narrative by making up ‘hate crimes,’ by staging elaborate hoaxes designed to elicit sympathy for the ‘victim’ and hatred for their ‘oppressor.’”

Sign the precedent-setting petition supporting Trump’s call for an independent prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton!

 


from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/facebook-censors-filmmakers-political-posting/




from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/facebook-censors-filmmakers-political-posting/