Tuesday, August 16, 2022

JUDICIAL WATCH PRESIDENT: OVER 1 MILLION ILLEGALS VOTED FOR HILLARY

0

by Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars:

Voter fraud represents “crisis” for Republican Party

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton says that around 1.1 million illegal aliens voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election and that voter fraud represents a “crisis” for the Republican Party going forward.

Asserting that illegal immigrants are voting in enough numbers to “change the outcome of elections,” FItton said that the number of illegal votes was somewhere in between the zero claimed by the Democrats and the 6 million figure claimed by Trump.

“By my estimation, we had about one and a half million illegal alien votes in the last election, 1.4 million by my guess,” said Fitton during a speech hosted by The Remembrance Project.

Of this number, Fitton said that about 80{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} vote for Democrats, with around 20{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} typically voting for Republicans.

“1.1 million by that calculation voted for Hillary Clinton….so we really face a crisis in this regard,” he warned.

“It’s one thing to lose your country because you have no borders, it’s another thing to lose your country because you have no vote,” said Fitton, adding that policy discussions were pointless “if elections are stolen through illegal votes”.

If a study that came out in June is accurate, Fitton may even be underplaying the amount of illegal immigrants who voted in the election.

Just Facts President James D. Agresti and his team of researchers looked at data from a Harvard/YouGov study which included a sample size of tens of thousands of voters, including non-citizens who admit they are not eligible to vote.

Agresti concluded that as many as 5.7 million illegals voted in 2008, a far higher figure than previously thought. In 2012, the figure was as high as 3.6 million.

Read More @ Infowars.com

BAM! 31 Sealed Indictments Deep State, Take down of Clinton and Podesta

from April LaJune:

Sealed Indictments are piling up. Do these link directly to the Clintons? The Deep State? How is Tony Podesta and the Saudi Arabians linked to all of this? #TheStoem

How Mueller & President Trump are Pulling the Biggest Sting in History

by Liz Crokin, LizCrokin.com:

That night on stage Trump made a shocking promise to Clinton in the event he got elected. “If I win, I’m going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation…we’re going to have a special prosecutor,” Trump said. Clinton responded, “It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.” Trump then interrupted and said: “Because you’d be in jail.” Trump’s statement was met with cheers and thunderous applause.

Trump’s famous “because you’d be in jail” line is constantly rotated throughout the Internet via memes and videos on social media to this day; however, what many seem to have forgotten is the first part of Trump’s statement: he promised to assign a special prosecutor to look into Clinton’s crimes. 

Fast forward to May 16, President Trump is now in the White House and meets with Robert Mueller. CNN reported that Trump interviewed him as a potential replacement for fired FBI Director James Comey. As Trump would say, “wrong!” It’s not possible that Mueller could’ve been interviewing for the FBI director position because he already served in that capacity – under Presidents George W. Bush and briefly Barack Obama – and he exceeded the term limit allowed to work in that role. The term limit is ten years and Mueller served as FBI director for 12 years. Mueller got a special additional two-year extension from Obama that the Senate approved. The fake news totally got this wrong — to no one’s surprise.

So what was the meeting really about? I believe Trump was finalizing his decision to appoint Mueller as his special prosecutor to investigate Clinton. Don’t believe it? Keep reading.

The day after Mueller’s meeting with Trump, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to serve as special counsel for the United States Department of Justice. In the appointment record signed by Rosenstein it reads:

The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct an investigation including “any links and/or coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump, and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” 

Trump did not collude with Russia. The left and the media have carried that narrative based off of lies and a fake dossier. Trump allowed them to carry their false narrative because he knew he was innocent and that the investigation would eventually turn to the real parties who colluded with Russia. Enter the Clintons. What stands out in the affidavit Rosenstein signed included “matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” because they knew an investigation into Russian collusion would eventually lead to Clinton.

Trump is a man of his word and he’s making good on all of his campaign promises, so why wouldn’t he keep this one? The left and the media has been so blinded by their partisanship that they’ve failed to see that the greatest bait and switch in the history of the world is going down right before their very eyes. They’ve naively assumed that since Mueller had been a part of the swamp, he’d protect the swamp. However, just because he’s associated with corrupt politicians like the Clintons for years does not mean that he likes them or has any interest in protecting them at this point. After all, the Clintons did go to Trump’s wedding and you know what they say: keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

So the investigation is steering straight for the real guilty actors and Tony Podesta is under the gun for The Podesta Group’s involvement with selling the country’s Uranium to Russia. This will lead to the indictments of his brother, John, Clinton’s former campaign manager, and, yes, Hillary too! Now if Mueller wasn’t going after Tony, why did he step down as CEO of his company last week? Multiple sources have confirmed to me Podesta is one of the 17 sealed indictments currently sitting in DC.

Other guilty swamp creatures are catching on to the true nature of Mueller’s investigation. On Oct. 30, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a call for an independent investigation into Trump’s alleged campaign collusion with Russians just moments after Mueller unsealed indictments for campaign operatives Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. She’s also softened her tone from calling for Trump’s impeachment to now stating “impeaching Trump is not someplace we should go”.

Last week, top Democrats Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazile threw Clinton under the bus by admitting she rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders. Why would they do this now? They’re distancing themselves from Clinton for a reason.

On Nov. 3, The Hill reported that Trump said that he’ll be proven innocent in the Russia election meddling investigation if special counsel Mueller treats “everything fairly”. “I hope he’s treating everything fairly and if he is I’m going to be very happy because when you talk about innocent, I am truly not involved in any form of collusion with Russia,” Trump said on Sharyl Attkisson’s show Full Measure.

When Trump was asked if he’d consider firing Mueller, he responded by stating he was confident he’d be absolved of wrongdoing. If Mueller is so corrupt and intent on protecting the Clintons, like so many on both the right and the left believe, why isn’t Trump sweating? He alluded that he’s not even thinking about firing Mueller. Not only is Trump a man of his word, he’s rarely ever wrong and his instincts are killer. It also should be noted that Mueller is a decorated Marine who served in Vietnam and has received many medals including the Purple Heart.

Mueller was hired to investigate Clinton, period. If my theory proves to be correct, this will go down as one of the most brilliant sting operations in history.

Liz Crokin is an investigative journalist and the award-winning author of Malice.

If you are able, please support Liz Crokin’s ongoing fight against child trafficking with prayer and by clicking here.

Read More @ LizCrokin.com

 

 

 

 

The Trump Administration is Holding an American Citizen Without Charge or Trial

by Derrick Broze, Activist Post:

Civil liberties advocates are worried about the fate of an American citizen accused of fighting for ISIS in Syria who has been held for almost two months in a secret Iraq prison without access to a lawyer.

The American Civil Liberties Union is fighting to represent an American man who has been accused of fighting alongside the Islamic State in Syria. The U.S military has been detaining the American citizen at a secret prison in Iraq without access to a lawyer or even releasing his name to the public. He has been labeled an “enemy combatant” by the Trump administration despite a lack of evidence to brings charges against the man.

The ACLU reports:

We went to court asking a judge to protect the citizen’s constitutional rights, including the right not to be imprisoned without charge and the right to challenge his detention in court. The Trump administration has told the court that it doesn’t have to respect these essential due process rights.

The Washington Post recently revealed that the man was captured in Syria on September 12. He reportedly surrendered to a rebel group in Syria before being give to the U.S. military. According to The Washington Post, as told by anonymous “officials familiar with the case,” the Justice Department does not believe they have enough evidence to bring charges against him. However, if the military does not charge him they will face legal challenges. The ACLU is attempting to lead the way, but the organization is facing heavy push-back from the military.

“A Defense Department spokesman, Air Force Maj. Ben Sakrisson, said last week that the government continues to withhold the detainee’s identity and circumstances because ‘it’s still an ongoing operation’”, the Post reports. “Asked to elaborate, he said, ‘there are still a number of U.S. agencies looking at the circumstances of how he came to be detained’ and what should happen to him now.”

The anonymous officials told the Post the man has been questioned by “an interagency interrogation team” and the FBI. The suspect apparently refused to answer questions and has requested a lawyer.

He was then read his Miranda rights, and he again refused to cooperate and repeated his demand for a lawyer, according to people familiar with the case. An additional complication emerged — web postings suggested he may have done some reporting in Syria as opposed to being a fighter, these people said. But U.S. officials are skeptical of the idea that he is a journalist, they said.

The man now stands in legal limbo. The U.S military seems lacking in evidence to charge him, and it is unlikely an Iraqi court would charge him. However, if he is returned to Iraq he will likely face torture and/or unfair trial. The Post notes that current U.S. law prohibits releasing a suspect to a country where they are likely to face torture.

 

The ACLU says the Pentagon and Department of Justice have ignored their requests for access to the U.S. citizen so they could advise him of his rights and offer him legal representation. The ACLU says they worry because the man “is facing grave threats to his liberty and possibly his life.” The Trump administration continues to oppose allowing anyone access to the man. As the ACLU notes, “even George W. Bush’s attorney general and former federal district court judge, Michael Mukasey, ruled that the government’s national security interests cannot override an American citizen’s right to a lawyer.”

The Trump administration is indeed taking a dangerous step towards the complete erosion of civil liberties and protections from violations. It has not been stated by the DOJ or the U.S. military, but it is possible that this man is being held under section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual military budget. Many of you may remember that the NDAA 2012 contained the controversial section 1021 and 1022, provisions which allowed indefinite detention of American citizens without a right to trial if they are suspected of terrorism.

President Obama signed the bill in late 2011, making a special note in his presidential signing statement. “Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama wrote. Obama said his administration would interpret section 1021 as complying with the Constitution and other applicable law. However, the fear of many activists at the time was that another president might come along and decide to make use of this section 1021 to detain and imprison activists or journalists accused of “terrorism” or “extremism.” Perhaps, someone like Donald Trump?

Read More @ ActivistPost.com

CIA DIRECTOR MET ADVOCATE OF DISPUTED DNC HACK THEORY — AT TRUMP’S REQUEST

0

by Duncan Campbell and James Risen, The Intercept:

CIA DIRECTOR MIKE Pompeo met late last month with a former U.S. intelligence official who has become an advocate for a disputed theory that the theft of the Democratic National Committee’s emails during the 2016 presidential campaign was an inside job, rather than a hack by Russian intelligence.

Pompeo met on October 24 with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysispublished by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community’s official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year’s theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was “leaked,” not hacked, “by a person with physical access” to the DNC’s computer system.

In an interview with The Intercept, Binney said Pompeo told him that President Donald Trump had urged the CIA director to meet with Binney to discuss his assessment that the DNC data theft was an inside job. During their hour-long meeting at CIA headquarters, Pompeo said Trump told him that if Pompeo “want[ed] to know the facts, he should talk to me,” Binney said.

A senior intelligence source confirmed that Pompeo met with Binney to discuss his analysis, and that the CIA director held the meeting at Trump’s urging. The Intercept’s account of the meeting is based on interviews with Binney, the senior intelligence source, a colleague who accompanied Binney to CIA headquarters, and others who Binney told about the meeting. A CIA spokesperson declined to comment. “As a general matter, we do not comment on the Director’s schedule,” said Dean Boyd, director of the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs.

Binney said that Pompeo asked whether he would be willing to meet with NSA and FBI officials to further discuss his analysis of the DNC data theft. Binney agreed and said Pompeo said he would contact him when he had arranged the meetings.

It is highly unorthodox for the CIA director to reach out to someone like Binney, a 74-year-old ex-government employee who rose to prominence as an NSA whistleblower wrongfully persecuted by the government, for help with fact-finding related to the theft of the DNC emails. It is particularly stunning that Pompeo would meet with Binney at Trump’s apparent urging, in what could be seen as an effort to discredit the U.S. intelligence community’s own assessment that an alleged Russian hack of the DNC servers was part of an effort to help Trump win the presidency.

It is possible Trump learned about Binney and his analysis by watching Fox News, where Binney has been a frequent guest, appearing at least 10 times since September 2016. In August, Binney appeared on Tucker Carlson’s Fox show to discuss his assessment that the narrative of Russia hacking the DNC during the 2016 campaign is untrue, stating that “many people are emotionally tied to this agenda, to tie the Russians to President Trump.” Binney said he is not sure how Trump found out about his analysis.

However the meeting came about, the fact that Pompeo was apparently willing to follow Trump’s direction and invite Binney to discuss his analysis has alarmed some current and former intelligence officials.

“This is crazy. You’ve got all these intelligence agencies saying the Russians did the hack. To deny that is like coming out with the theory that the Japanese didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor,” said one former CIA officer.

Binney, for his part, is happy that the meeting occurred and eager to help Pompeo and Trump get to the bottom of the DNC email theft because he believes the intelligence community has not told the truth about what happened.

“I was willing to meet Pompeo simply because it was clear to me the intelligence community wasn’t being honest here,” Binney said, referring to their assessment of the DNC email theft. “I am quite willing to help people who need the truth to find the truth and not simply have deceptive statements from the intelligence community.”

Read More @ TheIntercept.com

Donna Brazile Has A Few Theories About Who Might’ve Killed Seth Rich

from ZeroHedge:

Donna Brazile’s new book is out, and reporters at the Daily Caller, who apparently have already combed through the book, have published a series of stories summarizing the book’s most embarrassing and shocking allegations about the Clinton campaign and DNC.

Their reporting shows Brazile taking aim at other erstwhile political allies like former President Barack Obama, whom she blamed for leaving the DNC in disarray, while also revealing who she believes may have been responsible for Seth Rich’s murder.

Brazile says a chill ran down her spine when Hillary Clinton refused to concede to Donald Trump on election night of 2016 after a hushed mood had fallen over crowds of supporters at the Javits Center, who had arrived in high spirits, expecting their candidate to be swiftly anointed by the American electorate.

Unfortunately for Clinton’s most hard-core supporters, the voters had other plans. Furthermore, Brazile said Clinton’s refusal reminder her of Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore’s reaction to the election results in 2000, when Gore refused to concede and demanded a recount after results showed that George W. Bush had won.

Clinton adviser Minyon Moore “told me that at 1:30 a.m. John Podesta was going to address the crowd at the Javits Center and tell them to go home,” Brazile writes. “A shiver came over me, a memory of the Gore defeat, where we had Bill Daley go out and address the crowd because Gore was still wrestling with the results, as I knew Hillary was tonight.”

In another surprising – and ultimately revelatory – anecdote, Brazile recounted how former Democratic National Committee chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz did not seem particularly concerned about the cyber breach that led to Wikileaks’ publication of internal emails.

DWS even waited more than a month after first learning of it in April. Then she refused to apologize to those affected by the breach.

As for the murder of Seth Rich – the subject of perhaps the most controversial claims advanced by Brazile so far – Brazile has a couple of theories – though neither involve the Democratic Party.

I felt some responsibility for Seth Rich’s death. I didn’t bring him into the DNC, but I helped keep him there working on voting rights. With all I knew now about the Russians’ hacking, I could not help but wonder if they had played some part in his unsolved murder.

Besides that, racial tensions were high that summer and I worried that he was murdered for being white on the wrong side of town. [My friend] Elaine expressed her doubts about that, and I heard her.

The FBI said that they did not see any Russian fingerprints there.

Finally,  Brazile wrote that Obama “leeched [the party] of its vitality” in the lead-up to the 2016 election campaign.

“We had three Democratic parties: The party of Barack Obama, the party of Hillary Clinton, and this weak little vestige of a party led by [Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz] that was doing a very poor job getting people who were not president elected,” Brazile.

* * *

As the excerpts that were published before the book’s official release made clear, Brazile has a particularly strong distaste for Robby Mook, Clinton’s former campaign manager.

The intensity of her dislike is laid bare throughout her book. With that in mind, here are 12 choice quotes about Mook, courtesy of the Daily Caller.

1) The Cultish Nature of the Mook Crew

“I want to talk about the arrogance and isolation of the Clinton campaign and the cult of Robby Mook, who felt fresh but turned up stale, in a campaign haunted by ghosts and lacking in enthusiasm, focus, and heart.”

2) ‘What Does This Have To Do With The Russians?”

“From offstage, I could hear Robby Mook, Hillary’s campaign manager, pretaping a segment before the roundtable. Robby was talking about the Russians, and the Russians, and the Russians, and I thought, ‘What does this have to do with the Russians?‘”

3) ‘Leaving You With The Impression That He Has Listened To You’

“Try as I might to explain it to Brooklyn, all of my urgent pleas felt like they were words falling down a well. Take Hillary’s campaign manager, Robby Mook. He had this habit of nodding when you are talking, leaving you with the impression that he has listened to you, but then never seeming to follow up on what you thought you had agreed on.”

4) ‘Everybody Worshiped The Data And The Analytics’

“The young men that surrounded Robby Mook–and they were all men in his inner circle–had mastered a cool and removed style of politics. They knew how to size up voters not by meeting them and finding out what they cared about, what moved their hearts and stirred their souls, but by analyzing their habits. They could take all the things you bought while shopping online in the last six years, analyze them, and say they were confident that they knew pretty much all there was to know about you. … Everybody worshiped the data and the analytics.”

5) ‘I’m About To Kill Robby’

“One night when I went home I called Charlie Baker to warn him that I was struggling to keep Dolores contained. ‘Charlie, I’m about to kill Robby,’ I told him. ‘And it ain’t going to be pretty.'”

6) Does He Not Know Who I Am?

“Did he not understand that I had long-standing friendships with most of his superiors in Brooklyn, with the exception of Robby Mook?”

Read More @ ZeroHedge.com

Daily Rabbit Hole #19 | QAnon, Fat Leonard, Trump feeds Koi

from The Outer Light:

all kinds of strange things happening, including the strange post by QAnon and Trump Tweet ++++

First Comey Memo Concluded Hillary Was “Grossly Negligent,” Punishable By Jail

0

from ZeroHedge:

According to a new report from The Hillearly drafts of former FBI Director James Comey’s statement on Hillary Clinton’s email case accused the former Secretary of State of “gross negligence” in her handling of classified information as opposed to the “extremely careless” phrase that made its way into the final statement.

As The Hill further points out, the change in language is significant since federal law states that “gross negligence” in handling the nation’s intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines whereas “extreme carelessness” has no such legal definition and/or ramifications.

An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey’s statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former Secretary of State of having been ‘grossly negligent” in handling classified information, new memos to Congress show.

The tough language was changed to the much softer accusation that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information when Comey announced in July 2016 there would be no charges against her.

The draft, written weeks before the announcement of no charges, was described by multiple sources who saw the document both before and after it was sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee this past weekend.

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information,” reads the statement, one of Comey’s earliest drafts.

Those sources said the draft statement was subsequently changed in red-line edits to conclude that the handling of 110 emails containing classified information that were transmitted by Clinton and her aides over her insecure personal email server was “extremely careless.”

Of course, Comey’s final statement, while critical of Hillary’s email usage, alleged that no prosecutor would pursue charges against actions which he described only as “extremely careless.”

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

Meanwhile, Section 793 of federal law states that “gross negligence” with respect to the handling of national defense documents is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison…so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary.

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Unfortunately, The Hill’s sources couldn’t confirm the most important detail behind this bombshell new revelation, namely who made the call to the change the language…

The sources, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said the memos show that at least three top FBI officials were involved in helping Comey fashion and edit the statement, including Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, General Counsel James Baker and Chief of Staff Jim Rybicki.

The documents turned over to Congress do not indicate who recommended the key wording changes, the sources said. The Senate Judiciary Committee is likely to demand the FBI identify who made the changes and why, the sources said.

Read More @ ZeroHedge.com

Trump’s Frustrated He Can’t Order The DOJ To Investigate Hillary? Sir, Our Constitution Made You The Justice Department!

0

by Tim Brown, Freedom Outpost:

This is why any person seeking any office should know their responsibilities, duties and authorities granted under the Constitution before seeking for people to support them for office and taking an oath before God and the people to uphold that Constitution.

In another pitiful excuse for an excuse for not investigating Hillary Clinton, President Donald Trump claims that he is “frustrated” that he can’t order the Justice Department to investigate her.

“But you know the saddest thing, because I’m the President of the United States I am not supposed to be involved with the Justice Department. I am not supposed to be involved with the FBI,” Trump told WMAL host Larry O’Connor. “I’m not supposed to be doing the kinds of things I would love to be doing and I’m very frustrated by it.”

“Why aren’t they going after Hillary Clinton with her emails and with the dossier, and the kind of money?” Trump added. “Now, maybe they are, but as president, and I think you understand this, as a president you are not supposed to be involved in that process.”

Not supposed to be involved in the Justice Department?  Sir, you are the Justice Department, according to our Constitution!

After this interview with the Washington-area conservative radio host, Trump tweeted out his frustration.

“Donna Brazile just stated the DNC RIGGED the system to illegally steal the Primary from Bernie Sanders. Bought and paid for by Crooked H,” Trump wrote. “This is real collusion and dishonesty. Major violation of Campaign Finance Laws and Money Laundering – where is our Justice Department?”

OK, so, this is President Trump promising you, America, to instruct his Attorney General to appoint a special investigator to look into Hillary Clinton before the election.

Read More @ FreedomOutpost.com

Brazile Fallout: Hillary Privatized the DNC with Help from a Washington Law Firm

0

by Pam Martens and Russ Martens, Wall St On Parade:

Secret side agreements are a common maneuver by corporate law firms. Here’s how they work. An agreement that is legal and passes the smell test is drafted and submitted to a court or a regulatory body for public consumption. Then, a separate, secret side agreement is written and signed by both sides and it contains all of the smelly, shady, ethically questionable hard details on how the original agreement will be carried out.

Donna Brazile, the former interim Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 2016 presidential campaign, has written a new book, “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House,”and has revealed the secret side agreement that the DNC had with Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

In 2015, Hillary Clinton’s campaign set up a joint fundraising committee called the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) with the DNC and over 30 state democratic committees. The public portion of the agreement indicated that Hillary would raise funds for her own campaign while also allocating a portion to the DNC to help the overall Democratic Party as well as allocating funds to state democratic committees in order to support down-ballot candidates in their local elections. But the secret side agreement that effectively privatized the DNC, giving Hillary and her campaign lawyers control of the DNC and its money, had yet to see the light of day.

This is how Brazile describes the secret side agreement in her book:

“The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook [Clinton’s campaign manager] with a copy to Marc Elias [lawyer at Perkins Coie]  — specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”

The Clinton camp has now attempted to defend itself by saying these terms are standard because they were not going to kick in until the Democratic Party had chosen its official presidential nominee at its party convention in July 2016. But that’s not what the actual secret side agreement says. It indicates the following: “Beginning October 1, 2015,” the HVF would begin transferring $1.2 million to the DNC at the start of each month with that release “conditioned on” Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign personnel being consulted “and have joint authority over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research. The DNC will provide HFA advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate.”

Additionally, the secret agreement states that “the DNC agrees that no later than September 11, 2015 it will hire one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to HFA” (Hillary for America, the primary campaign fund for Clinton) as its Communications Director. All of this is occurring in the fall of 2015 with the official Democratic nominating convention not taking place until July 2016.

As Politico reported in May 2016, the Hillary Victory Fund was a sham in multiple other ways. First, Politico writes that less than 1 percent of the money raised stayed in the state’s coffers. The Treasurer of the Hillary Victory Fund actually had the power to move money in and out of state committee bank accounts. Politico reporters Ken Vogel and Isaac Arnsdorf cite the following example to show how things actually worked:

“…the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party received $43,500 from the victory fund on Nov. 2, only to transfer the same amount to the DNC that same day. The pattern repeated itself after the Minnesota party received transfers from the victory fund of $20,600 on Dec. 1 (the party sent the same amount to the DNC the next day) and $150,000 on Jan. 4 (it transferred the same amount to the DNC that day).

“That means that Minnesota’s net gain from its participation in the victory fund was precisely $0 through the end of March. Meanwhile, the DNC pocketed an extra $214,100 in cash routed through Minnesota — much of which the DNC wouldn’t have been able to accept directly, since it came from donors who had mostly had already maxed out to the national party committee.

“A similar pattern transpired with most of the participating state parties. As of March 31, only eight state parties (most of which were in battleground states such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia) had received more from the victory fund than was transferred from their accounts to the DNC.”

Brazile backs up this account in her book, writing that “the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding….”

Brazile notes in her book that the lawyer, Marc Elias, of the politically-connected law firm, Perkins Coie, was copied on the secret side agreement. Elias has repeatedly come under scrutiny for his multi-faceted roles in the 2015-2016 presidential campaign. Most recently, he was exposed as the guy behind the hiring of Fusion GPS which compiled the scandalous Russian dossier on Donald Trump, using both Hillary campaign funds and DNC funds. The Washington Post reported that Elias was allowed to spend these funds “without oversight by campaign officials, according to a spokesperson for his law firm.”

Elias served as the General Counsel to Hillary’s primary campaign committee, Hillary for America, as well as serving as one of a team of lawyers from Perkins Coie that provided legal advice to the DNC. (Elias also provided legal advice to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic Governors Associations, according to the Perkins Coie web site last year.)

As a legal adviser to the DNC, Elias should have known that its charter mandated fairness and impartiality to all primary candidates. But when WikiLeaks released emails last year that had been hacked at the DNC, Marc Elias was caught giving advice on how to tar Senator Bernie Sanders after his campaign suggested that the Hillary Victory Fund was skirting Federal election law. The email from Elias read:

“My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that the accusations the Sanders campaign are not true. The fact that CNN notes that you aren’t getting between the two campaigns is the problem. Here, Sanders is attacking the DNC and its current practice, its past practice with the POTUS and with Sec Kerry. Just as the RNC pushes back directly on Trump over ‘rigged system’, the DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful the [sic] the Democratic party.”

Read More @ WallStOnParade.com

The Saudi Purge and the Rothschild New World Order – Part 1

from End Times News Report:

With news of a purge taking place in Saudi Arabia, it is worth examining the Saudi connection to the Rothschild New World Order syndicate.