“We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within.” -Nikita Khrushchev
Very clear article.
Not only the Clintons are implicated in a uranium deal with the Russians that compromised national-security interests.
Let’s put the Uranium One scandal in perspective: The cool half-million bucks the Putin regime funneled to Bill Clinton was five times the amount it spent on those Facebook ads — the ones the media-Democrat complex ludicrously suggests swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump.
The Facebook-ad buy, which started in June 2015 — before Donald Trump entered the race — was more left-wing agitprop (ads pushing hysteria on racism, immigration, guns, etc.) than electioneering. The Clintons’ own long-time political strategist Mark Penn estimates that just $6,500 went to actual electioneering.
(You read that right: 65 hundred dollars.) By contrast, the staggering $500,000 payday from a Kremlin-tied Russian bank for a single speech was part of a multi-million-dollar influence-peddling scheme to enrich the former president and his wife, then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton. At the time, Russia was plotting — successfully — to secure U.S. government approval for its acquisition of Uranium One, and with it, tens of billions of dollars in U.S. uranium reserves.
Update: The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee has written to the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, asking why this week’s reports by the CIA that Russia did hack Democratic campaign documents contradicts what the agency was saying three weeks ago. DailyMail
The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.
While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA’s analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named. BreitBart
Temper Tantrums – Failed
Rioting and smashing up cities – Failed
Sending death threats to electors – Failed
Jill Stein’s recount – Failed
What next? Russians!
The FBI is saying the evidence is not there. Some have suggested this is about voting machines, there is no proof of that, This is the hack of the DNC emails. The Russian bit was claimed by the media before the election so we factored or didn’t factor that into our vote. The mainstream media then claimed the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal.
“I don’t understand the argument itself,” the Tucker Carlson Tonight and Daily Caller founder stated. “I don’t think anyone dismisses the that Russia was hacking servers or email accounts in the United States. They’ve done if for years, and so have the Chinese.”
“The question is did that sway the election results, and if it did, how so exactly?” he then posed. “The allegation appears to be they hacked John Podesta’s emails. By the way, that’s not proved. They’re claiming it is, but it’s not. DailyCaller
The CIA is acting in a highly politicized manner. The objective seems to be to discrediting the results of the 2016 election and delegitimize the presidency of Donald Trump by creating a myth that Trump as elected by Russian influence. Did agents at the CIA concluded anything or was it a political figure at the CIA who reached the conclusion about Russia and the election?
The Democratic party and the CIA are giving Russia what it wants – to discredit the institutions of democratic elections.
Stein’s attorneys withdrew the recount petition in Pennsylvania, claiming they could not afford the $1,000,000 bond. Since the deadline has passed the matter has been dismissed with prejudice. There should be an investigation into why Stein raised all that money and failed to pay up when it came time.
According to legal documents, Jill Stein and her campaign failed to post the $1 million bond needed to challenge the election in Pennsylvania. The court proceeding scheduled for Monday has been canceled.
A “praecipe to discontinue and withdraw” was filed citing that Jill Stein did not post the $1 million needed in the matter of the 2016 presidential election. A source close to the matter told ABC27’s Dennis Owens that Monday’s scheduled court proceeding has been canceled and the challenge is over. ABC27
Stein’s petition did not allege any evidence of fraud, it only relied on some vague possibility that voting machines were hacked. Michigan uses paper ballots. Pennsylvania voting machines are not connected to each other or the internet.
If she went to court in Pennsylvania she risked the recount petition being dismissed by the court. Stein has no evidence of fraud and by going into court she risked being sanctioned by the court for filing a frivolous petition with no evidence, the court could order her to by lawyer fess, court cost, and costs to Trump.
Jill Stein to pursue Pennsylvania recount petition in federal court. It now seems Stein wants a federal court to overthrow state laws.
Green Party candidate Jill Stein late Saturday vowed to bring her fight for a recount of votes cast in Pennsylvania in the U.S. presidential election to federal court, after a state judge ordered her campaign to post a $1 million bond.
“The Stein campaign will continue to fight for a statewide recount in Pennsylvania,” Jonathan Abady, lead counsel to Stein’s recount efforts, said in a statement.
Saying it has become clear that “the state court system is so ill-equipped to address this problem,” the statement said “we must seek federal court intervention.”
The Stein campaign said it will file for emergency relief in the Pennsylvania effort in federal court on Monday, “demanding a statewide recount on constitutional grounds.”Reuters
Going after the Clinton Foundation is a smarter move than going after Hillary.
Foreign governments will be encouraged to investigate the Clinton Foundation’s finances, as many are already turning off money spigots to the scandal-scarred group, The Post has learned.
A source close to President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team told The Post that the new administration plans to pressure the US ambassadors it will name to bring up the foundation with foreign governments — and suggest they probe its financial dealings.
Trump said last week that he would not order an investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server or her role in the foundation.
But Trump’s statement didn’t preclude the backroom moves to investigate the group.
“Haiti and Colombia will be key diplomatic posts for this because of all the money involved,” said the source.
In Haiti, recently leaked e-mails indicate “Friends of Bill” Clinton may have been given priority from the State Department as it prepared to spend some
$10 billion in aid after a devastating earthquake hit the country in 2010. The State Department has denied any special treatment.
In Colombia, Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra pledged $100 million to the foundation in 2005 and later benefited from the foundation’s philanthropic work in the country, where he acquired large parcels of land and set up an oil business, according to watchdog groups. NYPost
But when it comes to the Keystone State, it turns out raising the money might have been the easiest step.
As Stein points out herself in a video posted on Sunday, initiating a statewide recount of Pennsylvania’s vote is “especially complicated.” Unlike Wisconsin, Stein can’t simply file a direct request for a recount, leaving just two paths for a potential statewide audit.
Stein’s lawsuit would have to present evidence that election fraud was probable in Pennsylvania. Democratic Secretary of State Pedro Cortes says there’s no evidence of voting irregularities during the Nov. 8 election
“Absolutely not,” Cortes told reporters. “There is no evidence whatsoever that points to any type of irregularity in any way, shape or form.”
While Stein is essentially alleging that errors, tampering or hacking had occurred to affect outcomes in the three states, even computer scientists who recommended a recount to rule out tampering have gone to great lengths to make it clear there is no proof of hacking or fraud in the election results. Philly
In fact, the Medium reports that Clinton’s own legal team headed by Marc Elias has noted that Clinton’s team “had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology.” The Obama administration echoed that by stating that the government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyber-activity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on election day. According to Newsmax, Obama is standing behind the results which indicate that Trump won the election, saying the election was “free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective.”
Marc Elias: Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. FreeRepublic
Seems Jill Stein has found a gravy train.
George Soros is connected to Hillary and Jill Stein’s disgraceful election scam. The group urging Hillary in the recount scam includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz. Bonifaz helped Soros launch National Voting Rights Inst. in 1994.
Now money for a recount is being raised to subvert the original outcome of the Presidential election. Jill Stein’s recount scheme is an expensive political stunt that is not an effort to discover thousands of votes for Dems in order to overturn the election results. It is a way for liberals to delegitimize the presidency of Donald Trump.
The difference in Michigan 10,704 votes, Pennsylvania is over 70,000 votes, and Wisconsin is over 22,000.
The recount will have to move quickly.
The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters. If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232. No one hits 270.
Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects Pence. This would be first time this happened since 1824, but in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.
If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it? The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, AmericanThinker
Michigan uses paper ballots. Pennsylvania: “None of the state’s machines are connected to the internet, nor are they connected to one another.”
Jill Stein during election: ‘A Vote for Hillary Clinton Is A Vote For War.” Jill Stein Warns Of Nuclear War In Clinton Presidency. BreitBart
One competing candidate going after another’s candidate’s lost bid for a presidential election? Maybe she wants money for a bigger lake house than Bernie’s.
Jill Stein raised just over 3 dollars in individual donations for her entire 2016 campaign. Suddenly, she raises nearly 5 million dollars in anonymous donations, which are probably just a front for Soros and Hillary Clinton.
Temper Tantrums – Failed
Rioting and smashing up cities – Failed
Sending death threats to electors – Failed
Now demanding a recount in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. What next?
Beyond desperation, beyond reason or logic, and beyond belief, a group of “academics” and election law lawyers have created a study that purports to show that the vote in three swing states was stolen – perhaps with the help of Russia.
Generally speaking, electronic machines can usually be found in urban areas, while paper ballots are used predominantly in rural areas. The significance of that is so obvious you have to wonder about the I.Q. of these computer “scientists.” Trump did better than Romney in urban areas, drawing white voters away from Hillary Clinton. Even if that doesn’t explain the entire discrepancy, reduced turnout could account for the rest. AmericanThinker
Jill Stein has raised enough money for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania after experts said it was possible that hackers had artificially lowered Hillary Clinton’s counts there.
If all three states were overturned – however unlikely that outcome may be – it could theoretically hand the White House to Clinton.
Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway criticized those who were calling for a recount on Thursday, writing on Twitter: ‘Look who “can’t accept the election results.”‘
She then linked to an article about Clinton supporters calling for a recount. DailyMail
Within the last year multiple fake news sites have sprung up that sound like legitimate news and that imitate and look like legitimate news sites. Fake news sites will never go away, people need to read things critically. Even mainstream news needs to be read critically – collusion in the Podesta mails – circulating a list of conservative and centrist websites as ‘fake news’. It seems at times the mainstream media is yellow journalism – the type of journalism that relies on sensationalism and lurid exaggeration to attract readers.
A recent study of local TV stations in the US conducted by Adornato revealed that that nearly 40% of their editorial policies did not include any guidelines on how to verify information from social media, yet news managers at the TV stations admitted that at least a third of their news bulletins had reported information from social media that later was revealed to be false or inaccurate.BBC
MSM & Democrat Party & Social Media
The mainstream media continues to freak out over the spread of “fake news” on Facebook and other social media platforms such as Twitter and reddit. Hillary Clinton’s late campaign thinks this is a problem.
The Democrat party seems to think people with Facebook accounts are to blame for Hillary’s decision to ignore crucial swing states in the final weeks of the campaign, that likely cost her the election.
But the media hasn’t bothered to ask why such sites gained traction. Our media has cultivated false news for years. Understandably, people stopped caring about the “journalistic ethics” the media claim to possess…
Google is working on a policy change to prevent fake news websites that misrepresent content from using its AdSense advertising.
Google Statement: “Moving forward, we will restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher’s content, or the primary purpose of the web property.”
Facebook Statement: It’s no secret that Facebook has a fake news problem. Critics have accused the social network of allowing false and hoax news stories to run rampant, with some suggesting that Facebook contributed to Donald Trump’s election by letting hyper-partisan websites spread false and misleading information. Mark Zuckerberg has addressed the issue twice since Election Day, most notably in a carefully worded statement that reads: “Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99 percent of what people see is authentic. Only a very small amount is fake news and hoaxes. The hoaxes that do exist are not limited to one partisan view, or even to politics.” Gizmodo
Labeling conservative websites fake news!
Merrimack College assistant professor Melissa Zimdars, who specialized in “fat studies”, is the author of the “fake news” list circulated online. The list includes conservative websites: Red State, BreitBart, Daily Wire, and the Blaze. The list also includes Project Veritas and the Independent Journal Review (centrist). Continue reading “Taking Aim At Fake News Sites”
Same as the polls in Britain with Brexit, all the polls were wrong.
Until the eleventh hour predictions were that Hillary had an 85 percent chance of winning the election
‘We are trying to puzzle this out. Almost all polls were wrong, national and battleground states. Why?’ said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, who had predicted Clinton would win with 322 electoral votes. DailyMail
Too busy labelling people; racists, xenophobes, misogynists, deplorables – to work out they might actually have a meaningful view. It is a mirror image of Britain’s Brexiteers ‘too stupid’ to know what they voted for.
Clinton’s supporters are in disbelief. They have been played like puppets, imagining voting by gender, race or colour was how politics works.
The Hispanics – sat weeping in at Clinton Basecamp, because Clinton’s running mate spoke Spanish…. and that should have been enough – and the media were determined to tell us the Hispanic vote would crush The Donald.
More Hispanics voted for The Donald than his predecessor Romney.
The women who campaigned on chromosomes alone – wringing out their ovaries in despair… because it was time for a woman in the White House – no matter how unlikeable she was, or the horrors committed in her past. They forgot strong women, like me, back Trump. We do not need to be seen as victims.
The black vote – calling this a whitelash. Making this about colour – a vote against Obama because of his skin – when actually his policies were the thing that failed him. This was not a whitelash. This was a backlash against Obama and his failure to achieve anything in eight years in office.
The media would have us believe all women, black Americans and Hispanics were with Clinton. That is a savage and base generalisation.
People do not actually vote on rhetoric about their chromosomes, their language or their sex. We are smarter than that.
Hillary got that all wrong.
People vote for policy that will make a difference to their lives, policy that will bring change. It is how Obama won the vote. And it worked for the diametrically opposed candidate – Donald – too.
To reduce immigration and deport those migrants who fail to follow the law of the country;
To prevent Islamic extremists from infiltrating the United States – in the way Europe has allowed itself to be overrun and Germany has all but fallen;
To make alliances with new political powerhouses and stop paying to be the policeman of the world and to make trade deals which return jobs and industry to Middle America DailyMail
A new Pew Study finds that Hillary Clinton’s supportors, in particular educated white supporters, are less tolerant of Trump backers. No surprise.
A Pew Research poll has confirmed what many of us already knew: white liberals are some of the most intolerant people on the planet.
The polling outfit’s latest research indicates that 58% of Hillary Clinton backers say they have a “hard time” respecting someone who supports Donald Trump for president, with 40% having “no trouble” with the idea. It’s worse among highly educated people, at 66%, and even more so if they’re white, 68%. Minority supporters of Clinton are far more tolerant of their Trump counterparts.
As for Trump voters, “there is little difference in these views between men and women or by education level,” Pew states. “About four-in-ten Trump supporters in each of these groups say they have a hard time respecting someone who supports Clinton.”
The only difference for Trump voters is by age. That is, 45% of older Trump voters were more likely to have a hard time with respect for a Clinton voter while just 29% of younger Trump supporters do. TruthRevolt
Wow, the FBI viewed all 650,000 in a very short time, some achievement! Must have been that push from DOJ for a fast exoneration.
Politico reported, “Justice officials disclaimed any political motivations in their shift in strategy, the effort to put the investigation on a fast track would be a step toward meeting the demands of top Democrats and the Clinton campaign for more answers in advance of the election.”
Comey does not say the investigation is stopped.
FBI Director Comey’s letter to Congress:
I write to supplement my October 28, 2016 letter that notified you the FBI would be taking additional investigative steps with respect to former Secretary of State Clinton’s use of a personal email server.
Since my letter, the FBI investigative team has been working around the clock to process and review a large volume of emails from a device obtained in connection with an unrelated criminal investigation.
During that process, we reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State.
Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.
I am very grateful to the professionals at the FBI for doing an extraordinary amount of high-quality work in a short period of time. DailyMail
Hillary Clinton should not be near any classified documents!
A classified letter was sent by Hillary to Chelsea.
Before releasing the heavily redacted email to Judicial Watch, the State Department marked it “B1.4(b)” and “B1.4(d),” indicating that it contained “Foreign Government Information’ and “Foreign relations or foreign activities of the US including confidential sources.” The State Department also misleadingly labeled the email with the term “near duplicate.” JudicialWatch