Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton presidential campaign

This Is What Desperation Looks Like

Posted on by

On Sunday, The Epoch Times reported that Indiana Democrats have attempted to disqualify Representative Jim Banks (R-Ind.) from running in the November general election. The attempt was made because Representative Banks contested the 2020 election results. There have been similar attempts to disqualify other Republican candidates in other states. Thankfully, the bipartisan Indiana Election Commission dismissed the challenge to Representative Banks.

The article reports:

Aaron “A.J.” Calkins of Fort Wayne, Indiana, who’s running in a three-way Democratic Party primary for the right to face third-term U.S. Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) in the November general election, filed a formal challenge on Feb. 10. Calkins claimed in the filing that Banks was guilty of a “violation of the 14th Amendment supporting an insurrection.”

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “No person shall be a … Representative in Congress … who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

This so-called disqualification clause that’s part of the 14th Amendment is a post-Civil War measure that, among other things, was aimed at keeping individuals who fought for the defeated Confederacy out of Congress. The amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868, a little more than three years after Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia surrendered.

The clause was “meant for Confederate officers who actually took up arms against the United States,” J. Christian Adams, president of the Indianapolis-based Public Interest Legal Foundation, recently told The Epoch Times.

The novel theory that someone can be tossed from the ballot for something that falls short of an actual insurrection comes from attorney Marc Elias, who has a long history of successfully challenging election integrity laws in court. He laid out a blueprint for using the 14th Amendment to disqualify Republicans in a Dec. 20, 2021, Twitter post.

“My prediction for 2022: Before the midterm election, we will have a serious discussion about whether individual Republican House Members are disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from serving in Congress,” he wrote. “We may even see litigation.”

We have heard the name Marc Elias before. He was a central figure in the ‘RussiaGate’ conspiracy. He was the man who hired Fusion GPS for the Clinton presidential campaign of 2016.

The article concludes:

Before the commission voted to reject the challenge, its chairman, Paul Okeson, said the events of Jan. 6, 2021, were “a regrettable mark in history,” but he knew of no evidence that Banks was guilty of participating in an insurrection.

After the hearing, Banks claimed vindication.

“Many Democrats in Washington hope to weaponize the 14th Amendment to disenfranchise President Trump’s 74 million voters,” Banks said in a statement. “I hope they watched today’s unanimous decision.”

Expect more of these attempts to disqualify Republican candidates as we get closer to the mid-term elections. The Democrat Party is doing anything and everything it can to hold on to power. They do not want to fact the consequences of the Republicans taking charge and actually investigating some of the recent escapades of the Democrat Party.

Not A Good Look

Posted on by

The Iowa Democrat Caucuses have not gone well. As usually happens in the modern world of social media, the memes have begun.

This is one of the better memes that showed up on my Facebook feed:

However, on a more serious note…

One America News reported today:

Officials in Iowa reportedly knew there were problems with the mobile app used to tally the results in Monday’s caucus. The state’s Democrat Party released a statement late Monday to announce its decision to delay the release of the official results. They cited “inconsistencies” in the results as the reason for the postponement.

The Democrats went on to specify the delay was not because of a hack in an apparent effort to quell possible theories of election interference. On top of the supposed “inconsistencies,” however, many county chairs in Iowa have said they reported problems with the new app in the week before the caucus date. One chair from Polk County said not only were there unresolved problems with the app, but local Democrat officials weren’t provided any training on how to use it.

There were also reports of the phone lines being backed up for counties to report their results, with some reports suggesting county officials were on-hold for over an hour. Many counties were forced to switch to recording the votes on paper. Despite all this, the state’s Democrat Party has assured voters the underlying reporting was sound, but it would take time to tally the votes.

Fox News reported today:

The app that was supposed to help the Iowa Democratic Party quickly report Monday’s caucus results – but contributed to confusion and a muddled result as campaigns were in an uproar – is linked to Hillary Clinton campaign veterans.

Shadow, a tech firm that describes itself as a group that creates “a permanent advantage for progressive campaigns and causes through technology,” is the company that created the Iowa Democratic Party’s app, according to The New York Times. At least the COO, CEO, CTO and a senior product manager at Shadow all worked for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, according to LinkedIn profiles.

Shadow is associated with ACRONYM, a nonprofit dedicated to “advancing progressive causes through innovative communications, advertising and organizing programs.” Early last year, ACRONYM announced that it was acquiring an SMS tool called Groundbase and, out of Groundbase, “launching Shadow, a company focused on building the technology infrastructure needed to enable Democrats to run better, more efficient campaigns.”

The article at Fox News continues:

Groundbase co-founders Krista Davis, who is the current Shadow CTO, and Gerard Niemira, who is the current Shadow CEO, both held senior positions with the Clinton campaign.

Tara McGowan, the founder and CEO of ACRONYM, posted a statement from an ACRONYM spokesman early Tuesday morning distancing the nonprofit from Shadow, which is a for-profit company.

“ACRONYM is a nonprofit organization and not a technology company. As such, we have not provided any technology to the Iowa Democratic Party, Presidential campaigns, or the Democratic National Committee,” spokesman Kyle Tharp said in the statement. “ACRONYM is an investor in several for-profit companies across the progressive media and technology sectors. One of those independent, for-profit companies is Shadow, Inc, which also has other private investors. We are reading confirmed reports of Shadow’s word with the Iowa Democratic Party on Twitter, and we, like everyone else, are eagerly awaiting more information from the Iowa Democratic Party with respect to what happened.”

McGowan is an alumna of Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign and previously worked as a digital director for NexGen America, a progressive organization founded by presidential candidate Tom Steyer.

Remember in 2016 when the DNC took the nomination away from Bernie Sanders? Is there any reason not to believe that those in the smoke-filled rooms are doing a repeat performance? I am willing to go on the record to say that somehow, I don’t know how, Hillary Clinton will be the Democrat Presidential Candidate in 2020. Stay tuned.

Waiting For The Spin

Posted on by

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article comparing statements made by top officials in the State Department in 2017 to what we know now about the Steele Dossier. We know that the people involved in the spygate scandal felt that if Hillary Clinton were elected, it would all go away. What is interesting is that they were still lying in 2017.

The article reports:

Now that Chairman Devin Nunes, Chuck Grassley and the key players themselves, have discovered and admitted the U.S. State Department was heavily involved in passing along Clinton opposition research to Chris Steele to create the “Clinton-Steele Dossier”, it’s interesting to look at how the former State Department spokesperson -in place during all the events- responded last year when the Clinton-Steele Dossier was thought to be part of the underlying evidence for the DOJ/FBI FISA application.

Former State Department spokesperson Marie Harf, a person in direct and continuous contact with all the principle agents during the 2016 information flow, was confronted in July 2017 and adamantly denied the dossier was part of the FISA application.

The video clip of that denial is included in the article at The Gateway Pundit.

The article continues:

Looking beyond the transparent lying and subsequent collapse of credibility, the key takeaway here is how State Department officials knew what was going on in 2016, recognized the risk presented by that action in 2017, and were willing to walk the plank because they were certain none of it would ever come to light.

The article concludes:

Officials at the top of the FBI and Department of Justice; officials in the intelligence apparatus of the ODNI, CIA and NSA; and officials at the top of the U.S. Department of State – to include Secretary John Kerry; were all working in common political cause.

Beyond the political talking points, when you simply point out the provable facts the Director of the FBI, Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of State, were all deeply within the information loop there’s no way possible to extract President Obama from the network. This is how the collapsing house of cards eventually brings down the office of the presidency.

What would be the fall-back, or alternative, narrative?

The talking points are still a few weeks away, but there’s only one possible angle: The President was unaware of the action of his Attorney General, FBI Director, Director of National Intelligence, CIA Director and Secretary of State?

Absurd.

Many of the people involved in the surveillance of the Trump campaign and the Trump transition team are still employed by the government. A few have resigned, but many are still employed. It is time for them to be fired and convicted of violating Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights.

It Just Gets Uglier

Posted on by

The Federalist is reporting today that since April President Obama has sent nearly a million dollars of his campaign money to the law group that hired Fusion GPS. This information appears in records filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

The article reports:

The Washington Post reported last week that Perkins Coie, an international law firm, was directed by both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to retain Fusion GPS in April of 2016 to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump. Fusion GPS then hired Christopher Steele, a former British spy, to compile a dossier of allegations that Trump and his campaign actively colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 election. Though many of the claims in the dossier have been directly refuted, none of the dossier’s allegations of collusion have been independently verified. Lawyers for Steele admitted in court filings last April that his work was not verified and was never meant to be made public.

OFA, Obama’s official campaign arm in 2016, paid nearly $800,000 to Perkins Coie in 2016 alone, according to FEC records. The first 2016 payments to Perkins Coie, classified only as “Legal Services,” were made April 25-26, 2016, and totaled $98,047. A second batch of payments, also classified as “Legal Services,” were disbursed to the law firm on September 29, 2016, and totaled exactly $700,000. Payments from OFA to Perkins Coie in 2017 totaled $174,725 through August 22, 2017.

The significance of this is simple. The information in the dossier put together by Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele is said to be the basis for the surveillance of the Trump campaign and the Trump transition team. Think about that. Essentially President Obama paid to have a group gather dirt on Donald Trump and then used that dirt (even though it was questionable at best) as the basis for electronic surveillance. That sort of political spying on American citizens is exactly what those in Congress who opposed the Patriot Act were trying to prevent. It seems as if there are a lot of people in Washington who abused their power in recent years and need to be held accountable. The swamp must be drained.

An Interesting Perspective On Recent Comments By Evelyn Farkas

Posted on by

Townhall.com posted an article today about the recent comments by Evelyn Farkas on MSNBC regarding surveillance of President Trump’s transition team.

The article notes:

First, Farkas here acknowledges that the Obama administration, essentially, had indeed been gathering intelligence, or spying, on private citizens.

Second, being the Democrat partisan that she obviously is, Farkas’ intention in making these comments, and making them in the left-friendly venue of MSNBC, was to suggest that the Democrats’ “The Russians Made Us Do It (Lose)” narrative has substance.

At this point the article notes that Ms. Farkas provided no actual information relating to the charges that the Russians were responsible for Hillary Clinton losing the election. I would like to point out that Hillary Clinton would have been a much more favorable candidate for the Russians–she had already given them 20 percent of America‘s uranium reserves, and her campaign manager had extensive financial interests in Russia. I would also like to point out that the Russians were not responsible for Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategy.

The article continues:

Third, in fact, Farkas never even mentions any correspondence between Trump and “the Russians.” No, she instead references “Trump folks” and “the Trump staff” when talking about Russia.

Fourth, while Farkas obviously wanted for audiences to think that Obama’s government discovered some nefarious connection between “Trump folks” and those dastardly Russians, the only allusion that she ever manages to make is to the “dealings” that she alleges transpired between these groups.

In other words, Farkas’s wording here is profoundly vague.

Fifth, Farkas unwittingly confesses that she worried about “the Trump folks” discovering “how we knew what we knew….” Is it not eminently reasonable to infer from this statement that the “how” in question, the methods by which intelligence was supposedly gathered, consists of surveillance of the “Trump folks?”

Think about that for a minute. Why would “how we knew what we knew” be an issue unless there was some wrongdoing involved? Otherwise, what difference would it make?

The article further points out that Ms. Farkas left the government in 2015. If she left in 2015, how and why is she involved now? What are her security clearances? What is her “need to know”? Her words may have encouraged loyal Democrats to continue to search for the first real piece of evidence in this months’ old scandal, but she definitely opened a can of worms in the process!

Sometimes You Have To Go Across The Pond To Find Out What Is Going On Here

Posted on by

On Sunday, The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article about the re-opening of the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The article reports the following:

James Comey‘s decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.

‘The atmosphere at the FBI has been toxic ever since Jim announced last July that he wouldn’t recommend an indictment against Hillary,’ said the source, a close friend who has known Comey for nearly two decades, shares family outings with him, and accompanies him to Catholic mass every week.

…According to the source, Comey fretted over the problem for months and discussed it at great length with his wife, Patrice. 

He told his wife that he was depressed by the stack of resignation letters piling up on his desk from disaffected agents. The letters reminded him every day that morale in the FBI had hit rock bottom.

There is also another theory as to why the investigation was re-opened–we are still awaiting more emails from Wikileaks. It would be embarrassing (to say the least) if the Wikileaks emails made the case for charging Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information. It seems to me that based on Director Comey’s original statement, we already have that case, but having Wikileaks confirm it would further create the appearance of a compromised FBI.

The thing to remember here is that the person ultimately responsible for this mess is Hillary Clinton. The personal server was set up to avoid scrutiny of the symbiotic relationship between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s State Department. It has become obvious that President Obama and other officials sent emails to addresses on that server and were aware of it. The fact that the issue of the personal server was never confronted during Mrs. Clinton’s term as Secretary of State raises the question of complicity. That might explain why the Executive Branch of our government is having so much trouble getting to the truth of this matter.

A Tale Of Two Investigations

Posted on by

When the FBI is not interfered with, it conducts a thorough, complete investigation. The investigation of Anthony Weiner for sexting an underage girl was well done; the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server was a sham. That is the reason FBI Director James Comey was forced to reopen the investigation into Hillary’s private email server and the security risks created by Hillary Clinton and her staff’s careless handling of classified information.

On Friday, The New York Post posted an article about the impact the Weiner case has had on the email scandal.

The article stated the following:

It appears the FBI agents investigating Anthony Weiner for sexting an underaged girl have done the job that the FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information didn’t or weren’t allowed to do.

Agents reportedly found thousands of State Department-related emails ostensibly containing classified information on the electronic devices belonging to Weiner and his wife and top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The discovery has prompted FBI Director James Comey to, on the eve of the election, reopen the Clinton case he prematurely closed last July.

How did agents examine the devices? By seizing them. It’s a common practice in criminal investigations, but one that clearly was not applied in the case of Clinton or her top aide — even though agents assigned to that case knew Abedin hoarded classified emails on her electronic devices.

Contrast the seizure of the devices in the Weiner case with the way electronic devices were handled in the Clinton case (as reported here on October 12):

The bombshell this week is that Loretta Lynch and James Comey not only gave immunity to Hillary’s closest co-conspirators Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson—who, despite being attorneys, destroyed evidence right and left—but, in a secret side deal, agreed to limit the FBI’s review of the Clinton team laptops to pre-January 2015 and to destroy the laptops when the FBI review was complete.

Congress and every law-abiding citizen in this country should be outraged. This blatant destruction of evidence is obstruction of justice itself.

I can’t help but think that if Hillary Clinton had cooperated with the investigation from the beginning, it might have all blown over by now. On the other hand, she might be sitting in a jail cell pondering her future and waiting for a pardon from President Obama.

 

How Does This Accurately Inform The American People?

Posted on by

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted an article based on Wikileaks information about the relationship between the Clinton campaign and the media.

The article reports:

Thanks to Wikileaks we now know that at least 65 mainstream reporters were working closely with the Clinton campaign this election year. They were invited to top elitist dinners with Hillary Campaign Chairman John Podesta or Chief Campaign strategist Joel Benenson.

NO FOX NEWS REPORTERS MADE THE LIST!

…We also know that Politico’s chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush was sending the Hillary campaign articles for their review before publishing.

We know CNBC and New York Times reporter John Harwood was working with the Clinton campaign to help Hillary.

At least 65 mainstream media reporters were chummy with the Hillary campaign from the beginning.\

How are Americans supposed to make intelligent decisions about voting when a large portion of the media is working with one of the candidates? Please follow the link above to read the entire article and see the list of media people included.

Using The Press To Try To Steal An Election

Posted on by

It has long been obvious that the press is biased toward the liberal end of the political spectrum, but that bias has really been extreme during the current presidential primary. On Thursday, Kim Strassel at The Wall Street Journal posted an article noting the difference in the press coverage of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The media spent a lot of time covering allegations of inappropriate behavior by Donald Trump despite the fact that these allegations had not be made during the thirty years he has been in the public eye and despite the fact that some of the circumstances of the allegations are extremely questionable. Meanwhile, Wikileaks leaked many of the emails that Hillary Clinton had destroyed as ‘personal’ or simply not turned over in response to subpoenas for those emails and the press pretty much ignored the contents of those emails.

The article reports:

But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.

It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders. The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story. So let’s review what amounts to a devastating case against a Clinton presidency.

 Start with a June 2015 email to Clinton staffers from Erika Rottenberg, the former general counsel of LinkedIn. Ms. Rottenberg wrote that none of the attorneys in her circle of friends “can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents.” She added: “It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I’ve either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.”

…The leaks show that the (Clinton) foundation was indeed the nexus of influence and money. The head of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Ira Magaziner, suggested in a 2011 email that Bill Clinton call Sheikh Mohammed of Saudi Arabia to thank him for offering the use of a plane. In response, a top Clinton Foundation official wrote: “Unless Sheikh Mo has sent us a $6 million check, this sounds crazy to do.”

The article concludes:

Mrs. Clinton has been exposed to have no core, to be someone who constantly changes her position to maximize political gain. Leaked speeches prove that she has two positions (public and private) on banks; two positions on the wealthy; two positions on borders; two positions on energy. Her team had endless discussions about what positions she should adopt to appease “the Red Army”—i.e. “the base of the Democratic Party.”

Voters might not know any of this, because while both presidential candidates have plenty to answer for, the press has focused solely on taking out Mr. Trump. And the press is doing a diligent job of it.

That should concern all of us.

 

Stealing From The Poor To Enrich The Rich

Posted on by

This is a screenshot taken from the Observer:

bankstatementThe article reports:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.

The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.

…“We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the fraud specialist explained. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we don’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they’ll stop the charges just below $100. We’ll see her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.” The source, who has worked for Wells Fargo for over 10 years, said that the total amount they refund customers on a daily basis who have been overcharged by Clinton’s campaign “varies” but the bank usually issues refunds that total between $700 and $1,200 per day.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. The repeated charges to Mrs. Mahre are not an isolated incident. It is totally amazing to me that with the amount of money the Clintons have amassed through questionable dealings involving the Clinton Foundation they would feel the need to obtain campaign funds dishonestly. There seems to be a pattern in the actions of the Clinton family.

The Script Of The Democratic Convention Was Eight Years Old

Posted on by

Duane Patterson, who produces the Hugh Hewitt show on Salem radio, posted an article at Hot Air on Saturday. The article is speculative, but it bears examining because of the way the pieces fit together.

The article deals with a timeline going back to 2008 when Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination for President and he and Hillary Clinton suddenly became best friends. If you look at the players in the DNC at that time and the events of the past two weeks, it is amazing that a lot of the names are the same and the positions rotated in a very interesting way.

In 2009, Tim Kaine became the chairman of the DNC at the request of President Obama. In 2011, he stepped down, at the request of President Obama, to run for the Virginia Senate seat held by Jim Webb. Kaine was not particularly interested in running for the seat, but was persuaded to run for the seat and won. Donna Brazille was the interim chairman after Kaine stepped down, and was expected to become chairman. However, President Obama moved Hillary Clinton’s former campaign co-chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz into the chairmanship of the DNC.

The article concludes:

Snopes notes that the timeline is basically correct, that all these events did take place. As for proving the backroom deal between Obama and Hillary, with the players in the trade being Kaine and Wasserman-Schultz, Snopes can’t prove or disprove it. But that’s the fun about the innertubes. Speculation can run rampant, especially on a weekend after a political convention that was manipulated to make sure that the Bernie Sanders people got screwed over every which way possible.

When you look back at this chain of events, post-DNC hacking scandal, it sure is a lot easier to understand why there was a thumb, a fist, hell, a side of beef, on the scale against Bernie Sanders and his supports in the 2016 primary cycle.

Bernie voters, you sad saps, you never had a chance. Now, we can reasonably suspect that the chance you didn’t have goes back eight years. We can also deduce that the Democratic Party is a top-down organization, not a grassroots organization. They claim to be, of course, but the power at the top has nothing to do with the will of the people in its base. It’s a club where only the opinions of a couple of members count.

Unfortunately, the Republican establishment probably tried something very similar to the scenario above to get Jeb Bush nominated, but they are simply not as good at corruption as the Democrats and wound up with Donald Trump. Regardless of how you feel about Donald Trump, he may be the person who will end the tyranny of the current political system.

A New Twist On The Lastest Attack On Christie

Posted on by

Yesterday the Daily Caller reported that the Jersey shore advertisements that New Jersey Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone asked the Department of Housing and Urban Development over the summer to probe were approved by the Obama administration.

The article reports:

“The Stronger Than The Storm campaign was just one part of the first action plan approved by the Obama Administration and developed with the goal of effectively communicating that the Jersey Shore was open for business during the first summer after Sandy,” Christie spokesman Colin Reed said Monday.

…“Federal agency reviews are routine and standard operating procedure with all federally allocated resources to ensure that funds are distributed fairly,” Reed said. “We’re confident that any review will show that the ads were a key part in helping New Jersey get back on its feet after being struck by the worst storm in state history.”

The action plan that Christie’s office said was approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development included language calling for a media campaign to draw tourists back to the beaches.

Even if this information makes it to the mainstream media, this will not be the end of the story. As you hear these attacks on Christie, keep in mind that the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign people (yes, that campaign already exists) are convinced that Christie would be a real threat to an election victory for Clinton. These attacks will continue until the Clinton campaign is convinced that they have removed Christie as a viable candidate. Be prepared.

Enhanced by Zemanta