Tag Archives: Clinton corruption

New evidence shows Hillary is even more crooked than everyone thought she was

There was most certainly a corruption scandal in the 2016 election.  And it involved Hillary Clinton.

Now she’s going to have to face the music after bombshell evidence has proven she’s guilty of collusion.

Former Democrat National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile is out with an explosive new book.  In it she claims the Democrat National Committee colluded with the Clinton campaign to rig the 2016 primary against Bernie Sanders.

The party and Hillary’s campaign entered into what is called a joint fundraising agreement.  Usually the party nominee assumes control of this and other party functions after they wrap up the primary.  Not in this case.  Hillary had been controlling the money for months.

Politico reports on one excerpt in Brazile’s book:

“Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call.

 I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt.  As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put the party on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, and she expected to wield control of party operations.

Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.

By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.”

Brazile describes how she found the evidence that proved the Clintons and the DNC had rigged the primary.

From Politico:

…When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June.  Hillary’s victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The funding arrangement with Hillary and the DNC was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which candidate they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.”

 

[From an article published by GREAT AMERICAN DAILY]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Hillary and Bill Clinton have never been honest with America since they left Little Rock, Arkansas for the bright lights of the nation’s capital.  Hillary and Bill Clinton do not know how to be honest.  Hillary was trying to sell her influence as recently as her term as secretary of state, and Bill was trying to sell his own influence through contributions to the worthless Clinton Foundation.  Bill Clinton was impeached as a sitting president, and Hillary, thankfully, never made it to the Oval Office so she could be impeached as president.  But as this recent book shows, Hillary is not yet out of the woods, not by a long shot.

 

………………………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Turns out it wasn’t Russia who was trying to control the election last year, it was SOCIAL MEDIA!

Censorship by social media

 

Since Donald Trump won the presidential election, liberals have been howling at the moon, or as they plan to do on November 8, 2017, “screaming helplessly at the sky,” consistently accusing social media giants of allowing “fake news” to spread, then screeching about “Russian ads” on social media. But in congressional testimony, we see proof of what many conservatives and Wikileaks accused Twitter and Facebook of during the election cycle: Censoring news and deliberately hiding news not favorable to Hillary Clinton.  Turns out any activity by Russia was so tiny it would not have made even a small ripple in the election pond.

Twitter’s general counsel Sean Edgett testified before U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism on October 31.  The committee’s investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election found that merely four percent of tweets using the hashtag #PodestaEmails (referring to the Wikileaks publications of emails leaked from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta), and only two percent of tweets using the hashtag #DNCLeak (referring to Wikileaks publication of emails leaked from John Podesta) actually came from Russian linked accounts.

What Edgett actually testified shows that while Russia had far less than impressive reach or influence, Twitter itself directly attempted to influence the 2016 election by arbitrarily censoring and hiding information that Twitter users were highly interested in. Why? Because it did not fit Twitter’s agenda and did not favor their candidate of choice.

From his testimony:

We found that slightly under 4% of Tweets containing #PodestaEmails came from accounts with potential links to Russia, and that those Tweets accounted for less than 20% of impressions within the first seven days of posting. Approximately 75% of impressions on the trending topic were views by U.S.-based users. A significant portion of these impressions, however, are attributable to a handful of high-profile accounts, primarily @Wikileaks. At least one heavily-retweeted Tweet came from another potentially Russia-linked account that showed signs of automation.

With respect to #DNCLeak, approximately 23,000 users posted around 140,000 unique Tweets with that hashtag in the relevant period. Of those Tweets, roughly 2% were from potentially Russian-linked accounts. As noted above, our automated systems at the time detected, labeled, and hid just under half (48%) of all the original Tweets with #DNCLeak. Of the total Tweets with the hashtag, 0.84% were hidden and also originated from accounts that met at least one of the criteria for a Russian-linked account. Those Tweets received 0.21% of overall Tweet impressions. We learned that a small number of Tweets from several large accounts were principally responsible for the propagation of this trend. In fact, two of the ten most-viewed Tweets with #DNCLeak were posted by @Wikileaks, an account with millions of followers.

Wikileaks exposed the DNC corruption, showing that the DNC actively worked in favor of the Clinton campaign and actively against the Bernie Sanders campaign to rig the primaries, something which former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, Donna Brazile, confirmed yet again on Thursday, November 2, 2017, as she exposed rampant corruption within both the DNC and the Hillary Clinton camapign.

After Wikileaks published those leaked emails, former head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was forced to resign her position as the DNC chair.

As evidence by Edgett’s own claim that 75 percent of the impressions on the #PodestaEmails hashtag were viewed by U.S. based users, and the overwhelmingly high percentage of tweets using the #DNCLeak hashtag that were unrelated to accounts that might or might not have been linked to Russia, interest within the U.S. was high in regards to the Wikileaks revelations, hence two of the top ten most-viewed tweets coming directly from the Wikileaks account.  So we have published information that U.S. citizens using Twitter were extremely interested in, and we’re told Twitter “hid” that information (“censored” it) from nearly half of their users.

Now, using liberals’ own logic here, if seeing a tweet that might have come from a Russian is to be considered “meddling” in an election, then hiding nearly half the tweets about a topic U.S. citizens are extremely interested in must also be considered “meddling.”

From Breitbart:

#DNCLeaks was one of the top trending topics on Twitter on July 22 with over 250,000 tweets reportedly made under the hashtag after the WikiLeaks release of more than 19,000 leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee.

Later on in the day, however, the hashtag reportedly disappeared from the trending bar for some 20 minutes, before reappearing under the less popular hashtag “#DNCleak.”

“The change meant that those investigating the new trending hashtag would not see all of the other posts tagged under the previous version, effectively hiding over 250,000 tweets from the public,” the report noted.

None of this came up in Edgett’s testimony Tuesday, which adds further questions to the already egregious partisan censorship that Twitter seems guilty of.

Edgett said that prior to the election, “we also detected and took action on activity relating to hashtags that have since been reported as manifestations of efforts to interfere with the 2016 election,” even though what he calls “interference” was in the majority of cases a simple effort to “influence” the election by providing damning true information about the Hillary Clinton campaign, which is a normal thing during presidential campaigns.

One more note on Twitter’s meddling and their hypocrisy. It is being reported that not only did Twitter welcome Russian ads, they actively sought and pressed Russia Today to ramp up their election related ad buys by offering them 15 percent of their total shares of elections advertising.

ZeroHedge points out that RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan virtually smacks Twitter and liberals claiming that “ad buys” are somehow an attempt to influence elections by highlighting that “similar campaigns are conducted by the American media in the Russian segment of Twitter.”

This is forcing us to go a step further and come clean that we also spent money on advertising at airports, in taxis, on billboards, on the Internet, on TV and radio. Even CNN ran our commercials,” Simonyan said. “By the way, similar campaigns are conducted by the American media in the Russian segment of Twitter. It’ll be very interesting to find out how much they spend on it, who they target and for what purpose.”

While Twitter is just admitting to censoring and hiding relevant election related information from their users, Facebook had previously admitted to blocking posts with Wikileaks links and after they were busted publicly for doing so back in July 2016, then claimed it was an “accident.”

While we have wondered many times if someone like former White House Chief Strategist and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Steve Bannon was behind what appears to be a coordinated effort to take down the establishment liberal “elite,” we do note via some direct quotes by Bannon reported on by Newsweek that if he wasn’t behind the initial phase, he is most definitely going after Hollywood now, saying Bannon is “declaring a new phase of war on the entertainment industry.”

“Hollywood isn’t a new battlefront for Breitbart, it’s the original battle,” Bannon told The Hollywood Reporter in an interview published Thursday. “The fact that it’s blowing itself up isn’t a new stage in the culture war, it’s an inevitable one,” he added. “They’ve ignored half the country’s values for far too long and now these Hollywood elitists’ values are publicly on display, and bankrupt.

“These are the same people who disingenuously seized the moral high ground as they attacked our president based on a standard they do not live by,” said Bannon, who helped found Breitbard and returned as executive chairman after departing the administration. “Americans took their country back not only from the permanent political class but also from these phony culture brokers who have waged war against their way of life for decades. Make no mistake, we didn’t start this war, but how Hollywood responds from here will determine whether or not it survives.”

With Barack Obama recently claiming that Breitbart News managed to “shift the entire media narrative in a different direction — in a powerful direction,” during the 2016 election, it is perhaps appropriate that Breitbart has been at the forefront of taking on Hollywood, the MSM, and the Uranium One story (which they first started beating the drum on with the “Clinton Cash” back in 2016), and now spotlighting social media’s direct attempts, via censorship, to actively influence the 2016 president election.

It stretches the imagination to think that the sexual abuse scandals rocking both Hollywood and the MSM, at the same time that the new information is coming out in regards to the Uranium One story, plus the recent exposure of the Democratic funding for the “Trump dossier,” and now social media giants being shown to have meddled in U.S. elections with even some media outlets saying Facebook, Twitter and Google should all be regulated, is just coincidence.

Really?  Not hardly.  The problem with the liberals is that they are not smart enough to stop digging their hole when it’s already more than deep enough to bury them.

 

[From an article published by ALL NEWS PIPELINE]

 

……………………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Clinton scandals and corruption reports becoming more serious almost daily…

The C stands for "corruption."According to an investigative report from the International Business Times that was released on Thursday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seemed to suddenly change her mind about Colombian human/workers rights abuses just as the Clinton Foundation was receiving millions of dollars in donations from a Canadian firm with heavy interests in Colombian oil.

The Hill reported on the story and offered this brief summary of what the IBTimes found.

The report centers on donations from Frank Giustra and the oil company that he founded, Pacific Rubiales. In a Wall Street Journal storyfrom 2008, Giustra is described as a “friend and traveling companion” of former President Clinton who donated more than $130 million to Clinton’s philanthropies. He’s also a Clinton Foundation board member and has participated in projects and benefits for the foundation.

When workers at Pacific Rubiales decided to strike in 2011, the Columbian military reportedly used force to stop the strikes and compel them to return to work, IBT reports, citing the Washington office of Latin America, a human rights group. Those accusations of human rights violations were part of the criticism of the United States-Colombia Free Trade Promotion Agreement, which was passed by Congress later that year. Pacific Rubiales has repeatedly denied charges that it infringed on workers’ rights.

On the campaign trail in 2008, Hillary Clinton, along with then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, opposed the deal as a raw deal for workers, according to IBT. The pair changed their tune after the election and publicly supported the trade agreement. As secretary of State, Clinton’s State Department certified annually that Colombia was “meeting statutory criteria related to human rights.”

But wait, folks. It gets worse. Also, on Thursday Politico ran a story that showed that the Clinton Family Foundation had accepted millions of dollars in donations from the Morrocan government, even as the nation continued to violate human rights that Clinton pretends to care about.

Clinton had been scheduled to appear at the meeting in Marrakech, dubbed the Clinton Global Initiative Middle East and Africa Meeting, on May 5-7. But an official with the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation told POLITICO it’s “unlikely” the former secretary of state will join her husband, Bill. He is still expected at the event, as is Moroccan King Mohammed VI.

The event is being funded largely by a contribution of at least $1 million from OCP, a phosphate exporter owned by Morocco’s constitutional monarchy, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the event.

When Hillary Clinton announced the Marrakech meeting in September, she praised Morocco as “a vital hub for economic and cultural exchange” in a region “in the midst of dramatic changes.”

But in 2011, Clinton’s State Department had accused the Moroccan government of “arbitrary arrests and corruption in all branches of government.” And while the country that same year enacted a new constitution that guarantees gender equality, women’s rights advocates say Morocco’s family law still falls short of that promise.

The deeper the media continues to dig into the Clinton Family finances, the more dirt they are likely to find. I think most observers would now say that Hillary Clinton is not as “inevitable” as they once thought she would be. In fact, her chances of winning the Democrat nomination seem to sink further down each day… and her chances of being President seem far lower than ever before. Perhaps the American people are finally starting to realize just how corrupt, self-serving and disgusting Bill and Hillary Clinton really are.

[by Onan Coca, writing for EAGLE RISING]
……………………………………..
As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by
NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized