Tag Archives: 2016 election

Attorneys: The DNC’s Lawsuit Against Russia Undermines Their Own Defense In The DNC Fraud Lawsuit, by Elizabeth Los

It’s not generally a good legal strategy to allege one thing in a lawsuit to which you are a party, and then allege the opposite in another lawsuit. From Elizabeth Vos at disobedientmedia.com:

Disobedient Media has consistently reported on the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the disturbing, sometimes bizarre events surrounding the case. Though the suit was initially dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, that ruling is in the process of an appeal in the 11th Circuit appellate court.

Last week, the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the suit submitted a supplemental authority letter in the case, arguing that the DNC’s suit against Russia was relevant to the DNC Fraud Lawsuit. The cited relevance was due to arguments made by DNC defense counsel that stated donors did not contribute funds based on the promise of impartiality by the DNC towards Democratic Party primary candidates.

However, as the Beck’s submission points out, the DNC appears to have contradicted their defense by arguing in their separate suit against Russia, the Trump campaign and Wikileaks that the DNC experienced a severe drop in donations in the wake of WikiLeaks’ publication of evidence that the DNC rigged the 2016 Democratic Primary. Bloomberg reports that Democrats raised half as much as Republicans in 2017: In other words, primary source evidence of the DNC’s partiality towards Hillary Clinton has resulted in a steep decline in public donations.

As reported in April by CBS News, the DNC filed its own lawsuit against the “Russian government, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign, arguing that the parties conspired to influence the 2016 presidential campaign in a way that damaged the Democratic Party.” That legacy press has consistently failed to point out the irony of the DNC’s claim is a stain on the deeply marred facade of American ‘journalism.’

The latest submission by Elizabeth Beck in the DNC Fraud lawsuit appeal, pictured below, states: “The complaint filed by the Democratic National Committee (“DNC,” also known as DNC Services Corporation, and a Defendant/Appellee in the instant appeal before this Court) in the Russia Lawsuit contains allegations made by the DNC which are relevant to the case at bar.” 

To continue reading: Attorneys: The DNC’s Lawsuit Against Russia Undermines Their Own Defense In The DNC Fraud Lawsuit

Advertisements

Real Takeaway: The FBI Influenced the Election of a President, by Peter Van Buren

Peter Van Buren identifies the most important conclusion to emerge from Michael Horowitz’s report. From Van Buren at theamericanconservative.com:

It will be easy to miss the most important point amid the partisan bleating over what the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General report on the FBI’s Clinton email investigation really means.

While each side will find the evidence they want to find proving the FBI, with James Comey as director, helped/hurt Hillary Clinton and/or maybe Donald Trump, the real takeaway is this: the FBI influenced the election of a president.

In January 2017 the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz (who previously worked on the 2012 study of “Fast and Furious”), opened his probe into the FBI’s Clinton email investigation, including public statements Comey made at critical moments in the presidential campaign. Horowitz’s focus was always to be on how the FBI did its work, not to re-litigate the case against Clinton. Nor did the IG plan to look into anything regarding Russiagate.

In a damning passage, the 568 page report found it “extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to conceal his intentions from his superiors… for the admitted purpose of preventing them from telling him not to make the statement, and to instruct his subordinates in the FBI to do the same. By departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice.” Comey’s drafting of a press release announcing no prosecution for Clinton, written before the full investigation was even completed, is given a light touch though in the report, along the lines of roughly preparing for the conclusion based on early indications.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is criticized for not being more sensitive to public perceptions when she agreed to meet privately with Bill Clinton aboard an airplane as the FBI investigation into Hillary unfolded. “Lynch’s failure to recognize the appearance problem… and to take action to cut the visit short was an error in judgment.” Her statements later about her decision not to recuse further “created public confusion and didn’t adequately address the situation.”

The report also criticizes in depth FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who exchanged texts disparaging Trump before moving from the Clinton email to the Russiagate investigation. Those texts “brought discredit” to the FBI and sowed public doubt about the investigation, including one exchange that read, “Page: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Strzok: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Another Strzok document stated “we know foreign actors obtained access to some Clinton emails, including at least one secret message.”

To continue reading: Real Takeaway: The FBI Influenced the Election of a President

Congress Reviewing 2017 Fusion GPS Testimony After Reports Of Spy In Trump’s Campaign, by Tyler Durden

Trump looks home free in the investigation against him, and it appears that his accusers are sinking ever deeper into legal quicksand. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Congressional investigators are reviewing 2017 testimony by Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, who said that “a human source from inside the Trump organization” had “decided to pick up the phone and report something” to the FBI.

Fusion GPS is a Democrat-linked opposition research firm which produced the infamous anti-Trump “Steele Dossier,” compiled from a series of memos provided by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele and paid for in part by the Clinton campaign.

Simpson told Congressional investigators on August 22 that Steele told him the FBI had corroborated parts of his dossier with “a human source from inside the Trump organization.”

As the Daily Caller‘s Chuck Ross notes, Fusion’s allies quickly began to backpedal from Simpson’s statement, telling news outlets that there was no mole…

“Instead, he was referring to George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser whose encounter with an Australian diplomat in May 2016 was reportedly the catalyst for the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation. The diplomat, Alexander Downer, reportedly claimed that Papadopoulos discussed Russian dirt on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” –Daily Caller

That’s all out the window now

In light of last week’s bombshell that the DOJ was forced to hand over intelligence to House Intel Committee Chair Devin Nunes which points to a mole within the Trump campaign, both House and Senate oversight panels are taking a fresh look at Simpson’s testimony about that “human source.”

In other words – did Steele tell Simpson about the FBI’s alleged mole in the Trump campaign?

Simpson’s lawyer said in a January letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that his initial testimony was accurate.

Mr. Simpson stands by his testimony,” said Joshua Levy, Fusion’s attorney in the January 18 letter. Levy had been asked in a January 11 letter whether Simpson’s testimony about the whistleblower (and now potential mole) within the Trump campaign was a mischaracterization, as news reports claimed.

To continue reading: Congress Reviewing 2017 Fusion GPS Testimony After Reports Of Spy In Trump’s Campaign

Be Glad

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2018/04/14/be-glad/

Trump and Democrats Misread Mandates, by Robert Parry

People do not want “new and improved” versions of the same old thing. They’re looking for something different from politicians. From Robert Parry at consortiumnews.com:

Exclusive: Neither the Democrats nor President Trump learned the right lessons from the 2016 election, leaving the nation divided at home and bogged down in wars abroad, writes Robert Parry.

One year ago, the American electorate delivered a confused but shocking result, the election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, a quirky outcome in the Electoral College that put Trump in the White House even though Clinton got three million more votes nationally. But neither party appears to have absorbed the right lessons from that surprise ending.

President Donald Trump being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)

The Democrats might have taken away from their defeat the warning that they had forgotten how to speak to the white working class, which had suffered from job losses via “free trade” and felt willfully neglected as Democrats looked toward the “browning of America.”

The choice of Clinton had compounded this problem because she came across as elitist and uncaring toward this still important voting bloc with her memorable description of half of Trump’s voters as “deplorables,” an insult that stung many lower-income whites and helped deliver Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to Trump.

For more than a decade, some Democratic strategists had promoted the notion that “demography is destiny,” i.e., that the relative growth of Latino, Asian and African-American populations in comparison to whites would ensure a future Democratic majority. That prediction seemed to have been validated by Barack Obama’s winning coalition in 2008 and 2012, but it also had the predictable effect of alienating many whites who felt disrespected and resentful.

So, while the Democrats and Clinton looked to a multicultural future, Trump used his experience in reality TV to communicate with this overlooked demographic group. Trump sold himself as a populist and treated the white working class with respect. He spoke to their fears about economic decline and gave voice to their grievances. He vowed to put “America First” and pull back from foreign military adventures that often used working-class kids as cannon fodder.

But much of Trump’s message, like the real-estate mogul himself, was phony. He really didn’t have policies that would address the needs of working-class Americans. Still, his promises of a massive infrastructure plan, good health-care for all, and rejection of unfair trade deals rang the right bells with enough voters to flip some traditionally Democratic blue-collar states to Republican red.

To continue reading: Trump and Democrats Misread Mandates

Elizabeth Warren: “Yes” The Democratic Primary Was Rigged For Clinton, by Tyler Durden

It’s not really news that Hillary Clinton gamed the 2016 Democratic primaries in her favor. What may be far more significant is that former DNC interim chair Donna Brazile blew the whistle on her in Politico, which leans Democratic, and Elizabeth Warren says the process was rigged for Clinton in an interview with CNN, practically a Democratic platform. This adds further support to the SLL hypothesis advanced in “The Rout Is On“: that their supporters are now throwing the Clintons to the wolves. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

First it was Donna Brazile; now none other than the woman widely expected to be the Democratic presidential candidate in 2020 – Elizabeth Warren – has thrown Hillary Clinton under the bus.

During an interview on Thursday afternoon on CNN, Sen. Elizabeth Warren was asked if she believed the Democratic National Committee was rigged to favor the presidential nomination of Hillary Clinton.

 “Very quickly senator, do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?” CNN’s Jake Tapper asked.

“Yes,” Warren responded.

Do you agree with the notion that the DNC was rigged in Hillary Clinton’s favor?

Elizabeth Warren: Yes http://cnn.it/2A0NZkj 

Published in Politico Magazine on Thursday, Brazile’s explosive excerpt from her upcoming book, “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House,” revealed the existence of what she described as an “unethical” agreement between Clinton and the DNC, in which the candidate’s campaign traded funding for increased control of the platform.

According to Brazile, by financing the DNC early on and keeping it financially afloat during the latter stages of the campaign, Clinton’s campaign gained substantial control of the committee throughout the election process, a claim that was repeatedly echoed on the campaign trail by Sanders himself.

“The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical,” Brazile wrote, referring to the Hillary for America presidential campaign committee.

“If the fight had been fair,” Brazile added, “one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.”

Brazile cited the agreement as proof that, as she suspected prior to joining, “Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process.”

Appearing on CNN on Thursday, Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, called Brazile’s revelations “a real problem.” Pressed by anchor Jake Tapper on whether she believed the Democratic primary had been “rigged” in Clinton’s favor, Warren replied simply: “Yes.”

Ironically, the banker-bashing senator and leader of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and certain 2020 presidential contender, came out in favor of Clinton over Sanders during the 2016 primaries, a move that frustrated Sanders supporters and further boosted the front-running Clinton’s bid for the nomination.

To continue reading: Elizabeth Warren: “Yes” The Democratic Primary Was Rigged For Clinton

 

Twitter Admits It Buried “Podesta Email”, DNC Tweets Ahead Of The Presidential Election, by Tyler Durden

By now it’s no surprise that the social media companies were in bed with the Democrats last year. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

t was approximately one year ago, when angry tweeters alleged that Jack Dorsey et al., were purposefully censoring and “suppressing” certain content on Twitter, namely anything to do with the leaked DNC and John Podesta emails, as well as hashtags critical of Hillary Clinton while “shadow-banning” pro-Donald Trumpcontent. We can now confirm that at least one part of the above was true, because during today’s Senate hearing, Twitter admitted it “buried”, which is another word for censored, significant portions of tweets related to hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta in the months heading into the 2016 presidential campaign.

As Daily Caller’s Peter Hasson reports, Twitter’s systems hid 48 percent of tweets using the #DNCLeak hashtag and 25 percent of tweets using #PodestaEmails, Twitter general counsel Sean Edgett said in his written testimonyto the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
Before 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. For example, our automated spam detection systems helped mitigate the impact of automated Tweets promoting the #PodestaEmails hashtag, which originated with Wikileaks’ publication of thousands of emails from the Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account.

The core of the hashtag was propagated by Wikileaks, whose account sent out a series of 118 original Tweets containing variants on the hashtag #PodestaEmails referencing the daily installments of the emails released on the Wikileaks website. In the two months preceding the election, around 57,000 users posted approximately 426,000 unique Tweets containing variations of the #PodestaEmails hashtag.

Approximately one quarter (25%) of those Tweets received internal tags from our automation detection systems that hid them from searches.

As described in greater detail below, our systems detected and hid just under half (48%) of the Tweets relating to variants of another notable hashtag, #DNCLeak, which concerned the disclosure of leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee.

To continue reading: Twitter Admits It Buried “Podesta Email”, DNC Tweets Ahead Of The Presidential Election