View Full Version : Put Hillary Clinton in prison already

Maia Gabrial
20th April 2016, 14:20
This was by James Gilliland's ECETI newsletter today. For those of you who think Hillary Clinton should be next president, you might want to reconsider. It's more like she should be in prison. Here one reason why:

I am not taking sides or getting into politics just thought this was interesting news. Not to mention countless shenanigans in the past. To vote means you agree with the system, the system is beyond repair.

Subject: United States Code Title 18. Section 2071

Word for word from the Cornell Law Library !!!

Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells MSNBC that not only is Hillary Clinton's private email server illegal, it "disqualifies" her from holding any federal office.

Such as, say, President of the United States.

"If you do this or that bad thing, you've essentially disqualified yourself as being the leader of the free world," said Mukasey, referring to the illegal server and the illegal handling of classified materials.

Mukasey specifically points to one federal law, Title 18. Section 2071.

For those of us who do not have United States Code committed to memory, here's what it says:
Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

Yes, it explicitly states "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

Shouldn't voters know that? The media won't tell them. So it's up to us. Can you help hold Hillary accountable? Pass this on, please.

18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Sec. 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov
§2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title V, §552(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§234, 235 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §§128, 129, 35 Stat. 1111, 1112).
Section consolidates sections 234 and 235 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed.
Reference in subsection (a) to intent to steal was omitted as covered by section 641 of this title.
Minor changes were made in phraseology.

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $2,000” in subsecs. (a) and (b).
1990—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–510 inserted at end “As used in this subsection, the term ‘office’ does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”
Effective Date of 1990 Amendment

Section 552(b) of Pub. L. 101–510 provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall be effective as of January 1, 1989.”

She violated law. And this is just one of her crimes....

20th April 2016, 14:23
:blackwidow: :wizard::wizard::wizard: :blackwidow:

20th April 2016, 14:27
She violates "law" (what a joke) at will and always has ...

(time grows short for having the free speech to say such things ... use it or lose it)


Clinton Violates State Law By Electioneering Near Polling Station AGAIN

Video shows Hillary greeting voters outside precinct

Paul Joseph Watson - April 20, 2016

Hillary Clinton once again brazenly violated New York State election laws by campaigning within 100 feet of a polling place.

A Reuters video (unembeddable but check it out here) shows Hillary and Bill Clinton greeting voters outside their polling precinct and posing for photos inside the building.

The law clearly states that candidates cannot engage in electioneering or display any political signs in the vicinity of a polling station.


20th April 2016, 15:13
Do I *really* need to post this yet again???

She wins ... we lose ... take your chip ... how bout that transhuman body???

Globalist agenda full speed ahead.


20th April 2016, 15:38
Here's an image that everyone can use to make a tee shirt, or bumper sticker from:


20th April 2016, 15:55
Clinton supporters should download and read the Trance Formation of America (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:Tranceformation_america.pdf) PDF as well--particularly chapter 14.

20th April 2016, 16:13
And she has a questionable judge sticking up for her and vetoing any attempts at arrest

20th April 2016, 16:22
The gloves have come off.

Globalists are playing their end game without regard to who else thinks what.

Soros funded movement of migrants into the EU ... wake up ... ooops ... too late.

amerika is heading there with radicals flown and bused in ...

We the world populace ... have been punk'd big time ... even though "they" have openly broadcast what "they" are doing for many many years.

Are we stupid or what???

Can anyone really imagine and stomach watching Hitlery presidential press???

20th April 2016, 16:49

Thanks for the pdf "Transformation of America". I have wanted access to this book for 15 years. Finally. Thank you, thank you.
I have read Bryce Taylors', "Thanks for the Memories". Just that Transformation of America seemed to be talked about much more often.

20th April 2016, 17:00
They have gotten away with so much for so long, they are getting a little bit too confident. More and more blatant, in our face antics that may awaken more of us. She can't claim to be ignorant, as someone in her position should know exactly what is expected of them in positions of authority and extreme responsibility. As a former contracting officer and fiduciary agent of the federal government I had to sign letters of intent to always act with a proud sense of integrity and humility. Officials at her level most definitely are bound by those same standards. She certainly understands what her role, function, and expectations are.

20th April 2016, 17:16
Blues song for Hillary.


20th April 2016, 17:19
Problem being the globalists have bought and paid for ... umm ... everyone ... everywhere.


20th April 2016, 17:48
And she has a questionable judge sticking up for her and vetoing any attempts at arrest

I would support a "Prosecution Party"--a candidate whose advisors go around compiling a massive list of charges against politicians and corporate officers. It could be their whole platform and occupy their entire term of office. I am afraid the issue is too big for munchkins to tackle it as a whole, and picking off the offenders one by one just lets them refill their ranks with fresh blood.

The amount of justice prevented by such judges is incalculable.

20th April 2016, 20:32
Reading the code above (Title 18. Section 2071) I am not sure this does not apply to Hillary Clinton and her actions in the U.S. State Department. The legal language seems to be directed at evidence taken from court clerks and other judicial officers. It is basically about tampering with evidence in a criminal case. The information she stole came from the Executive Branch of Government (State Department, Military, etc) and not from the courts (Supreme, Judiciary Dept., etc.)

Sure, what she did is criminal but I don't think this particular code is going to apply.

Andrew Napolitano has been following her case closely for several months and has done an excellent job of explaining the legal aspects of the FBI investigation against her. Here is the latest:

20th April 2016, 21:32
They have gotten away with so much for so long, they are getting a little bit too confident.Yep, Conk, and why shouldn't they be? Still the majority of Americans would rather just pacify themselves, and/or buy the mainstream propaganda, and/or ridicule or ignore anything that makes them uncomfortable or doesn't fit into their belief system than to spend even an hour or two a week researching any of the topics that, if true, could be putting them, their families and the country in harms way. It's really quite unbelievable (and sad) to me.

21st April 2016, 03:32
Many of the MSM prognostications I have read have Clinton winning the race.

Has anyone did research into how often MSM is historically wrong in its prognostications at this point in a race for the US president?

2016 US Presidential Election - Next President of the United States

Odds as of April 20 at Bovada
Hillary Clinton -275
Donald Trump +350
Bernie Sanders +1200
Ted Cruz +1200
John Kaisch +3300

21st April 2016, 03:42

21st April 2016, 04:17

Off topic perhaps but when I watch a show like this I ask, now why isn't a show like this on the MSM?

Then I come to me senses and think, look no further then this as proof as to just how bent the MSM is!

21st April 2016, 05:12
I don't know how she can live with herself--no moral compass at all.

21st April 2016, 15:44
FBI director: No rush to finish Clinton email probe before convention
By Eliza Collins


Does anyone know if any credible whistleblowers have commented on this situation lately?
It seems like the FBI must already have the goods on Hillary, so there must be another reason why they are hesitating--they could draw out the process for as long as they wanted to, presumably, so why not get it started now?
Unless they WANT to create a lot of havoc and wait until after the nomination.
I keep wondering if there is a hidden agenda to let Trump get elected so that there will be enough chaos that they could get their heart's desire and declare martial law or perhaps allow Obama to stay in office.

FBI Director James Comey said he feels no urgency to wrap up the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server before the political conventions this summer.
Comey was speaking on Monday to representatives of local law-enforcement agencies in Buffalo, New York, when he was asked about the FBI’s probe of the former secretary of state’s email system, according to the Niagara Gazette.
Making sure the inquiry is done "well" is more important than speed, he responded, even as the Democratic primary season draws to a close.
"The urgency is to do it well and promptly," Comey said. "And 'well' comes first" — meaning that the investigation could still be ongoing during the Democratic National Convention in July, he said.
While Comey wouldn’t divulge any details of the investigation, he did say that he is keeping close tabs on it “to make sure we have the resources to do it competently.

More on that subject here, though it's dated March 20th: http://nypost.com/2016/03/20/will-hillary-get-charged-or-what/

21st April 2016, 23:33
There, you happy now. ;)


22nd April 2016, 02:19
Some info here is to be taken with the grain of salt, but nevertheless a lot of solid information and a real eye opener:

22nd April 2016, 22:49
See the post here and the one following it for more suspicious info turning up in NYC:

22nd April 2016, 23:33
Here's a guy who apparently has all the facts on the Hilary-n-Bill Body Trashing ( murder ) history when they were in the whitethouse.

Audio mp3 of the first hour, speaking to Jeff Rense:

Audio mp3 of the second hour:

30th May 2016, 20:51
I don't know how she can live with herself--no moral compass at all.
Its easy, no conscience, no problem.

How Did Hillary Clinton Get 22 Top Secret Emails Onto a Private Server?


more about her Mail-gate:

13th June 2016, 20:56
Roger Stone rips Hillary's long time confidant and aid Huma Abedin a new one in this report, documenting deep connections between Huma and Saudi Arabia’s biggest "charity", the Muslim World League, a group formed and funded by the Kingdom to spread Islam throughout the world. The full report appears on Breitbart at It’s Time America Got Some Answers About Huma Abedin (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/13/roger-stone-its-time-america-got-some-answers-about-huma-abedin/).

The (long and detailed) report begins with:


Roger Stone: It’s Time America Got Some Answers About Huma Abedin

by Roger Stone, 13 Jun 2016

Chic gal pal? Mild mannered politician’s wife? Harmless clotheshorse? Saudi plant? Innocent aide? Handler?

Huma Abedin is Vice Chair of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. But Huma is more, much more than that. She is the person closest to the most powerful woman in American politics and perhaps the next President. Huma has been described variously as Hillary’s “body woman,” a sort of glorified go-to personal maid, gentle confidant, and by others as an Islamic spy. She may be all of these things, because as we shall see, Huma Abedin has an interesting and complex career history.

Abedin was deeply involved (http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-private-email-plan-drew-concerns-early-on-1426117692?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories) with the establishment of Hillary’s private email server, which was used for all of her work as Secretary of State. Now, since we know Hillary had hundreds of classified or top-secret documents on her vulnerable server (despite her early lies saying she did not), any faith in Huma’s judgment — at the very least — has been demolished. You will soon ask yourself, “how did this woman get a security clearance?”

She was born Huma Mahmood Abedin in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Her father, Syed Zainul Abedin, was Indian and born in New Delhi. In the early 1970s, he was affiliated with the Muslim Students Association at Western Michigan University. The Muslim Students Association or MSA was started in 1963 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121391832473590285) by Saudi Arabia’s biggest charity, the Muslim World League, a group formed and funded by the Kingdom (http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e1652) to spread Islam throughout the world.

Her mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, was born in Pakistan. Saleha received her Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1977.

Two years after Huma was born, the family moved to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and with the patronage of Abdullah Omar Naseef of the Muslim World League, founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs with offices in Saudi Arabia and London, England. In the 1980’s Syed Abedin was a counselor of the Muslim World League. After his death in 1993, his wife Saleha took over and serves as director of the IMMA (Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs) and as the editor of that organization’s academic magazine, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. More recently she still edits the Journal and is also a part of the administration of Dar Al-Hekma Women’s College.


There is quite a bit more detail at It’s Time America Got Some Answers About Huma Abedin (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/13/roger-stone-its-time-america-got-some-answers-about-huma-abedin/).

13th June 2016, 21:16
In related (to the post just above) news, Zerohedge reports Saudi Arabia Has Funded 20% Of Hillary's Presidential Campaign, Saudi Crown Prince Claims (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/saudi-arabia-has-funded-20-hillarys-presidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims):


Saudi Arabia Has Funded 20% Of Hillary's Presidential Campaign, Saudi Crown Prince Claims

by Tyler Durden - Jun 13, 2016 3:17 PM

In what may be the pinnacle of hypocrisy, moments ago Hillary Clinton, while speaking live on national security and addressing the Orlando shooting took some time from her constant bashing of the Second Amendment and calling for a ban on assault rifles, to say some less than kind words about Saudi Arabia whom it accused of supporting radical organizations. This is what she said:

The third area that demands attention is preventing radicalization and countering efforts by ISIS and other international terrorist networks to recruit in the United States and Europe. For starters, it is long past time for the Saudis, the Qataris and the Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism. We also have to use all our capabilities to counter jihadist propaganda online. This is something that I spend a lot of time on at the State Department.There is nothing wrong with that statement, as it is the whole truth - Saudi Arabia's involvement in supporting terrorism stretches from Sept 11 all the way through to ISIS - however, where there is a big, and potentially law-breaking, problem is what Jordan's official news agency, Petra News Agency, reported on Sunday citing the Saudi crown price, namely that Saudi Arabia is a major funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next president of the United States.

As MEE notes (http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/deleted-official-report-says-saudi-key-funder-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-223282807), the Petra News Agency published on Sunday what it described as exclusive comments from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman which included a claim that Riyadh has provided 20 percent of the total funding to the prospective Democratic candidate's campaign.

The report was later deleted and the news agency has not responded to requests for comment from Middle East Eye. However, the deletion took place too late, as the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs managed to capture the report and has re-published the original Arabic Petra report, which quoted Prince Mohammed as having said Saudi Arabia had provided with “full enthusiasm” an undisclosed amount of money to Clinton.
[ Mod-edit: inline pdf of report appears here in the Zerohedge original article. - Paul. ]
As a reminder, It is illegal in the United States for foreign countries to try to influence the outcome of elections by funding candidates. That appears not to have stopped the Saudis, however.

“Saudi Arabia always has sponsored both Republican and Democratic Party of America and in America current election also provide with full enthusiasm 20 percent of the cost of Hillary Clinton’s election even though some events in the country don’t have a positive look to support the king of a woman (sic) for presidency,” the report quoted Prince Mohammed as having said.

According to the US Federal Election commission, over the past two years Clinton has raised a little more than $211.8 million. 20% of this sum is $42.4 million.

The report was published (and then mysteriously deleted) on the eve of Prince Mohammed making an official visit to the United States. The Saudi Press Agency reported on Monday that the senior royal was due to fly to Washington where he will meet officials to discuss US-Saudi ties.

He will remain in the American capital until 16 June, when he will travel to New York for meetings with financial companies, the Saudi Gazette reported.

Prince Mohammed will discuss regional issues with American officials, and he will hold talks with the financial companies about his vision for diversifying Saudi Arabia’s economy away from oil dependency.

Links between Saudi Arabia and the Clinton family, including with Hillary’s campaign, are well reported. In 2008, it was revealed that the Gulf kingdom had donated between $10m and $25m to the Clinton Foundation, a charity set up by Hillary’s husband and former US President Bill Clinton.

Last year the Centre for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court paid public relations firm the Podesta Group $200,000 for a month-long project to provide “public relations services”.

The Podesta Group was founded in 1988 by brothers John and Tony Podesta. John Podesta is the chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next US president.

Finally, in connection to the Orlando shooting, the WSJ reported (http://www.wsj.com/articles/orlando-shooter-visited-saudi-arabia-twice-on-pilgrimage-1465828337) that according to a spokesman for Saudi Arabia’s interior ministry, the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen visited the kingdom twice on pilgrimage.

Mateen visited Saudi Arabia in 2011 and again in 2012 to perform umrah, a religious pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca. The trips lasted eight and 10 days each.

U.S. and Saudi officials aren’t sure yet who Mr. Mateen met with during his visits or whether the trips were connected to the shooting.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign did not respond to MEE's request for comment at the time of publication. Considering Hillary hasn't given a full press interview in over 7 months, we doubt this will change.


13th June 2016, 21:49
Keep in mind, that (in my view at least), the Arabian Muslim Bedouins who have lived for so long on the Saudi Arabian peninsula are not the essential source of the problems evidenced above.

They have been occupied by a branch of the giant parasite that afflicts many institutions, cultures and nations of humanity, sucking out the profits and energy of the oil beneath the Arabian sands.

This parasite has malformed some Saudi institutions into a viral, infectious, violent scourge being spread, with ample funding, throughout the Islamic world, and increasingly now, with the refuge crisis, through Europe and the U.S.

This has been ongoing for the last century, since the discovery of great oil deposits in the Arabian peninsula, and echo's previous centuries of conflict between the Muslim and Christian worlds. The intent to stir such conflicts might actually explain, to some degree, the very origins of both these religions.

We're dealing with a multi-faceted, long present, parasite on humanity. Saudi Arabia (and the tyranny atop the nation I live in, and much else) are but manifestations of that parasite.

Hillary works for the parasite; she's infected. She works in particular for the manifestations visible as

certain Saudi Arabian institutions,
the "Neocons" in the U.S., including some of the 9/11 perpetrators,
the Wall Street Banksters, and
Monsanto and the purveyors of toxins.

14th June 2016, 14:45
Julian Assange Warns WikiLeaks Will Publish “Enough Evidence” To Indict Hillary Clinton

(Video interview with Assange here:http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-12/assange-on-peston-on-sunday-more-clinton-leaks-to-come/ )


As we reported, Assange has made it clear that Clinton is just in search of endless war: “A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war“, which he then followed by saying “Hillary didn’t just vote for Iraq. She made her own Iraq. Libya is Hillary’s Iraq and if she becomes president she will make more.”

from Zero Hedge:

On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for over 30,000 emails and attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private server while Clinton was serving as Secretary of State. According to The Guardian, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said that the organization plans to publish even more.

During the interview with itv, when asked if Assange had any undisclosed emails, the WikiLeaks founder responded:

“We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton, which is great, WikiLeaks has a very big year ahead. We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication, that is correct.

Asked about the FBI investigation itself, and how Assange believed that would end, Assange said that there have been enough emails released that could lead to an indictment.

“Unfortunately I think what’s going to happen is that the FBI is going to go ‘we have accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton, we could proceed to an indictment‘”, but Loretta Lynch, head of the DOJ won’t end up indicting.

“She’s not going to indict Hillary Clinton… It’s not possible that could happen, but the FBI could push for concessions from [a] new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment.” Assange added.

In 2015 Hillary Clinton's campaign HQ moved to 1 Pierrepoint Plazza just a few floors under DoJ head Lorreta Lynch.

Although the state Department has been releasing emails (reluctantly), WikiLeaks has taken all of the documents and made it easy for anyone who wishes to search through and read the correspondence to do so all in one place. The release of more emails is just the latest in an attempt to shed some light on Clinton’s dealings, and is in line with WikiLeaks search for truth, which Assange believes is that Clinton is a “liberal war hawk“, citing emails WikiLeaks had published showing Hillary to be the leading champion of the push to overthrow the Libyan government.

“They predicted that the postwar outcome would be something like it is, she has a long history of being a liberal war hawk.” Assange said.

As we reported, Assange has made it clear that Clinton is just in search of endless war: “A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war“, which he then followed by saying “Hillary didn’t just vote for Iraq. She made her own Iraq. Libya is Hillary’s Iraq and if she becomes president she will make more.”

While the new set of emails that WikiLeaks is set to release may provide a temporary speed bump for the Clinton campaign, Assange may be right about his indictment theory. Recall back in April when we wrote that the FBI may leak details of the investigation if it feels the DOJ is standing in the way – well that started happening just a few days ago, which perhaps means no indictment is coming from the DOJ. What appears all but certain to come however, is more endless war if Clinton is able to defeat Donald Trump in the fall. On the bright side, think of how well global GDP will do if there are more global conflicts… right?

As a reminder, you can access the searchable database here: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

Read More @ Zero Hedge.com http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/julian-assange-warns-wikileaks-will-publish-enough-evidence-indict-hillary-clinton

¤=[Post Update]=¤

So if Hillary is elected, then indicted, who would be POTUS?
More from Assange and others in excellent article on related topics here: https://theinternationalreporter.org/2016/06/11/new-era-of-journalism-people-against-the-gatekeepers/

15th June 2016, 13:23
Google involved with Clinton campaign, controls information flow – Assange
(Several vids at the link.)

The journalist behind the world’s most well-known whistleblower website appeared via videoconference at a session of ‘End of the Monopoly: The Open Information Age’, part of the ‘New Era of Journalism: Farewell to Mainstream international media’ forum organized at the Rossiya Segodnya International Multimedia Press Center in Moscow.

Assange is far from the only one to notice the link between Google and the Clinton campaign. Behavioral Psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein has pioneered research on how search engines affect elections and much more. He told Lee Camp, host of RT America’s ‘Redacted Tonight’, that “when one candidate is higher in search rankings ‒ that is, looks better than another candidate in search rankings ‒ that shifts a lot of votes to that candidate. And it’s not a tiny number. It’s a very, very big number of votes.”Humans are trained to believe that the higher ranking links are “better” and “truer,” Epstein explained.

Last year, billionaire Alphabet chairman Eric Schmidt created a little-known start-up company called The Groundwork, “the sole purpose of which is to put Hillary Clinton in office,” he said. “It’s a very secretive organization, super high-tech stuff, and [it’s] very likely they’re using these techniques that we’ve been studying in our research to make sure that votes are shifted to Hillary Clinton in November."

Julian Assange is not looking forward to Hillary Clinton becoming president. Clinton presidency could make life ‘worse’ for Assange, warns Wikileaks exile
Assange believes that unlike Donald Trump, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is predictable and will constitute a problem for freedom of speech in the US if elected.

“Of course she when she is in power… She is a problem for freedom of speech,” the whistleblower said. "We know what she is going to do. And she made the chart for the destruction of Libya, she was involved in the process of taking the Libyan armory and sending it to Syria."

“Google is heavily integrated with Washington power, at personal level and at business level… Google, which has increasing control over the distribution channels,… is intensely allying itself with the US exceptionalism,” Assange said, speaking in a video link from the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

“It [Google] shows the will to use that at different levels. It will inevitably influence its audience,” Assange said, recalling the occasion when Google leased its front page to “promote [US State Secretary] John Kerry's call for bombing on Syria in 2013,” along with conspiring with “Al Jazeera to encourage Syrian defectors.”

“Google is an intensely Washington, DC-aligned company,” the famous whistleblower said.

16th June 2016, 16:49
Was the Democratic Primary Just Manipulated, or Was It Stolen?
Monday, 13 June 2016 00:00
By Ben Ptashnik and Victoria Collier, Truthout |

The debacle that was the 2016 primary season is nearly over, but the primary system itself may have destroyed faith in American democracy. Certainly it has divided the Democratic Party.

The Internet is awash with accusations that the Democratic primary was rigged; anger, confusion, and fault-placing are running wild, and so are the online right-wing "trolls" who feed the fires of discord between the two camps of the Democratic Party through misinformation and divisive invective.

With buyer’s remorse sweeping the GOP, election fraud lawsuits pending, millions of Bernie Sanders supporters crying foul and some vowing "Bernie or Bust," many are even forecasting the breakup of the two-party system.

So where does the truth lie, and where do we go from here? How do we separate malfeasance from propaganda?

The Suppression of Democratic Party Populism

The truth is that the Democratic primary was hobbled at the starting gate by blatant partisanship on behalf of Hillary Clinton by the DNC and the mainstream media.

The heavy-handedness of the Democratic Party elite -- particularly Debbie Wasserman's actions as party chair in restricting debates, followed by her open admission that the purpose of superdelegates is to crush the possibilities of grassroots candidates rising to challenge the party establishment -- was called to account even by Democrats. Telling a passionate, reform-minded populist movement "we’re rigged to suppress you" is not the best way for the head of a party to start an election season. Calls for Wasserman’s removal were not isolated.

The primary process was also one of the most distorted media political events we have witnessed in recent years, with the networks exhibiting an astonishingly destructive lust for profits by handing Donald Trump billions of dollars in free airtime in order to build ratings, even as they deliberately tuned out Sanders’ campaign.

The California primary finale provoked ubiquitous outrage as the Associated Press played queen-maker, anointing Clinton the nominee based on secret interviews of the superdelegates, who will not actually cast their votes until the Democratic Convention in July.

Going forward, all candidates and parties have a responsibility to make foundational election reform a central focus of their work.
This move came a day before the last major primary date, possibly suppressing voter turnout in our most populated state where registration had reached record levels. Even the DNC publicly protested what was seen as a pointless slap in the face to the millions of voters who had yet to cast a ballot. Such media interference only fosters overall distrust and the conviction that powerful networks are aligned with Clinton and manipulating in her favor.

It also conjures memories of the 2000 election when Fox News wrongly called the presidential race for George W. Bush in Florida, forcing Al Gore to contest the results. Meanwhile, the press shot him full of "sore loser" arrows, and he eventually rolled over to die quietly. This is presumably what the networks expected of Bernie Sanders.

Yet, the game has changed.

Social Media vs. Corporate Media

For the first time during a national campaign, the full force of online alternative news outlets and social media came to the plate, taking on the powers that be with relentless coverage and viral Facebook and Twitter posts, circumventing the editorial whitewash and blackouts of the corporate press.

When the networks ran with incendiary headlines claiming Sanders supporters had engaged in mass violence at the Nevada Caucus, online journalists and activists outed the story as false. Numerous cell phone videos proved them right.

In truth, that the Bernie Sanders campaign was born and lived at all is due only to his network of web-savvy supporters, sharing documentation of his speeches and actions from the 1960s through his career in office, posting the images from his nascent grassroots campaign, packing halls and overfilling stadiums. All of this was largely ignored by the corporate press, as though his skyrocketing underdog candidacy simply did not exist.

The result of all this manipulation is evident on websites for election integrity, voting rights and third parties which previously could count a few hundred interested supporters. Many find that the number of voters today who believe they are being lied to, and that the electoral system urgently needs reform, are swelling into the thousands.

Millions are registering their disaffection in polls, with 66 percent of the public now saying they distrust the primary system.

But there is a downside to this. With the social media revolution we are also confronted by rampant misinformation shepherded by an army of trolls. Confused voters are being goaded to assume election fraud at every turn and in every contest, and to blame Hillary Clinton and her surrogates directly, not just for all insider manipulations, but also for every possible flaw, glitch, and screw up in the voting system.

For example, we recently happened upon a Facebook post of a mainstream news article claiming two hundred deceased voters are still listed as casting ballots in California. The post headline screamed: "CLINTON VOTING DEAD PEOPLE TO WIN CALIFORNIA!"

The article in no way associated Hillary Clinton with this particular voting problem. Nevertheless, many supposed anti-Clinton voters joined the chorus of Facebook outrage.

Perhaps these people are well meaning but simply didn’t bother to read the article. However, it is also possible that right-wing trolls are instigating further dissent in the Democratic ranks through just this kind of hysterical and misleading social media posting. In fact, it’s likely that a good portion of the worst online bile spewed from both camps is actually trolling by people pretending to support Clinton or Sanders, to sow discord and deep seated animosity on the left.

A recent shocking Bloomberg article "How to Hack an Election" is an expose on Andrés Sepúlveda, who led clandestine operations to steal elections in Latin America through every kind of manipulation.

A hefty percentage of the suppression seen in the primaries can be traced back to the long-standing attack on voting rights spearheaded by right-wing forces since 2010.
His "package" deal included defacing campaign websites, breaking into opponents’ donor databases, spying, stealing, smearing, hacking smartphones, spoofing and cloning Web pages, and sending mass e-mails and texts -- a full range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and defense. The jobs were carefully laundered through layers of middlemen and consultants. Sepúlveda says many of the candidates he helped might not even have known about his role; he says he met only a few.

On the question of whether the US presidential campaign is being tampered with, he is unequivocal. "I’m 100 percent sure it is," he says.

Sadly, it’s a new kind of challenge to discern the truth these days, but it’s more important than ever that we try, or we will not know where to focus our outrage or channel our efforts to effect reform. Additionally, spreading unfounded accusations can fatally undermine the credibility of a reform movement.

Are the Accusations of Fraud Backed Up by the Facts?

When it comes to accusations of fraud, the fact is that a hefty percentage of the suppression seen in the primaries can be traced back to the long-standing attack on voting rights spearheaded by right-wing forces since 2010. The American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC and the Tea Party coordinate these attacks with funding from the Koch Brothers.

The plot to suppress the votes of progressive and Democratic-leaning youth and minorities is well documented, and even admitted to by a number of Republican politicians and operatives.

Thirty-two states, mostly controlled by Republican Legislatures and Governors, have so far promulgated draconian voter suppression laws or regulations. Since the Supreme Court gutted section four of the Voting Rights Act three years ago, 17 states proceeded to apply wholesale gerrymandering and suppression of students and Native American, African American, Asian American and Latino voters.

These strategic assaults on democracy have led to the recent formation of the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus, Co- chaired by Representatives Marc Veasey (D-TX), Terri Sewell (D-AL), Bobby Scott (D- VA), and civil rights icon John Lewis (D-GA). Now 71 members, the Caucus is dedicated to restoring the Voting Rights Act, and reforming the insecure, aging voting technology that is used to count our elections results through the VOTE Act.

All progressive and Democratic candidates will be affected in November by voter suppression, including Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee. Yet, in the Arizona primary, the downsizing of polling stations from 400 to 60 were widely blamed on Clinton, even though the results clearly impacted her supporters as well. (The accusations against Helen Purcell, the Republican Maricopa County recorder who took responsibility for the shut-downs, is a good example of of online misinformation that goes viral.)

However, while some voters might be at times misled, it is wrong to accuse them of baseless paranoia for fearing the overt partisanship and conflict of interest in the elections establishment itself.

Partisan Oversight and Structural Deficiencies

In the United States, our elections are often administered by ultra-partisan secretaries of state and, in the case of primaries, by party officials who tend to have preferences and exploit their positions.

The fact that some secretaries of state, including Alison Grimes of Kentucky and Alex Padilla of California, are actively supporting Hillary Clinton even as they command the elections process in their state, contributes to an atmosphere of anxiety and honest concerns that strings may be pulled behind the scenes.

The same paranoia rightfully grips Democrats en masse when ultra-partisan Republican secretaries of state control the general election process.

In 2000, the infamous Katherine Harris of Florida manipulated the Bush v. Gore debacle, and Kenneth Blackwell presided over Ohio’s tainted election of 2004. That reelection handed the presidency to George W. Bush through mass voter purging and GOP-controlled computer servers that flipped the electronic vote results in the middle of the night before loading them onto Blackwell’s website. Blackwell was, at the very same time, the Co-Chair of the Committee to Re-elect George W. Bush. The certification of the Ohio election was challenged in Congress but failed to stop Bush’s coronation.

The 2016 primaries and caucuses laid bare not only the partisanship, but the structural deficiencies of American elections administration, built on a byzantine set of voting regulations and processes controlled by local and county administrators -- a dizzying maze of procedures that dictate voter registration, auditing paper ballots and processing mailed-in and provisional ballots.

Provisional Ballots and Other Irregularities

It’s unclear how many hundreds of thousands -- perhaps millions -- of voters were given provisional ballots in the 2016 primary, either because they were purged from the voter rolls, their registration was mysteriously changed from one party to another (with some reporting their signatures were forged), they did not receive their mail-in ballot, or aging electronic voting machines broke down at the polling location. Voters reported that provisional ballots were being "given out like candy."

These provisional ballots are a creation of the 2002 Help America Vote Act. They may or may not be counted as cast ballots based on the particular integrity of a given county and the so-called "eligibility" of the voter. The requirements for eligibility are unclear for voters who have to prove their registration was actually valid, even when they were wrongly purged or their status was changed without their consent.

According to the watchdog group Election Protection, areas with high percentages of racial and ethnic minority voters have the highest rates of provisional ballots, and a large proportion of these ballots are typically rejected.

Compounding the confusion and distrust are varying vote-tabulating systems in each state and in over 4,000 voting jurisdictions. Most are centered around privately programmed, "black box" electronic voting systems with code that cannot be inspected by the public or elections officials. A lack of rigorous audits means that no one can actually prove our votes were accurately counted. Throughout the nation, unaccountable companies like Dominion and Scytl -- a foreign vendor and host of unknown sub-vendors -- now control voter registration, voter rolls, voting machine software and the collating and reporting of voting results. Voting machines can sit unattended for weeks before elections, giving pause to all security experts.

Throw into this confounding mix poor poll worker trainings, too few polling locations, a lack of parking spaces, missing voter rosters, insufficient ballots and an overall stunning dearth of resources provided for American elections, and after a while it’s impossible to tell whether the problem is malice or incompetence -- or if there’s even a discernible difference.

The only clear fact is that countless people were unable to vote, and even more don’t know whether their votes were actually counted.

Some voters have taken surreptitious video of the chaos they encountered in their polling location.

On June 7 alone, the nationwide nonpartisan Election Protection hotline received more than 1,300 calls as voters in California, New Jersey, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and New Mexico reported a litany of problems. More than half of the calls received were from California voters.

It is still unknown how many provisional ballots in California’s 58 counties will be rejected or accepted. The counting continues for weeks, with questions legitimately raised about oversight of the ballots.

Suspicions Run Rampant

Before we storm our local Boards of Election with pitchforks, we should remember that there are many competent, even exceptional election supervisors, clerks, and poll workers who do their best under pressure with shrinking resources and a populace who often can’t be bothered to learn the rules before complaining about the results (you know who you are).

However, the onus should not rest on the voters to inform themselves of rules and changes, to protect their ballots, or to defend their properly registered voting status.

Suspicions are now rampant that the 126,000 voters wrongly purged in New York, particularly in Brooklyn, were intra-party rigging targeting likely Sanders supporters.

The longstanding failure of the Democratic Party to address the many injustices and failures in the electoral process has led to a crisis point.
Although no evidence currently proves this accusation, concerns are augmented by the fact that the DNC voter lists firewall reportedly came down twice, giving both campaigns access to each other’s private lists. These lists may have included voter preference information, providing an opportunity for mischief, though so far no proof exists that these lists were used to purge Bernie supporters.

To prove the purges were targeted against Sanders supporters, evidence would need to show that they were disproportionately among the 121,000 given "affidavit ballots," which are equivalent to provisional ballots. Currently, we understand that 90,000 of those ballots have been rejected. Meanwhile, the purged voters have reportedly been restored to the New York voting rolls, but that's cold comfort for those whose votes were invalidated in the primaries.

Even less comfort could be found for the voters who claim that, during an electronic voting audit in Chicago, the machines had apparently not tallied all of the votes for Bernie Sanders. Witnesses at a hearing held by the Chicago Board of Elections reported that, instead of investigating the machine count, the audits were simply fixed to match the machine results, literally erasing Sanders’ votes and adding votes to Clinton’s tally.

If these allegations are true, one would think this would certainly qualify as fraud. It’s little wonder that many Sanders’ supporters are vexed.

The disturbing video of the voter testimony before the Chicago Board of Elections went viral. Another fact to emerge from the meeting is that the audit tabulation cannot be used to change the results of an election. It is only a means to test the voting equipment, rendering it useless for exposing and combatting election fraud.

Meanwhile, nationwide primary voting results are being called into question based on consistent anomalies in exit polling, which apparently affected only the Democratic race and not the Republican, with disparities favoring Hillary Clinton disproportionately. Exit polls are internationally considered a reliable indicator of election veracity and are one of the only "forensic" tools available in the United States to determine the accuracy of the secret machine counts. Before the final definitive primary races on June 7, including California, all exit polls were cancelled without explanation.

Grassroots organization nationwide have filed or are planning to file lawsuits challenging primary results and demanding access to raw voting materials including ballots and poll tapes that are often off limits to public inspection.

Going Forward: Fixing the Mechanics of Elections

Neither Clinton nor Sanders has fully addressed the maelstrom of election fraud fury swirling around their primary campaigns. This is perhaps to be expected from candidates who must stay afloat in treacherous political waters. Sanders in particular would be fatally vilified in the press for suggesting that the primaries were stolen.

But the longstanding failure of the Democratic Party to address the many injustices and failures in the electoral process has led to a crisis point where their candidates and the party itself are being injured. Lack of trust in the system is reaching a breaking point.

Going forward, all candidates and parties have a responsibility to make foundational election reform a central focus of their work.

The US currently follows none of the established principles such as public transparency that guide an honest and fair electoral process, so our elections cannot even be monitored by international observers. We are ranked 47th out of 139 countries in our integrity of elections, according to a Washington Post report.

"In the United States, the 2012 presidential election and the 2014 congressional elections were ranked worst of any long-established democracy, especially on campaign finance and electoral registration," the report's authors concluded.

The question now is how do we permanently reform our system, and what we can do in the next five months before the November elections, whether we support Sanders, Clinton, Jill Stein of the Green Party, some other candidate or no candidate at all. How can we build a just society unless we repair the mechanics of how our democratic elections are controlled?

What's the Solution Going Forward?

The answer starts with making sure progressive voters are not disenfranchised through various voter suppression tactics, and that election technology is secure. We must ensure that every eligible citizen can easily vote, and that every vote is counted as cast.

Here’s a short to-do list:

Push for party platform changes in the Democratic National Convention this July through the delegates and committees. End the use of Democratic Party superdelegates to restrict grassroots and populist political campaigns. Promote transparent party primary elections administrators who are not working for any particular candidate.
Help educate Congress and state legislatures about the need for reform and that greater resources and training are needed for election workers. Lobby your legislators to introduce or pass legislation for clean, transparent, verified elections, not administrated by partisans, and to re-establish the strict federal laws that prevent suppression and gerrymandering of districts in the states and jurisdictions once governed by section four of the Voting Rights Act.
Fight to terminate control of Election Day technology from private vendors, make all vote counting processes transparent and publicly observable, and make voting materials accessible as public records.
Immediately outlaw the use of touchscreen (direct-recording electronic, or DRE) voting machines that are vulnerable to fraud and provide no paper ballot to audit results or recount.
Join organizations and coalitions fighting for elections reform.
Mobilize protests against voter suppression, corrupt voting officials and voting systems.
Become a poll worker yourself.
Vote and help others to register and vote. And be sure to check your registration status -- right now!
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Victoria Collier is communications director of the National Election Defense Coalition, and the Justice Action Mobilization Network. She is the author of "How to Rig an Election," published in Harper's Magazine.


Former Vermont State Sen. Ben Ptashnik is a fusion movement strategist, and lifelong political organizer. He currently serves as executive director of the National Election Defense Coalition, and as policy director of the Justice Action Mobilization Network, a climate justice organization.

16th June 2016, 17:09
Picture in post 27 above is not clear who it is when reading the quote

That picture is NOT the Prince, but of daddy with Hillary.

This is Prince Mohammed bin Salman's picture:


Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the son of King Salman bin Abdulaziz, received his early education at Riyadh Schools, where he ranked among the top 10 students upon graduation. He got his bachelor’s degree in law from King Saud University, where he graduated second in his class. The prince also received various training courses during his education.

Responsibilities given to him last March include Saudi Defense Minister, Chief of Royal Protocol and Head of Economic and Developmental Affairs Council.


Hillary and the Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz look a bit different than Prince Mohammad tho..

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_and_Prince_Mohammed_bin_Nai f_bin_Abdulaziz_after_signing_ceremony_2013-01-16.jpg


The elevator version: While she was secretary of state, Hillary Clinton accepted donations to her family’s foundation from 20 foreign governments to whom she approved $165 billion in arms sales.

Although she had promised Barack Obama as a condition of taking the helm of the State Department that the foundation would disclose all of its foreign donors, she broke that promise starting in 2010 when the foundation closed its books to scrutiny.

As Mother Jones noted in their investigation:
The sales boosted the military power of authoritarian regimes such as Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, which, like Saudi Arabia, had been criticized by the department for human rights abuses.

To drill down into one particularly troubling sale, Israel objected to the sale of $29B of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, which donated $900M to the Clinton Family Foundation just two months before the sale was approved.

(Just what exactly the powerful globetrotting Clinton Foundation is and does is its own rabbit hole, particularly since the most authoritative non-profit watchdog, Charity Navigator, last fall stopped rating it, saying that its “atypical business model,” made it too difficult.)


From Post 27 above

As MEE notes, the Petra News Agency published on Sunday what it described as exclusive comments from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman which included a claim that Riyadh has provided 20 percent of the total funding to the prospective Democratic candidate's campaign.
The report was later deleted and the news agency has not responded to requests for comment from Middle East Eye. However, the deletion took place too late, as the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs managed to capture the report and has re-published the original Arabic Petra report, which quoted Prince Mohammed as having said Saudi Arabia had provided with “full enthusiasm” an undisclosed amount of money to Clinton.

17th June 2016, 22:17
Election Fraud Lawsuit Update & California Theft; Sane Progressive Interview Bob Fritrakis
Jun 16, 2016

LInks and Sources
Interview with Bob Fritakis on Trust Vote/Institute for American Democracy & Election Integrity lawsuits and fraud that has occurred in California and the rest of the fifty states throughout the Democratic Presidential Primary election.
I had a few tech/sound issues with Googe Hangout at very beginning of interview, so my apologies for any sound pops.
Important updates and answers to your questions around the filings!

ELECTION FRAUD BLOG: ALL the information, sources, and links about what was discussed in the is video is compiled on the Blog.
Rather than give you fifty links here, please go here, it is organized and compiled by state:
Please go to Trust Vote to DONATE to the lawsuit:
You can read about Bob Fitrakis and his bio on his Wikipage:
And, here is the bio of the lead attorney:
Please see my channel library for my entire video library on Election Fraud which documents the debacle that happened in the Democratic 2016 Primary Election since BEFORE Iowa voted:

17th June 2016, 22:37
Hillary Clinton's Corruption Crisis | Roger Stone and Stefan Molyneux


Published on Jun 16, 2016
MP3: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3320/hil...
Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/stefan-molyneu...

Despite finally beating Bernie Sanders and becoming the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton continues to be plagued by the threat of indictment, continued corruption scandals and the massive amount of skeletons which have been accumulated in her political closet.

Roger Stone joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss Huma Abedin's troubling connections, the Clinton corruption speech from Donald Trump which didn't happen, the Bill Clinton University scandal, the massive amount of Clinton campaign financing from Saudi Arabia and the race for President of the United States.

Roger Stone is a well-known political operative and pundit. A veteran of nine national presidential campaigns and has served as a senior campaign aide to three Republican presidents. He is author of the New York Times bestseller “The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ,” as well as “The Clintons' War on Women” and “Jeb! and the Bush Crime Family: The Inside Story of an American Dynasty.”

Jeb! and the Bush Crime Family: The Inside Story of an American Dynasty: http://www.fdrurl.com/bush-crime-family

The Clintons' War on Women: http://www.fdrurl.com/clintons-war-on...

The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ: http://www.fdrurl.com/who-killed-kennedy

For more information from Roger Stone, go to: http://www.rogerstone.com and http://www.stonezone.com

Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies by M. Stanton Evans

Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House by Gary Aldrich:

Venezuela Immigration Sanction: Section 2:

Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate

Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com

20th June 2016, 17:20
Are the Clintons being played?

Because it is still very difficult for me to understand why President Obama, Vice President Biden and progressive Senator Warren would endorse Hillary Clinton while they well know that she is under a FBI probe, that the Clinton Foundation might be involved in money laundering,
and when they know she might have exposed American top secret information when she was Secretary of State?
So I have written a theory based on a mixture of real facts and events and some fiction.
(I wanted to post all narrative below but there is a limit in words).

24th June 2016, 02:25
Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Says Berkeley, Stanford Studies

After applying various statistical models to subsets of 2016 primary voting data several academic researchers conclude Hillary Clinton’s win was only possible through widespread vote fraud.Widespread allegations of election fraud and voter suppression across the United States during the 2016 Democratic Primary has sparked the interest of several academic researchers and what they discovered in their research is disturbing.

The researchers each performed independent studies in which a few different statistical was applied to analyze various subsets of vote data and of the studies came to the same conclusion.

Namely that Hillary’s win was could have only been possible a result of widespread election fraud.

In fact, one of the statistical models applied by Stanford University researcher Rodolfo Cortes Barragan to a subset of the data found that the probability of the “huge discrepancies” of which “nearly all are in favor of Hillary Clinton by a huge margin” was “statistically impossible” and that “the probability of this this happening was is 1 in 77 billion”.

Furthermore, the researchers found that the election fraud only occurred in places where the voting machines were hackable and that did not keep an paper trail of the ballots.

In these locations Hillary won by massive margins.

On the other hand, in locations that were not hackable and did keep paper trails of the ballots Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton.

Analysis also showed repeatedly irregularities and statistically impossible reverses in reported live votes in several locations across the country.

In commenting on the research, Barragan stated that some of the models are rock solid and 59 years old and the results seen here have never been witnessed in non-fraudelent election during that time period.

To summarize, at least four different independent studies were conducted with various statistical models applied.

The researchers applied the different statistical models to:

Actual vote counts as they were reported
Discrepancies in polling data verse actual counts.
Various subsets of demographic polling data verse actual vote counts
The results of each study corroborated the with the results of the others and some of the researchers have review the work of the others’ and go onto to confirm the findings in those studies.

It will take months for the studies to undergo peer review.

However, all of their research statistically proved there there must of been widespread fraud to create the discrepancies in the vote counts that exist in all 3 subsets of the data analyzed.

The research of Barragan, done collaboratively with Axel Geijsel of Tilburg University in The Netherlands.

That research corroborates independent mathematical research conducted by Richard Charnin.

Further independent research was conducted by Beth Clarkson of Berkeley who also not only corroborated the two previous studies but reviewed them and after her research was done and confirmed their results.

A PDF Summary of the Barragan/Geijsel study “Are we witnessing a dishonest election? A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America” can be found here.

The meat of the study is contained in the Appendix, Supplemental Analyses, and References to Barragan’s Study and in the attachments which follow.


Page 1

This report summarizes the results of our review of the GEMS election management system, which counts approximately 25 percent of all votes in the United States. The results of this study demonstrate that a fractional vote feature is embedded in each GEMS application which can be used to invisibly, yet radically, alter election outcomes by pre-setting desired vote percentages to redistribute votes. This tampering is not visible to election observers, even if they are standing in the room and watching the computer. Use of the decimalized vote feature is unlikely to be detected by auditing or canvass procedures, and can be applied across large jurisdictions in less than 60 seconds.

They allow “weighting” of races. Weighting a race removes the principle of “one person-one vote” to allow some votes to be counted as less than one or more than one. Regardless of what the real votes are, candidates can receive a set percentage of votes. Results can be controlled. For example, Candidate A can be assigned 44% of the votes, Candidate B 51%, and Candidate C the rest.

Instead of “1” the vote is allowed to be 1/2, or 1+7/8, or any other value that is not a whole number.
Fractions in results reports are not visible.Votes containing decimals are reported as whole numbers unless specifically instructed to reveal decimals (which is not the default setting). All evidence that fractional values ever existed can be removed instantly even from the underlying database using a setting in the GEMS data tables, in which case even instructing GEMS to show the decimals will fail to reveal they were used.

– from http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/

Much more at the link--too much to copy here.

24th June 2016, 18:25
Corrupt to the Core: Two Separate Ongoing FBI Investigations of Hillary Clinton
From: Forbidden Knowledge 6/24/16

Judge Napolitano joins Fox Business'
Stuart Varney to discuss the two
criminal investigations of Hillary Clinton
being conducted now by two separate
FBI units, one of which brought down
General David Patraeus.

The first unit is investigating potential
breaches of National Security, involving
the infamous Internet server that Hillary
kept in her house in Chappaqua, NY.

Throughout her tenure as Secretary of
State, she used private email accounts
in her official communications instead
of secure State Department accounts,
in violation of US Government policy.
Thousands of her emails were
retroactively marked as Classified.

She breached her security clearance
and violated the Federal laws
regulating record-keeping, with her
suspicious deletion of 31,000 emails
from her home server, also raising
questions as to why these were

Hillary is facing the possibility of being
charged with failure to protect National
Security Secrets, among other charges.

The second criminal FBI investigation
involves "Public Corruption" relating
to the Clinton Foundation, itself. The
allegations against her are that she
used her position as Secretary of
State to personally enrich herself and
her husband by doing favors for foreign
governments and receiving hundreds
of millions of dollars in contributions
to the Clinton Foundation in return.
According to some sources, Saudi
Arabia is responsible for 20% of
Hillary's campaign contributions.

An extreme example of irregular
activity (among many others) involves
Bill Clinton's friend, Frank Giustra, a
Canadian who asked Hillary for
permission to own shares in a uranium
mine in Utah. As Secretary of State,
she had the power to grant this
permission to a foreign national -
which she did do.

Giustra turned around and sold 80%
of his shares to Vladimir Putin. So now,
a Russian corporation owns the lion's
share of a uranium mine on US soil -
and that corporation is owned by the
similarly-corrupt Vladimir Putin.

Now get this: Giustra subsequently
contributed $145 million from the
proceeds of the sale of his shares in
the uranium mine to the Clinton
Foundation. Records of this transaction
would likely be on the Clinton server
but in order to subpoena them, a
Grand Jury would need to be summoned.
Napolitano notes that if a Grand Jury
is sitting and issuing subpoenas, they
have succeeded in keeping it totally
quiet. This story managed to stay
under the radar until Donald Trump
mentioned it in his June 22nd speech
in New York City, in which he promised
to discuss it further, to shine a light on
Hillary's judgment, character and fitness
to be President of the United States.

How could a Presidential candidate
involve herself in a transaction like this,
unless she was totally accustomed to
skating past the law, as a inveterate
arch-criminal? There are many other
irregularities with the Clinton Foundation,
like monies donated to charities that
didn't exist, monies missing, etc.

In a shocking mirror of scandals currently
rocking the Brazilian government this is,
as Napolitano puts it, "The intersection
of law enforcement, politics and the
Presidency, all at once!" (And money,

Is the corrupt mentality that Hillary
exercised during her tenure as
Secretary of State something that
Americans would like to see
continued, with her as President?
What if charges are brought against
her after elected President?

A lot has been said lately about the
entrenched corruption of the Brazilian
government - but the antics of the
Clinton Foundation make those guys
look like a bunch of pikers. All of the
kickbacks and bribery committed by
the crooks in the Brazilian government,
put together cannot begin to equal the
enormity of the corruption of the
self-proclaimed Democratic Party
nominee for President of the US. This
is not because the corrupt Brazilian
politicians are her moral superiors
but because representatives of the
Brazilian government don't have
anything like the geopolitical influence
to peddle, as did the former US
Secretary of State.

Notice that I'm retracting a previous
statement, in which I referred to Hillary
as the the Democratic Party nominee.
I was corrected by a subscriber, who
apprised me of the fact that ballots in
the pivotal State of California are still
being re-counted, more than two weeks
after that state's June 7 Primary Election,
where there was massive evidence of
vote fraud, as detailed here.

The creator of that clip notes that, "The
sheer mass of the election fraud that
took place in California was staggering
and is unlike anything we have seen in
decades. It is estimated that 2 out of
every 3 Bernie Sanders votes were not
counted during the California primary
election. We will explain in detail how
the election was rigged and provide
our sources."

As we've seen, vote fraud is just the tip
of the iceberg in the vast criminal
enterprise of the former Secretary of
State, a hawkish Neocon who has stated
that she is not against the tactic of
"limited nuclear warfare".

Among Hillary's advisers is Project for
a New American Century (PNAC) Co-
Founder, Robert Kagan, who espouses
Perpetual War as the standard operating
procedure for the US; to indefinitely
impose its military power, seeking to
dominate the world in a unipolar fashion.
Hillary did her part to carry out this
policy during her stint as Secretary of
State and would undoubtedly continue
along the same lines as President. This,
at a time when this policy is no longer
viable, to say nothing about desirable.
Proponents of this policy recently
passed a resolution which would enable
the military draft of US women, as the
only way to maintain the "endless wars"
of the past 15 years. As I've stated
previously, it's my opinion that this
Neocon tactic is primarily greed-driven
war profiteering and disaster capitalism,
utterly debased and devoid of human
values, just like their candidate, Hillary

Video: (5 and a half mins):

Corrupt to the Core: Two Separate Ongoing FBI Investigations of Hillary Clinton


- Alexandra