2016 Election

[Ryan Ruck]

I missed that fly stuff but saw it mentioned elsewhere after. Was working through my 4 pack of Mountain Man. WTF is up with that?

[vector7]

Trump Big Winner Over Three Opponents

By J. Marsolo

October 10, 2016



Trump was smart to trust his instinct to fight and not follow the advice of all the pundits who said he had to grovel and not bring up the Bubba card. Trump brought four of Bill’s victims who were attacked and smeared by Hillary as part of the cover-up of “bimbo eruptions”. Trump also brought the woman who was the 12-year-old rape victim of a 41-year-old man represented by Hillary, who laughed about how she got the rape charge reduced.

The presence of the women victims forced Hillary’s cheerleaders, the MSM, to acknowledge that these were victims of rape and sexual harassment, not “infidelities”, and that these were real people, not abstractions.

It also forced Hillary to hesitate and act defensively. Bill did not look too well. The MSM wanted to talk about the Billy Bush (cousin of Jeb and GWB) tape but Trump took control by bringing Clinton’s victims to the debate, and by going on the attack about Hillary’s record. It was clear that Hillary is not used to being challenged vigorously.

Trump apologized, but then went on the attack about Bill abusing women and Hillary abusing the women victims. This shook Hillary. She turned defensive and repeated her canned lines. Trump got to her when he said he would appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate her emails scandal, and that she would be in jail if he was in charge.

Finally, we saw a Republican nominee who fights to win, and trusted his instincts instead of the advice of those who were never in the ring. We had Romney, who refused to challenge Candy Crowley when she stepped in to help Obama on Benghazi. We had McCain, who refused to use the Reverend Wright issue and even attacked his own supporters for using the name Barack Hussein Obama.

The moderators were the usual MSM types that interrupted and argued with Trump. Trump did not back off, challenging both Raddatz and Cooper about why they interrupted him but not Hillary, and asking them why they did not ask Hillary about the emails.

The bottom line is that Trump took control by bringing Clinton’s victims to the debate so that everyone could see that there are actual victims of Bill and Hillary.

Trump apologized for his crude language, but did not grovel. He set the tone and tempo, and clearly won against his three opponents.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...opponents.html

[vector7]

CNN (Clinton News Network) rigged the Trump/Hillary debate focus group, instructed participants on what to say!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kukUmYqIhIE

[American Patriot]

everyone gets coached. Especially idiots.

[vector7]

WOW! Reporter Admits Secret Service at Debate Said No Flashes Because of Hillary’s Seizures

Jim Hoft Oct 10th, 2016 1:16 pm

It has been rumored that Hillary Clinton has a seizure disorder, possibly Parkinson’s disease, triggered by flashes.

Last night the Secret Service took attendees phones before going into the debate.
now we know why…

REPORTER: “This is why it was banned apparently because the Secret Service did not trust people to disable the flashes on their cameras and they were afraid it would inspire Hillary’s seizure disorder.”

A reported admitted on Monday that the Secret Service told reporters not to use a flash because of Hillary Clinton’s seizure disorder.
Via Mike Cernovich:

Secret Service told reporters at the #debate not to use flash so that it won't trigger Hillary's seizure disorder. https://t.co/30zh3Y5cAb

— REGATED (@regated) October 10, 2016

http://vid.me/crjJ
Reporter admits Hillary's "seizure disorder" reason why flashes banned by Secret Service.
https://vid.me/crjJ

Oops - can't embed that video, check it out. Someone recorded a TV news thingie with a reporter saying that the SS didn't trust that people would disable their cameras with flashes and would inspire Hillary's seizure disorder. Image from it above.

[Ryan Ruck]

This piece came out this morning but, I think it's still to early to get an accurate view of where the polls stand until they're able to take into account both the leaked tapes and the debate. I'm thinking we'll see that in any polling taken in the Wednesday-Thursday time frame and of course any after that.

Still posting this for informational purposes and it doesn't look good.

Post-Tape Polling: Trump Steady In LA Times Daily Tracker, Sharp Drops In Rasmussen And YouGov, Update: Clinton By 11 In New Post-Tape Poll

October 10, 2016

Hillary won the two snap polls after the debate, one marginally (47/42 in YouGov) and one decisively (57/34 in CNN), but I don’t know how much that matters in a month where October surprises are dropping every 48 hours and each new news cycle seems to last eight minutes. Trump was better last night than he was at the first debate and didn’t do anything that would have caused a jailbreak among the remaining congressional Republicans who are supporting him, so in that sense it was a win.

The more important polls are the ones tracking the race overall since the “Access Hollywood” audio dropped on Friday. Is the tape a campaign-killer or, as I guessed yesterday, something that’s apt to put a hard ceiling on his numbers rather than knock the bottom out from under them? The answer: Pollsters differ. The LA Times daily tracker, which has been the most reliably pro-Trump poll of the campaign, sees only the slightest decline for him since Friday. He started that morning with 46.1 percent of the vote and, as of today, he’s at 45.8 percent. Hillary, in fact, has dropped just as much as Trump has, falling from 43 percent on Friday to 42.7 this morning. Two notes of caution about that, though. One: Although the Times poll is a tracking poll, it averages the numbers for each candidate over a period of several days to arrive at each morning’s results. Meaning, it’ll take a few more days before reaction to the tape is fully priced in. Two: Unlike most other pollsters, both state and national, the Times poll has had Trump leading nationally every day since September 12th and saw no dip for him after the first debate, which even some Trump fans admit wasn’t his best night. That’s … an extreme outlier. Maybe they’re right and everyone else is wrong but it usually doesn’t work that way in polling, especially with races being tracked as closely as this.

Rasmussen has also been a fairly reliably pro-Trump poll so far this year (the “house effect” in Ras polls per FiveThirtyEight is R+2). But not anymore:

Rasmussen Reports’ latest national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds that Democrat Hillary Clinton has now jumped out to a seven-point lead – 45% to 38% – over Trump. On Friday, the two were in a virtual tie – Clinton 43%, Trump 42%…

This marks Clinton’s highest ever vote total against Trump – and her biggest lead – in Rasmussen Reports polling stretching back to August of last year. It’s Trump’s worst showing in nearly two months. This survey was concluded prior to the second debate between the two candidates last night in St. Louis…

Clinton has a 14-point lead among women in the latest survey. The two are now tied among men, a group that has supported Trump by wide margins in the past. Roughly 80% of both men and women say they are sure already how they will vote.

A six-point swing in what was a one-point race just 48 hours ago is a big deal, and if the “house effect” is true, Rasmussen’s probably underestimating Clinton’s lead. Meanwhile, over at YouGov, a three-point Clinton lead nationally has suddenly doubled. Now it’s Clinton 44, Trump 38:

The new Economist/YouGov Poll was conducted mostly after the release of a 2005 video recording of Trump making vulgar statements about women and his behavior towards them and as a number of GOP leaders rejected those statements and a number of them rejecting Trump as well…

Clinton lead among women has expanded to 15 points this week, with 49% of women voters now saying they support Clinton, and just 34% in favor of Trump. Trump has also lost support with voters 65 and older. Last week 50% of senior citizens favored Trump, now 43% do. Clinton gained a little ground with older voters (her share of their support went from 42% to 45%), but the percentage who said they were not sure what they would do in November more than doubled – from 5% last week to 11% now. Women are also more likely to be undecided: one in ten women this week aren’t sure whom they will vote for.

What may be more damaging to Trump than the latest shift in preference is that more than half of voters this week are saying is that they would never vote for him. The percentage saying that varies from week to week, but has never been higher. 47% would never vote for Clinton, about the same percentages who have been saying this all along.

Fifty-three percent of voters overall and 56 percent of women specifically now say they’d never vote for Trump. Relatedly, a NBC/SurveyMonkey poll out this morning found a shift over the weekend among voters when asked whether Trump respects women or not. Before the tape dropped, 55 percent said no. After it came out, that number jumped to 63 percent. The most noticeable change, interestingly, was among men: Pre-tape, a majority of 54/45 said that Trump did respect women. Post-tape, the split was 43/55.

That may not shift many votes, but like I say, it doesn’t have to in order to guarantee defeat. All it has to do is put people who were still open to voting for Trump decisively out of reach, and the pool of those who were still open to him was shrinking even before Friday. A Quinnipiac poll released last week showed a massive shift among independents after the first debate, from Trump by nine to Clinton by 20, and that wasn’t the only recent poll showing a hard break to the left by indies. Meanwhile, according to the swing-state polls released this weekend by CBS and NBC, Clinton leads in Florida (+3 in NBC), Wisconsin (+4 in CBS), Pennsylvania (+8 in CBS and +12(!) in NBC), and even Ohio (+4 in CBS), the third straight poll showing her ahead there after she trailed for most of September. Both polls were conducted before the tape was released, too — although CBS did contact some of the people polled after it dropped to ask them for reaction. Result:

Slight majorities in each state, 54 percent in Ohio and 51 percent in Pennsylvania, said the tape did not change their view of Trump, while 44 percent in Ohio and 47 percent in Pennsylvania said it made them think worse of Trump, though most in the latter groups were not supporting him beforehand. There is a gender gap on this: in Pennsylvania, women are more likely than men to say it makes their view of Trump worse, by 53 percent to 42 percent.

Nearly half in two crucial swing states say it made them think worse of Trump, and although most were already against him, not all were. Unless his debate performance last night was much more of a home run than people seem to think, it seems likely his numbers are going to slide this week, either a little or a lot. Especially if there are more tapes coming, as has been rumored.

Update: The only question left is whether the GOP can hold on to the House. New from NBC:

New natl NBC/WSJ poll (conducted after Fri news but before debate)
HRC 46
Trump 35
Johnson 9
Stein 2

Was Clinton +6 in Sept
(Oct 8-9, LVs)

— Mark Murray (@mmurraypolitics) October 10, 2016

[vector7]

The MSM hands Hillary the debate questions ahead of time.

Materials for Debate Prep - Thursday

From:ron.klain@revolution.com
To: jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com, jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com, karen.l.dunn@gmail.com, KDunn@BSFLLP.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com
Date: 2015-12-16 20:38
Subject: Materials for Debate Prep - Thursday


SS / KC can send anyone who needs it a new copy of the Debate Book, but in terms of other materials for tomorrow, three items are attached:

1. The Moments: This is the version that Jake is sending her tonight. It reflects everyone's edits, but is reorganized to separate the foreign policy moments from the domestic ones, to help strategize about these a bit.

2. The Key Answers: This is an updated version of the document we gave her on Saturday, pointing her to the most important answers in the book. I've added a few more items to this list, per our discussion on Sunday.

3. The Mock Questions for Tomorrow: This is unchanged from what I circulated the other day. Just reattached here for convenience.

Ron

Click on the "Attachments" tab at this link so see the Q&A's https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2923


RE: Proposed Agenda for Tomorrow

From:kcosta@hillaryclinton.com To: ron.klain@revolution.com, jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com, jake.sullivan@gmail.com, karen.l.dunn@gmail.com, KDunn@bsfllp.com, john.podesta@gmail.com

Date: 2015-12-07 22:11

Subject: RE: Proposed Agenda for Tomorrow

And attached, please find the most recent version of the debate book. We will have copies of this available at the session tomorrow morning. For those of you who have hard copies of the previous version, we will also have copies of the replacement pages only, so you can save a tree and just swap out the small number of pages that have changed.

*From:* Ron Klain [mailto:ron.klain@revolution.com]

*Sent:* Monday, December 7, 2015 1:43 PM

*To:* Jake Sullivan ; Jake Sullivan ( jake.sullivan@gmail.com) ; Karen Dunn < karen.l.dunn@gmail.com>; Karen Dunn (KDunn@BSFLLP.com) ; John Podesta (john.podesta@gmail.com) ; Mandy Grunwald ; jbenenson@bsgco.com; Jim.Margolis@gmmb.com; Robert Barnett (RBarnett@wc.com) ; Sara Solow ( ssolow@hillaryclinton.com) ; Tony Carrk ( tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com) ; Kristina Costa ( kcosta@hillaryclinton.com) ; ha16@hillaryclinton.com

*Subject:* Proposed Agenda for Tomorrow This is our plan for tomorrow’s session.

We will try to move quickly from discussion to some Q-and-A drills on the topics listed below, and then go to the podiums for an hour of mocking drawn from the attached script (I will pull some from the national security section and some from the domestic section). See everyone at the Hellenic Institute.

Ron (the one not having a baby tomorrow) -------------------------------------------------- DEBATE PREP – DECEMBER 8 9:00 – 9:30: Review memo; discuss updates to book 9:30 – 10:25: Q-and-A Drills at Table

a. ISIS / Terrorism / Obama’s Handling of Crisis
b. Gun Control
c. Wall Street
d. How to Pay for Plans
e. Health Care 10:35 – 11:35 Mock Debate at Podiums

(Questions to be chosen from attached script – both segment 1 and segment 2)

11:40 – 12:00 Feedback and Discuss Path forward

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3844

[vector7]

Leaked Emails Show Facebook Exec Shared Research With Clinton Campaign

Peter Hasson
4:02 PM 10/10/2016

Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg shared research with key members of the Clinton campaign, newly released emails show.

Sheryl Sandberg (Photo: Kimberly White/Getty Images for Fortune)


Sandberg has endorsed Clinton, and just last month Politico reported that Clinton may tap Sandberg for Treasury secretary if elected.

Clinton aide Cheryl Mills set up a meeting in March, 2015 for Sandberg to share research with members of Hillary Clinton’s inner circle, including chief campaign strategist Joel Benenson and campaign manager John Podesta.

At the meeting, which took place a month before Clinton formally announced her candidacy for president, Sandberg shared research on “gender and leadership by women.” It’s unclear from the emails if the research in question was done by Facebook, or if it was Sandberg’s personal research.

“I have arranged for *Sheryl Sandberg and her researcher to be available on 5 March at 10 am to step through the research on gender and leadership by women*. The HRC meeting begins at 11am,” Mills wrote to Benenson in February 2015.

“Are you available then for such a meeting?” she asked. “If so, who else should be included?”

“Yes. I can do it. I would also like to bring Katie Connolly, the VP who is working with me on all HRC work if that’s OK,” Benenson replied.

Mills then blasted out an email about the logistics of the meeting to Podesta, Benenson and other key figures like Kristina Schake, who is now the deputy communications director for the Clinton campaign.

Mills’ back-and-forth with Benenson was included in the email covering logistics. That email was one of thousands of stolen from Podesta’s personal email account and published by Wikileaks.

Facebook is often accused of operating with a liberal agenda.

In April, Facebook employees asked liberal CEO Mark Zuckerberg if they should abuse their power to try and prevent a Trump presidency.

A month later, former Facebook employees admitted the site consistently buried conservative news stories

[vector7]

Clinton Campaign, White House Coordinated Pro-Iran Deal Talking Points

Leaked emails show effort to mislead public about Iran deal

BY: Adam Kredo
October 10, 2016 12:18 pm

Senior Clinton campaign officials were in direct contact with the White House to coordinate pro-Iran talking points in an effort to boost last summer’s comprehensive nuclear agreement, according to leaked emails that show the Obama administration and top figures in Clinton’s campaign played a role in promulgating information about the deal that later turned out to be factually inaccurate.

The emails, released late on Friday in a massive document dump by the hacker website WikiLeaks, show coordination between Hillary Clinton’s team and the White House, which spearheaded a massive effort to create what senior officials described as a pro-Iran “echo chamber” to mislead Congress and Americans about the nature of the agreement.

The director of national intelligence and Department of Homeland Security have accused “Russia’s senior-most officials” of hacking and leaking emails posted to WikiLeaks and other sites to influence and interfere with the 2016 election.

An April 2, 2015, communication sent from top White House press liaison Eric Shultz to Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri includes several pages of pro-Iran talking points that were later discovered to contain misleading information.

“Love it!!” Palmieri responded to Schultz’s email. She subsequently forwarded the information to leading Clinton aides, including Cheryl Mills, Brian Fallon, and Nick Merrill, among others.

The disclosure of these emails threatens to entangle the Clinton campaign in a growing scandal surrounding secret White House efforts to mislead Congress and the public about the nuclear deal. Congress has been investigating these efforts for months and has uncovered evidence the Obama administration inked several secret side deals with Iran, including the rollback of key sanctions on Tehran and a $1.7 billion cash payment.

The Clinton campaign has been criticized in recent days for doubling down on its support of the Iran deal and for making false claims about its progress.

One senior congressional official familiar with investigations into the White House’s deception on the Iran deal told the Washington Free Beacon that these newly leaked emails reveal how the Clinton campaign served as a major cog in the Obama administration’s so-called “echo chamber.”

“This revelation is further evidence that the Clinton campaign is just an extension of the Obama White House,” the source said. “The fact that senior staff coordinated on selling the disastrous Iran deal is unsurprising but disturbing.”

“These are the very same bogus talking points that [top White House aide] Ben Rhodes bragged were used to mislead Americans about key points of the agreement,” the source added. “As Iran undermines the agreement at every turn, Hillary Clinton conjures up the exact same rationale as the administration to keep the deal in place. Now we know why.”

The talking points in question include erroneous information about how the deal could dismantle Iran’s nuclear program and stop its march towards a nuclear weapon.

“American sanctions on Iran—for its support of terrorism, its human rights abuses, and its ballistic missile program—will be fully enforced,” the White House wrote in the guidance offered to the Clinton campaign.

This turned out to be untrue, as the Obama administration has permitted Iran to carry out multiple ballistic missile tests, saying that they are not a direct violation of current sanctions.

The White House talking points to Clinton further said the deal “would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.”

This also has turned out to be inaccurate. The deal permits Iran to carry out key research and development activities related to its nuclear program and the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon.

The deal also permits Iran to continue construction on new light water nuclear reactors, which could provide Tehran with a second pathway to nuclear material.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration moved late Friday to dismantle another facet of key sanctions on Iran, despite its continued support for terror operations in the Middle East and ongoing research into ballistic missile technology.

Clinton’s vice presidential running mate Time Kaine claimed in a recent debate that Clinton helped “eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapons program,” a remark that ABC News dubbed as “false.”

Clinton Press Secretary Brian Fallon, who is included in the leaked emails, later went on Fox News to reiterate this claim, maintaining that “there is no question” the deal halted Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The White House’s pro-Iran press machine, which was helmed by Rhodes, received support from liberal billionaire George Soros and a network of non-profit organizations that funneled money to those who helped champion the deal in the public sphere.

[vector7]

Email Leak: Hillary Labels Blacks And Muslims ‘Never-Do-Wells’

via Whoopie on October 9th, 2016 in Politics, Racism 3 comments

One particular email exchange between Hillary Clinton and Podesta shows the candidate has a serious problem with blacks and Muslims. It’s not just a serious problem, it’s downright racist.

In the email from February of this year Hillary states that:

“The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances.”

Hillary continues by labeling blacks & Muslims “professional never-do-wells.”

Read more:

Once again we see the contradiction between Hillary’s public and private policy positions. If she holds such people in contempt, why then is she so supportive of unbridled immigration and the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement?

The obvious answer is votes.

But then that begs the question, if elected what does she plan to do? Continue along the path she’s set herself on in public or revert to her privately held beliefs?

I think that answer is obvious too. Even safely installed in office, Hillary will continue to need the support of all those she’s lied to, if she wants to advance any of her other agendas.

And as we’ve seen, the one agenda Hillary has above all others is increasing her wealth and influence.

She may well know what’s in America’s best interest, but America, with it’s basket of deplorables, buckets of losers and “Never-do-wells” can go f*ck itself.

Hillary has made it abundantly clear that just like Obama, she hates Americans in general and her only goal is self aggrandizement.

If there’s any slim difference between her and Obama, at least she won’t actively try to destroy America, because that would be killing the golden goose she needs. Her goal will be to keep America alive, yet teetering on the brink.

That means four, possibly eight more years of malaise. That is, providing she can manage the balancing act.

One last point: The Democrats are already advancing the notion these latest emails are just fabrications by the Russians. If that’s so, they have the means to set the record straight by releasing all the emails and Goldman Sachs transcripts.

Don’t hold your breath waiting.

http://blurbrain.com/email-leak-hill...s-never-wells/

http://drrichswier.com/2016/10/09/wi...ever-do-wells/

[vector7]

Clintons Told to Wear ‘Body Armor’ at White House

Columnist warned of opposition to Clinton's primary bid by some in WH

BY: Morgan Chalfant
October 10, 2016 2:24 pm

Bill and Hillary Clinton were told by a Democratic commentator to wear “body armor that covers their backs” at the White House when Vice President Joe Biden was considering a presidential run last year, according to leaked emails.

Brent Budowsky, an ex-Democratic aide and columnist for The Hill, told Clinton campaign chair John Podesta last August that the Clintons need to watch their backs around some Obama administration officials, according to an email included in a trove of Podesta’s communications made public by WikiLeaks on Monday.

“IMO [in my opinion] yesterday was a very good day. I am thrilled that on the email issue HRC offered a change of tone towards what I consider the strongest position, and her handling of the Biden issue was picture perfect,” Budowsky wrote to Podesta on August, 27, 2015. “Advocates such as myself can take a respectful but harder line, while she took the right respectful but softer line.”

“I would warn that regarding at least some Obama White House staff, when the Clintons next dine at the White House they should bring a food taster and wear body armor that covers their backs with at least some people there,” Budowsky added. “I picked this up from several sources, though I will not write about this.”

Budowsky was reacting to an August 26 press conference in Iowa in which Clinton said that she had “seen no evidence” that Biden would take some of her support from Democrats if he decided to run for president. Polling released the next day by Quinnipiac University found Biden outperforming Clinton against top Republicans.

At the Iowa press conference, Clinton acknowledged for the first time that using personal email for official business at the State Department had been a poor choice. The issue, which was investigated by the FBI, has continued to dog her campaign into the general election. In July, the FBI faulted Clinton and her staff for being “extremely careless” in their handling of classified information but decided against recommending that the Justice Department pursue charges in the case.

Budowsky also wrote in the message to Podesta last year that “many in the WH [White House] support HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton], at least some privately do not, and that there are a handful of individuals over there who are preternaturally Machiavellian, preternaturally stupid, and preternaturally indiscreet though IMO this is a minority view of little practical consequence to the campaign.”

Podesta agreed with Budowsky in his response, though he stressed his belief that “most, including at the top are on our side.”

Biden ultimately decided against running for president. President Obama endorsed Clinton in June, as it became clear that she would defeat her most formidable challenger, the self-described socialist Bernie Sanders, for the nomination.

Budowsky served as an aide to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D., Texas) and Rep. Bill Alexander (D., Ark.) before working as a columnist for The Hill and other publications.

Budowsky told the Washington Free Beacon in an email Monday that Democrats and everyone at the White House are now “passionately for Hillary” over Republican nominee Donald Trump.

“Anyone who agrees with my columns in The Hill and any private memos—which are 100% consistent— would be a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump,” Budowsky said when asked to comment on the email exchange. “It was my impression at the time that there some in the White House who were enthusiastically for Hillary and others who were not.”

“Now, everyone at the White House and all Democrats in Congress are passionately for Hillary, while the more interesting question is why some at the Kremlin appear to be passionately for Trump,” Budowsky said.

Past reports and books have spotlighted frosty relations between the Clintons and the Obamas. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama competed for the 2008 Democratic nomination.

The Clinton campaign and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

The leaked emails are the latest documents about the 2016 presidential election that have been published by WikiLeaks. Last week, the U.S. government formally accused Russia of hacking the Democratic National Committee and other political institutions to influence the U.S. election.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has denied connections between the site and Russia.

[vector7]

Breaking: DNC Chief Donna Brazile Leaked Sanders Info to Clinton Campaign

WikiLeaks hack reveals DNC's favoritism as Clinton staff in damage control over Hillary's support for DOMA

By Michael Sainato • 10/10/16 2:47pm



On October 10, Wikileaks released part two of their emails from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.

Friday, Wikileaks released their first batch of Podesta’s emails, which included excerpts from Clinton’s Wall Street transcripts that reaffirmed why Clinton refused to release them in full. During the second presidential debate, Clinton confirmed their authenticity by attempting to defend one statement she made in the speech about having a public and private stance on political issues. She cited Abraham Lincoln, a defense comparable to her ridiculous invocation of 9/11 when pressed on her ties to Wall Street during a Democratic primary debate.

The latest release reveals current DNC chair Donna Brazile, when working as a DNC vice chair, forwarded to the Clinton campaign a January 2016 email obtained from the Bernie Sanders campaign, released by Sarah Ford, Sanders’ deputy national press secretary, announcing a Twitter storm from Sanders’ African-American outreach team. “FYI” Brazile wrote to the Clinton staff. “Thank you for the heads up on this Donna,” replied Clinton campaign spokesperson Adrienne Elrod.

The second batch of emails include more evidence of collusion between the mainstream media and Clinton Campaign.

One email, received by prolific Clinton donor Haim Saban, was forwarded to Clinton staff, praising the friendly moderators in the early March 2016 Democratic primary debate co-hosted by Univision in Florida. “Haim, I just wanted to tell you that I thought the moderators for last nights Debate were excellent. They were thoughtful, tough and incisive. I thought it made Hilary appear direct and strong in her resolve. I felt it advanced our candidate. Thanks for Univision,” wrote Rob Friedman, former co-chair of the Motion Picture Group.

Another email discusses planting a favorable Clinton story in The New York Times in March 2015. “NYT heroine. Should she call her today?” Podesta wrote to other Clinton campaign staffers with the subject line ‘Laura Donohoe.’ “I do think it’s a great idea! We can make it happen,” replied Huma Abedin. The story they referred to is likely “In New Hampshire, Clinton Backers Buckle Up,” published in The New York Times on March 12, 2015 about Laura Donahoe, a retired nurse and Clinton supporter in New Hampshire.

John Harwood, New York Times contributor and CNBC correspondent, regularly exchanged emails with Podesta—communicating more as a Clinton surrogate than a journalist.

In an October 2015 email thread, Clinton staff were in damage control over Hillary’s support for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Hillary Clinton would not disavow her support for it. “I’m not saying double down or ever say it again. I’m just saying that she’s not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance.”

Former Clinton Foundation director, Darnell Strom of the Creative Artist Agency, wrote a condescending email to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard after she resigned from the DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders, which he then forwarded to Clinton campaign staff. “For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn’t fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party’s nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton,” wrote Strom.

A memo sent from Clinton’s general counsel, Marc Elias of the law firm Perkins Coie, outlined legal tricks to circumvent campaign finance laws to raise money in tandem with Super Pacs.

In a March 2015 email, Clinton Campaign manager Robby Mook expressed frustration DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz hired a Convention CEO without consulting the Clinton campaign, which suggests the DNC and Clinton campaign regularly coordinated together from the early stages of the Democratic primaries.

[vector7]

Wikileaks: New York Times Caught Providing Bill Clinton Questions Before ‘Interview’

27

by Dustin Stockton10 Oct 2016

The New York Times provided questions to former President Bill Clinton before an interview with Nicholas Kristoff, the Wikileaks release of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta emails has revealed.

In an email sent to Podesta and several others, the Clinton Foundation’s Director of Foreign Policy Ami Desai requests feedback on answers to “questions they sent that are related to international issues”:

[A]s you may know, WJC is doing Q+A with Nick Kristof on Wednesday (at the Foursquare Conference). It’s supposed to be closed press, but. Below are the questions they sent that are related to international issues – namely Israelis/Palestinians, China (trade/Tibet/Taiwan), and Greece/Euro. Are there any WJC Admin accomplishments that we should equip him to be able to highlight? [I put some initial ideas in CAPS below; and we also have requested input from the State Department.] We’d welcome any feedback by Sunday. Thanks, Ami

A quick review of recent columns by Kristof reveals a lot of Clinton water-carrying with headlines like “Donald Trump, Groper in Chief” and “How to Cover a Charlatan Like Trump” and “When a Crackpot Run For President” where he makes the case that “journalistic efforts at fairness may risk normalizing Donald Trump.”

In the email, Desai reveals four questions on international issues that Kristof planned to ask Clinton. The first question is framed by crediting Clinton with coming within a “whisker from a Middle East peace deal.” Three of the questions are followed by proposed answers in all CAPS from the Clinton Foundation.

* At the very end of your presidency, it seemed that you came a whisker from a Middle East peace deal, and the Clinton parameters are still generally acknowledged to be the basis of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal if it comes. But will it ever come?

Aren’t demographics and the growth of settlements making it harder to see a two -state solution emerging any time soon?

* For most of human history, China has been the dominant power in the world. We just happen to live in a relatively brief 300-year stretch when China was weak. But is China regaining its customary position as the dominant power in the world today, and should that worry us? Should we just get used to it? And given that China is our creditor, where do we find leverage to change Chinese behavior, whether on Tibet or Taiwan or human rights or trade?

1. REMINDER ABOUT GETTING CHINA INTO WTO; AND DEVELOPING APEC TO ENHANCE REGIONAL INFLUENCE; AND WJC ADMIN SUCCESS IN BUILDING-UP THE US ECONOMY AND IMPORTANCE OF HAVING DOMESTIC ECONOMIC STRENGTH
* Greece looks as if it’s headed for default, the Euro zone may be imploding, and the American economy is pretty much stagnant. If you were president today, what would you be doing right now?

1. REMINDER ABOUT BAILING OUT MEXICO AND HOW UNPOPULAR THAT WAS BUT ENDED UP BEING SUCCESSFUL – IMPORTANCE OF SOMETIMES HAVING TO MAKE UNPOPULAR DECISIONS

2. AND IMPORTANCE OF INVESTING IN JOB CREATION AS A WAY TO WORK OUT OF THIS CRISIS AND GIVE PEOPLE TOOLS THEY NEED TO LIFT THEMSELVES UP – MENTION WJC ADMIN ACCOMPLISHMENTS

* There are a lot of potential crises that give nightmares to international strategists. A nuclear Iran. A belligerent or collapsing North Korea. A revolution in Saudi Arabia. A naval clash with China. Cyber attack. So what keeps you awake at night? Which of these do you worry about most? Or is there another peril that we in the media haven’t adequately spotlighted?

1. REMIDER ABOUT WJC’S THREE CHALLENGES AND HOW WJC ADMIN HELPED ADDRESS EACH ONE, DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY: UNEQUALITY (IN INCOMES/OPPORTUNITY), INSTABILITY (DUE TO GLOBAL INTERCONNECTEDNESS, DISEASE AND HATE AND EVERYTHING CAN BE SPREAD ACROSS BORDERS EASILY), UNSUSTAINABILITY (DUE TO RESOURCE SCARCITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE)

[vector7]

Leaked Monmouth U. polling memo: Democrats ‘despondent’; Hillary unpopular with minorities & Millennials, seen as a ‘lying harpy’

Posted on October 6, 2016 by Dr. Eowyn | 45 Comments

Monmouth University is a small private university in West Long Branch, New Jersey.



On September 16, 2016, someone (name redacted*) sent a “secure email” to Patrick Murray, the director of Monmouth University Polling Institute (MUPI).

* Update (10/7/16): Thanks to readers JustTryingToHelp and LaterGator, we now know the sender is Nate Silver, 38, a statistician and writer who analyzes baseball and elections. He is currently the editor-in-chief of ESPN’s FiveThirtyEight and a Special Correspondent for ABC News.

Note: On its website, MUPI claims that, “The Monmouth University Poll received an A+ rating from the polling website FiveThirtyEight.com. In 2013, it was the only poll that correctly forecast the outcomes of both the November gubernatorial race and the unprecedented October U.S. Senate contest in New Jersey, leading the Asbury Park Press to call Monmouth’s polling ‘freakishly accurate.’“
Uploaded to Scribd, the email is described as an “internal memo leaked from a control agency to the Monmouth Polling Group at Monmouth University ordering them to ‘change the narrative'” because, based on MUPI’s polling data, Hillary Clinton is losing to Donald Trump.

Obtained by RealTrueNews.org, the email describes Democrats as “despondent” about the upcoming Nov. 8 presidential election, akin to how they’d felt about the disastrous campaign of Michael Dukakis. There is a worrisome lack of enthusiasm for Hillary among “minorities” (blacks) and Millennials, who regard Obama as a “failed presidency” and Hillary Clinton as a “lying harpy”.

Note: In Greek mythology, harpy is a rapacious monster with a woman’s head and body and a bird’s wings and claws; a bird of prey with a woman’s face.

Though addressed to the director of Monmouth University’s supposedly scientific Polling Institute, the email is shockingly, unreservedly pro-Democrat and pro-Hillary partisan, elitist, and contemptuous of the “little people”:

• The email openly talks of polling shenanigans, such as over-sampling liberals at 30%, instead of their actual 12%.
• The email speaks condescendingly of manipulating “naïve liberals” as useful idiots.
• The email proposes to concoct a “White People Are Racist” narrative to implant into the psyche of Undecideds — Americans who have not yet decided how they’ll vote.

Even more interesting — and encouraging for us — is the fact that the email admits that voters are a lot smarter and less easily fooled than in 2012, and that the Alternative Media have been successful in penetrating through the MSM’s deliberate obfuscation, as seen in:

• “Birtherism”: 73% of Americans say they don’t know where Obama was born.
• A majority of Americans, including Democrats, not just think Hillary Clinton is sick, but “Incredibly sick. Probably infectious and terminal.”
• A majority of Americans, including Democrats, think blacks support Hillary for free goodies like phones and tablets.
• More Americans think Hillary is secretly supporting ISIS than not.
• A majority, including Democrats, believe that Hillary had called ALL Trump-supporters “deplorables”.
• The MSM are in cahoots with Hillary and the Democrats.

Here’s what the email says:

It is imperative to create a morale boosting narrative in the liberal demographics. Our last published polling note gave liberals a “week before panic.” We must deliver on a turn-around in polls or risk collapse of enthusiasm. The data from our call / email sieve as well as legitimate polling indicates a level of despondency equivalent, roughly, to the Michael Dukakis candidacy. This is due to (a) Trump’s successful presidential-narrative surge and (b) a massive lack of enthusiasm on the part of minority and millennial voters who are beginning to view Obama as a failed president and Hillary Clinton as a ‘lying harpy.’ (word association testing focus groups).

In order to rally the male-liberal base we will need to produce “resurgent” Florida polling. The conventional wisdom is that Florida will be the fulcrum state for the election and if it is seen as lost to Trump then we will have domino defections throughout the other swing-states. Presently, our internal analysis shows the Democratic Firewall in extreme jeopardy. This week the news cycle MUST show Hillary regaining the lead in Florida.
STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, & THREATS

Strengths: Almost none. The voter-registrations in Florida are balanced but we need to have at least D+3 to have a credible story. We also need to greatly oversample women. This shouldn’t be hard to manage as they are more likely to answer the phone and chat. Liberal self-reporters are tanking (around 12% in real numbers). We are going to have it at around 30% which we can probably get away with. Below are the target demographics our screens should produce with minimal manual intervention.

Note: In other words, the email urges Patrick Murray, the director of Monmouth University Polling Institute, to over-sample liberals — at 30%, instead of their real percentage of 12%.

Weaknesses: Weaknesses abound. The first is that the birther message is penetrating: 73% of Americans are willing to say they don’t know where Obama was born. This was previously locked out via media shaming. Trump is immune so his followers are immune. The Florida geography is also working against us. Hillary has 53+ Field Offices and they’re empty of volunteers. This lack of enthusiasm is showing up in the voting responses and it’s killing us. The “cell phones” rationale will only hold out for so long.

Opportunities: PPP [Public Policy Polling?] is burned. There have been too many leaks. Monmouth is less well known and less disparaged by conservatives. This is a good chance for you to build your brand both with naïve liberals and with some conservative moderates. The general reputation of Monmouth as a party-school will work against you here but we think that will be easy to gloss over with the chaos of the messaging. We also have a chance to build a White People Are Racist narrative. We’ve got some good story coming out of The Upshot with the headline that “Whites” are keeping Trump alive in Florida. If we can double down on that in the cross-tabs we can strongly insinuate that Whites (who code as racists in the media) like Trump (who codes as racist) and get an Ouroboros-Pattern established for undecideds.

Note: Ouroboros is is an ancient symbol depicting a serpent or dragon eating its own tail. Swiss psychologist Carl Jung saw the ouroboros as an archetype, a collectively-inherited unconscious idea, pattern of thought, or image.

Finally, while we have been forced by intense public scrutiny to accurately report a Trump Surge, we think there is an opportunity here for demoralization by reporting a “counter surge” or “Trump Collapse” that will reduce momentum as the Trump narrative has shifted to talking about the polls.

Threats: People are leaking a lot. If you don’t want Enten’s gang all over you, we suggest you lock it the fuck down. There are a lot of people poking around the edges that are on to things and a bunch of stuff out on the Internet that is more hit-than-miss.

PPP’s extremely unwise decision not to disavow the leaks on Twitter has cost us a great deal of credibility and voters are a lot more educated about cross-tabs and skewing and we may not have as easy a time of it as we did in 2012. Finally, we know you consider Quinnipiac a “rival school.” Put that aside and stand down your hackers and arson-units. This is a team effort. If we lose this election we’re all fucked. Ensure loyalty in your staff by whatever means necessary. Keep appearances up. DO NOT SCREW THIS UP.

The email then describes the following unsettling “trends” derived from Monmouth University’s polling data (click images to enlarge):



From the above polling data, the email concludes that:

If these results hold, we are seeing a complete fracture in the national narrative. Hillary’s messaging has failed and her intentions are being read as subtext-for-text. Under these conditions it will be impossible to win a general election.

Then the email effectively admits what Conservatives and traditional Christians have been saying for some time now — that liberals/Democrats/Progressives see Western civilization as the enemy and are bent on obliterating it. It is their enmity toward Western civilization that accounts for why they are not bothered by Hillary’s lies and crimes, but instead regard them as positives — in other words, upturning evil into good, and good into evil:

The Liberal base is demoralized—-but will become more enthusiastic the more Hillary is seen as an iconoclast who will overturn the last foundations of Western Culture (as such, links to corruption and even outright crimes are seen as a positive rather than a negative). On the reverse side, the media has not been able to convince most of America that these allegations are false (the dual-channels have, unfortunately, merged and the conservative news firewall has broken down). The messaging to liberals is being consumed by middle America and they, for obvious reasons, do not like it.

The email then concludes on an ominous note, hinting that “more drastic measures” will have to be taken if the pattern of Hillary losing continues:

If the above responses hold for major swing states more drastic measures will be needed and we will need to begin preparations sooner rather than later.

You can read the email for yourself here.

H/t FOTM‘s Glenn47

[Ryan Ruck]

Wikileaks: Clinton Campaign Interfered With Republican Primary

October 10, 2016

Among the documents in the leaked John Podesta emails recently posted by Wikileaks was a strategy memo that suggested that the Clinton campaign may have colluded with the Democratic National Committee and the media to promote certain Republican primary candidates that the Democrats considered extreme. If genuine, the memo indicates that the Clinton campaign interfered with the Republican primary with the help of the media.

The memo was an attachment to an email with the Wikileaks ID number 1120. It was sent to numerous staff members on April 23, 2015 with the subject line “[AGENDA & MEMO] Friday Strategy at 8:00 AM ET.” The email was sent by “MASTOR,” probably a reference to Marissa Astor, who is listed as a surrogate on the Hillary for America organizational chart. The attachment file name is “150407 Strategy on GOP.”

The memo is addressed to “The Democratic National Committee” and is dated April 7, 2015. The introduction says that its purpose is to “outline the strategy and goals that a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field.” The introduction notes that, even though Hillary Clinton was not yet the Democratic nominee, “most of what is contained in this memo is work the DNC is already doing.”

The memo lays out three strategies to “make whomever the Republicans nominate unpalatable to the majority of the electorate.” First, the Clinton campaign planned to “force all [emphasis theirs] Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election.” Second, they wanted to “undermine any credibility/trust Republican presidential candidates have” among independent voters. Finally, they planned to “muddy the waters on any potential attack launched against HRC.”

In “operationalizing the strategy,” the memo described a plan to “use the [Republican] field to inflict damage on itself.” The Clinton campaign wanted to use “more extreme candidates” as “’Pied Piper’ candidates” who would seem to “represent the mainstream of the Republican Party.”

The memo identified three “Pied Piper” candidates by name. They were Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Ben Carson. At the time the memo was written, Donald Trump was still two months away from declaring his candidacy. It is not clear if the Clintons directly influenced Trump to enter the race.

(Anyone still wondering what that phone call between Bill and Trump entailed?)

“We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them [sic] seriously,” the memo says. This indicates coordination between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and members of the media.

The memo goes on to identify several “more established” candidates who needed special attention to “undermine their credibility among our coalition (communities of color, millennials, women) and independent voters.” The candidates identified as bigger threats to the Clinton campaign were Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal and Chris Christie.

To “muddy the waters,” the memo suggested building a dossier on each Republican candidate in the areas of “transparency & disclosure, donors & associations, and management & business dealings.” In a statement that presaged this week’s attacks on Donald Trump, the memo says, “any information on scandals or ethical lapses on the GOP candidates would serve well. We won’t be picky.”

While the email does not contain a “smoking gun” that indicates that Clinton enticed Donald Trump to enter the Republican primary, it is apparent that Trump was considered a weak and extreme candidate who could hurt the rest of the Republican field. The reference to the press may help explain the large amounts of friendly press coverage that Trump received during the primary. There is also no indication that the Clinton campaign thought that Donald Trump could actually win the Republican primary and become the party’s nominee.

In the end, Hillary Clinton’s plan to sabotage the Republican primary must have exceeded her wildest expectations. One of her “Pied Pipers” actually won the nomination and became the Republican candidate for the presidency. Hillary was ready when he did.

Read the full story on The Resurgent

[Malsua]

The Liberal base is demoralized—-but will become more enthusiastic the more Hillary is seen as an iconoclast who will overturn the last foundations of Western Culture

That pretty much sums it up. Liberals want our country destroyed. Traitors, all of them.

[Ryan Ruck]

That pretty much sums it up. Liberals want our country destroyed. Traitors, all of them.

Yep, that's why the ship of bipartisanship and "United We Stand" has sailed.

We aren't the ones who want to burn it all down, we want to restore it to what it was.

There should be no doubt these people are no longer our fellow countrymen and that we really are in a Cold Civil War.

[American Patriot]

Anyone that says the words "bipartisan", "compromise" or "Work together" in any political context in the next few years needs to be run through a wood chipper.

[vector7]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...alk-tape-wapo/

RUMBLINGS: Top Paul Ryan Advisor Leaked Trump Sex Talk Tape to WaPo

Jim Hoft
Oct 10th, 2016 11:00 pm


On Friday, the Clinton Campaign (Washington Post) released video of Donald Trump bragging about grabbing p*ssy in an off the record conversation with Billy Bush.


The Los Angeles Times reported hours after audio was released of Donald Trump making sexually suggestive comments about a woman, that House Speaker Paul D. Ryan castigated Trump and said he would no longer attend their scheduled event on Saturday.

“I am sickened by what I heard today,” Ryan said in a statement. “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.”

Paul Ryan was scheduled to campaign with Trump for the first time on Saturday.

It never happened.

Funny how @PRyan finally decides to appear w/ #Trump – only to publicly cancel and attack him! Funny how that works. https://t.co/XBJ20McXC5
— Jim Hoft (@gatewaypundit) October 8, 2016

On Sunday Donald Trump crushed Hillary Clinton in one of the most lopsided debates in political history. It was a brilliant performance. Trump made everyone forget about the WaPo tape.


On Monday Paul Ryan sabotaged Donald Trump again and changed the political narrative.



Ryan announced he will not campaign with or defend Donald Trump for the rest of the election cycle. This was an odd statement considering Paul Ryan has not once defended Donald Trump this year. He’s only attacked Trump, the record-setting Republican primary winner.


Liberty University president Jerry Falwell, Jr. suggested today that GOP elites may have leaked the video.


Now this…

There are “rumors” that Paul Ryan’s close advisor #NeverTrumper Dan Senor is behind the leaks.

.@dansenor Writing about #BillyBush tapes, hearing your wife (ex NBC) got a hold of tapes and you pushed the story for your boss. Comment?
— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) October 11, 2016

I spoke with a reporter tonight who believes the reports are true. It was GOP elites who released the audio to the Washington Post.

Dan Senor has been pushing the WaPo audio all day. He is determined to keep the story alive.


And he’s a Republican?

Note to media: if interviewing Trump surrogates today, focus q's on tape. Besides Rudy, these surrogates were all hiding over the weekend1/2
— Dan Senor (@dansenor) October 10, 2016

Now Trump surrogates magically appear b/c debate wasn't a disaster. You shld intv them abt the tape, as though the debate never occurred 2/2
— Dan Senor (@dansenor) October 10, 2016

This is outrageous.

[vector7]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...podesta-often/

Wikileaks: Debate Moderator John Harwood Emailed Podesta — Often



by Joel B. Pollak 10 Oct 2016

John Harwood of CNBC and the New York Times, who moderated one of the Republican presidential primary debates last year, corresponded often with Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, even congratulating her on primary wins, according to emails released by Wikileaks.

On July 24, 2015, the day that the Times and other news outlets reported that an investigation by the inspectors general of the State Department and other federal agencies had concluded that Clinton had classified information on her private email server, contrary to her earlier public statements, Harwood emailed Podesta and Clinton aide Jake Sullivan, reassuringly: “set aside process – if there’s any specific/plausible suggestion of nefarious email @HillaryClinton was trying to hide, I haven’t heard it.”

On Oct. 1, the day after the State Department released another batch of Clinton’s recovered emails, Harwood emailed Podesta: “how are you feeling about where things stand?” Podesta replied: “Battered but ok.” Harwood replied: “Sounds right to me.”

Later that month, on Oct. 28, Harwood would go on to moderate the third Republican primary debate, and delivered a performance so obviously biased that even liberal commentators had to admit he had proven conservative suspicions correct. Harwood did not ask about Clinton’s emails.

Other emails, including an invitation for lunch, appear more innocuous. Some look simply like pitches for interviews. Regardless, they reveal a close relationship between Harwood and Podesta — and apparent political support from Harwood.

On Jan. 28, 2016, for example, Harwood emailed Podesta to report that Clinton had done well at an event in Iowa: “She was good here in Newton.”

And on March 14, 2016, Harwood emailed Podesta: “how are you feeling about tomorrow?” The next day, March 15, was an important Democratic primary day, when Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and North Carolina voted.

Clinton won all five contests — though by a narrow margin in Missouri and Illinois Harwood wrote again to Podesta: “Congrats – pretty strong.” Podesta then replied to Harwood in the early hours of March 16: “Yup. Feeling good.”




Revelations from the Wikileaks email dump are ongoing — though the media have shown a curious reluctance to highlight them, focusing instead on leaked video of Donald Trump joking about groping women in 2005.