It's time for all of us to end our wilful denial and acknowledge that our elections are no longer free and fair. They are routinely tampered with, which means we do not have a democracy. It's a joke. It's time to grow up and face the fact that there are people very interested in stealing elections and they are doing it. If we are to establish an election system that actually provides accurate outcomes, we have to take control of it away from the criminals that control it now.

The good news is we can do this by exploiting the voting system to our advantage to vote out all incumbents and demand the new Congress get rid of ALL electronic voting machines.  We can do this by orchestrating landslide elections AGAINST INCUMBENTS.  The tampering that is going on is an average of 3-5% thrown towards whoever they wish to win.  At worst exitpollshaveshow up to 12%.  So worst case scenario, 88% of the votes are being counted accurately.  So if we can get only 20% of voters to deliberately vote against incumbents, vote tampering won't be able to stop the outcome.

This documentary exposes the vulnerability of computers - which count approximately 80% of America's votesincounty, state and federal elections - suggesting that if our votes aren't safe, then our democracy isn't safe either.  Below is a clip from the film "Hacking Democracy" that shows exactly what happens all the time with electronic voting machines.

 

Editor's Note: Wow. This has been pretty much scrubbed from everywhere. Hillary DID USE THE FAKE DOSSIER SHE PAID FOR to influence the outcome of the election. Luckily one spot archived it. AND REMEMBER, the info in this fake report CAME FROM THE RUSSIANS!! So who colluded with the Russians to influence the outcome of the election?

 

Carter Page: I Told Government That Hillary Hired Steele DURING The Election

 

Former President Donald Trump campaign adviser Carter Page said that he reported Hillary Clinton’s role in the anti-Trump dossier to governments during the 2016 election, and he believes that Attorney General Jeff Sessions should not be constrained in the Russia case because he got “poor advice” from the DOJ.

Page said he suspected early on that he was the target of a sting operation involving British intelligence. We now know that British spy Christopher Steele compiled a debunked anti-Trump dossier for Fusion GPS, a firm paid millions by the Clinton campaign.

“I didn’t know for sure before the election, but I knew that the Clinton campaign’s opposition political research were behind the fakeness” of the dossier, Page told Big League Politics in an exclusive interview.

In October 2016, while the election was still going on, Page sent a letter to the inter-governmental Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) — provided to Big League Politics — where he stated: “I have learned from a reliable source that a law firm close to the Clinton campaign has hired a London-based private investigator to investigate my trip to Russia. This approach is closely consistent with past tactics that investigators affiliated with Mrs. Clinton have historically taken toward their targeted victims: ‘Impugn…character and veracity until…destroyed beyond all recognition.'”

The United States government is represented in the OSCE.

As Big League Politics reported, the Hillary Clinton campaign promoted the Christopher Steele dossier DURING the presidential election, using the intermediary of Yahoo reporter Michael Isikoff. The Clinton campaign’s press release on the matter has almost completely disappeared from the Internet, but we found its preserved contents — proving that Clinton used the Steele dossier to influence the election.

Page thinks Sessions can still be involved with the Russia case if he figures out how to dis-recuse himself.

“It’s a little bit more difficult to do an un–recusal there at Justice, but any unbiased and logical review of potential conflicts makes it clear that there’s no reason that he should be constrained,” Page told Big League Politics in an exclusive interview.

“I think he is a good man, and it’s a shame that he was given poor advice by people at DOJ. Showing a similar history, bear in mind how Chairman Nunes was falsely accused of having conflicts of interest. But he patiently fought back and has been able to do great things,” Page told BLP.

 

By Allum Bokhari
Breitbart.com

By inserting negative search suggestions under the name of a candidate, search engines like Google can shift the opinions of undecided voters by up to 43.4 percent, according to new research by a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and reported exclusively by Breitbart News.

The lead author of the study, Dr. Robert Epstein, has previously conducted research into what he calls the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME). This research showed that the manipulation of results pages in search engines can shift the voting preferences of undecideds by anywhere between 20 and 80 percent, depending on the demographic.

His latest research looks at how search engines can affect voters by suggesting negative or positive search terms when a political candidate’s name is entered into the search bar. Dr. Epstein’s research found that when negative search terms are suggested for a candidate, it can have a dramatic effect on voter opinion.

From the study:

The voting preferences of participants who saw no search suggestions shifted toward the favored candidate by 37.1%. The voting preferences of participants in the search suggestion groups who saw only positive search suggestions shifted similarly (35.6%). However, the voting preferences of participants who saw three positive search suggestions and one negative search suggestion barely shifted (1.8%); this occurred because the negative search suggestion attracted more than 40% of the clicks (negativity bias). In other words, a single negative search suggestion can impact opinions dramatically. Participants who were shown four negative suggestions (and no positives) shifted away from the candidate shown in the search bar (-43.4%).

Gerrymandering is a practice intended to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries. The resulting district is known as a gerrymander, however that word is also a verb for the process.  The term gerrymandering has negative connotations. Two principal tactics are used in gerrymandering: "cracking" (i.e. diluting the voting power of the opposing party's supporters across many districts) and "packing" (concentrating the opposing party's voting power in one district to reduce their voting power in other districts).

In addition to its use achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class group, such as in U.S. federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities, known as "majority-minority districts". Gerrymandering can also be used to protect incumbents.

 

Editor's Note:  Only counting US citizens is essential when calculating how many Congressional House seats any given state is allowed. If millions of illegals have been counted in the past, it's possible that some states, like California, may have more Congressional seats than they are properly permitted.

~~~~~~~~

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM/AP) – The Trump administration’s decision to ask people about their citizenship in the 2020 census will end up at the Supreme Court according to Civil Liberties attorney Alan Dershowitz. The question is – when?

“Whether it will end up [at the Supreme Court] in time for the next Census is a hard question because the law moves slowly,” Dershowitz told CBS 11 Political Reporter Jack Fink.

 

 

Dershowitz stressed that the Census is required by the constitution. “We get to determine who gets Congressional seats based on the Census,” he said. The Census is used to determine the number of congressional districts in each state as well as federal funding for schools, roads, and other projects.

Several states that have slowing population growth or high numbers of immigrants such as California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and Ohio are typically at risk of losing U.S. House seats when their congressional districts are redrawn every 10 years — depending on how fully their residents are counted.

Dershowitz also said that – whether a citizenship question should be on the Census – is hard to answer. “The answers to the specific question… are very complex and very difficult and we haven’t really begun to sort them out,” he said. “And I think these are the kinds of questions that we have to begin to ask. And they’ll be asked – not only in the halls of Congress – but in the courts,” he continued. “Because there will be challenges to that question. Because if that question results in Green Card holders not submitting themselves to the Census – Green Card holders are American persons under the law – [they] have to be counted,” Dershowitz continued. “Obviously illegal aliens have a different status.”

“These are very important questions but they are constitutional in nature because the Census determines the House of Representatives and other important aspects of Americas legal and Constitutional life,” Dershowitz added.

At least one lawsuit has already been filed.

California struck quickly, with Attorney General Xavier Becerra filing a federal lawsuit Tuesday that seeks to block Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ decision to add a citizenship question in 2020.

Officials from New York and New Jersey, also Democratic-led states, were also planning on leading or participating in lawsuits. Massachusetts signaled interest, too.

Dershowitz spoke in Irving this week before the Institute of Policy Innovation, a free-market think tank.

Mark Levin interviewed House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes on the overall FISA Court abuse and political investigation by the DOJ and FBI.  In a comprehensive interview Levin walks through a timeline of media reporting.

 

 

 

By Robert Barnes
LawAndCrime.com

Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted foreign citizens for trying to influence the American public about an election because those citizens did not register as a foreign agent nor record their financial expenditures to the Federal Elections Commission. By that theory, when will Mueller indict Christopher Steele, FusionGPS, PerkinsCoie, the DNC and the Clinton Campaign? Mueller’s indictment against 13 Russian trolls claimed their social media political activity was criminal because: they were foreign citizens; they tried to influence an election; and they neither registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act nor reported their funding to the Federal Elections Commission.

First, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make Steele a criminal: first, he is a foreign citizen; second, he tried to influence an election, which he received payments to do (including from the FBI itself); and third, he neither registered as a foreign agent nor listed his receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission. Also, according to the FBI, along the way, Steele lied…a lot, while the dossier he disseminated contained its own lies based on bought-and-paid for smears from foreign sources reliant on rumors and innuendo.

Second, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make FusionGPS a criminal co-conspirator: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission.

Third, if Mueller’s theory is correct, then three things make PerkinsCoie a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its receipt of payments from the Clinton campaign as a “legal expense.”

Fourth, if Mueller’s theory is correct, then three things make the DNC a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its payments to Steele as laundered legal expenses to a law firm.

Fifth, if Mueller’s theory is correct, three things make the Clinton Campaign a potential target: it knew Steele was a foreign citizen; it knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election; and it knew, and facilitated, Steele neither registering as a foreign agent nor reporting his funding from the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commission, by disguising its funding of payments to Steele laundered through a law firm as a “legal expense.”

Don’t expect such an indictment. Mueller chose his targets because he knows they will never appear in court, never contest the charges, and cannot be arrested or extradited as Russian citizens. Mueller’s unprecedented prosecution raises three novel arguments: first, that speaking out about American politics requires a foreign citizen to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act; second, that speaking out about American politics requires a foreign citizen list their source and expenditure of funding to the Federal Election Commission; and third, that mistakes on visa applications constitute “fraud” on the State Department. All appear to borrow from the now-discredited “honest services” theories Mueller’s team previously used in corporate and bribery cases, cases the Supreme Court overturned for their unconstitutional vagueness. The indictment raises serious issues under the free speech clause of the First Amendment and due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Robert Barnes is a California-based trial attorney whose practice focuses on Constitutional, criminal and civil rights law. You can follow him at @Barnes_Law.

 

WorldNetDaily
wnd.com

WASHINGTON – California will take the next step in blurring the lines between citizens and non-citizens beginning April Fool’s Day when the state complies with a court order to begin automatically registering to vote all those who are granted driver’s licenses.

The state has long provided driver’s licenses to all who simply claimed, without proof, that they were citizens of in the country legally. There were no checks made or documentation required.

But beginning April 1 every person who gets a California driver’s license will be automatically entitled to vote.

“We are very pleased that Californians will have easier access to voter registration,” said Jeremiah Levine, an attorney with Morrison Foerster who represented the voting-rights groups. “We are especially satisfied that changes will be made before California’s statewide and federal primary elections.”

What do YOU think? Is automatic voter registration by driver’s licenses smart? Sound off in the WND Poll!

The state complied with the order under a program dubbed the California New Motor Voter Act. Signed into law in October 2015, the new statute requires the DMV to forward records for all eligible applicants to the Secretary of State’s Office for registration unless those applicants elect not to register to vote.

The League of Women Voters and three other groups sued the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and Secretary of State’s Office in May 2017, claiming the state burdens would-be voters by making them fill out the same information on two separate forms to register to vote.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

According to the lawsuit filed last May, California ranks “a dismal 46th in the nation” in its rate of registered voters. More than 5.5 million eligible voters were unregistered as of February 2017, according to state data.

Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the ACCE Institute, California Common Cause and the National Council of La Raza.

 

 

By Dan Backer
Investors.com

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of my client, Alabama engineer Shaun McCutcheon, in his challenge to the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) outdated "aggregate limits," which effectively limited how many candidates any one donor could support.

Anti-speech liberals railed against McCutcheon's win, arguing it would create supersized "Joint Fundraising Committees" (JFCs). In court, they claimed these JFCs would allow a single donor to cut a multimillion-dollar check, and the JFC would then route funds through dozens of participating state parties, who would then funnel it back to the final recipient.

Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer claimed the Supreme Court's McCutcheon v. FEC ruling would lead to "the system of legalized bribery recreated that existed prior to Watergate." The Supreme Court, in ruling for us, flatly stated such a scheme would still be illegal.

The Democrats' response? Hold my beer.

The Committee to Defend the President has filed an FEC complaint against Hillary Clinton's campaign, Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic state parties and Democratic mega-donors.

As Fox News reported, we documented the Democratic establishment "us[ing] state chapters as straw men to circumvent campaign donation limits and launder(ing) the money back to her campaign." The 101-page complaint focused on the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) — the $500 million joint fundraising committee between the Clinton campaign, DNC, and dozens of state parties — which did exactly that the Supreme Court declared would still be illegal.

HVF solicited six-figure donations from major donors, including Calvin Klein and "Family Guy" creator Seth MacFarlane, and routed them through state parties en route to the Clinton campaign. Roughly $84 million may have been laundered in what might be the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history.

Here's what we know. Campaign finance law is incredibly complex and infamous for its lack of clarity. As I've explained before, its complexity is a feature, not a bug. Major political players with the resources to hire the very few attorneys who practice campaign finance law benefit from the complexity that keeps others out. Perhaps HVF's architects thought so too, and assumed that if no one understands what's happening, no one would complain.

Here's what you can do, legally. Per election, an individual donor can contribute $2,700 to any candidate, $10,000 to any state party committee, and (during the 2016 cycle) $33,400 to a national party's main account. These groups can all get together and take a single check from a donor for the sum of those contribution limits — it's legal because the donor cannot exceed the base limit for any one recipient. And state parties can make unlimited transfers to their national party.

Here's what you can't do, which the Clinton machine appeared to do anyway. As the Supreme Court made clear in McCutcheon v. FEC, the JFC may not solicit or accept contributions to circumvent base limits, through "earmarks" and "straw men" that are ultimately excessive — there are five separate prohibitions here.

On top of that, six-figure donations either never actually passed through state party accounts or were never actually under state party control, which adds false FEC reporting by HVF, state parties, and the DNC to the laundry list.

Finally, as Donna Brazile and others admitted, the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign's direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law that ties the conspiracy together.

Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton's campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the election — 100 times larger than allowed.

HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported transferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as transferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or transferring those sums.

Did any of these transfers actually happen? Or were they just paper entries to mask direct transfers to the DNC?

For perspective, conservative filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza was prosecuted and convicted in 2012 for giving a handful of associates money they then contributed to a candidate of his preference — in other words, straw  man contributions. He was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement center and five years of probation. How much money was involved? Only $20,000. HVF weighs in at $84 million — more than 4,000 times larger!

So who should be worried? Everyone involved — from the donors themselves to Democratic fundraisers to party officials who filed false reports and, ultimately, to Clinton campaign and HVF officials looking at significant legal jeopardy.

Don't take my word for it. Our complaint is built entirely on the FEC reports filed by Democrats, memos authored by Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, and public statements from Donna Brazile and others.

The only question that matters: Was the law broken? If the answer is yes, then the corrupt Clinton machine should be held accountable.

• Backer is a veteran campaign counsel, having served more than 100 candidates, PACs, and political organizations, including the Committee to Defend the President. He is founding attorney of political.law, a campaign finance and political law firm in Alexandria, Va.

 

By Michael Snyder
endoftheamericandream.com

Yes, Hillary Clinton really did steal the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders, but most people have absolutely no idea how she actually did it.  In the end, it was all about the money.  A secret joint fundraising agreement that was made between the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America gave the Clinton campaign full control of the Democratic Party nearly a year before she officially won the nomination.  Normally, a presidential candidate for a major party would only be permitted to take full control once the nomination had been secured.  But in Hillary’s case, her campaign had a stranglehold over the Democratic National Committee virtually the entire time she was engaged in a heated battle with Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination.

In her new book entitled Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House, Donna Brazile gives us the inside scoop about what really happened inside the DNC during this time period.  When she first took over the DNC, she actually had no idea of what had transpired, and when she finally discovered the truth it absolutely horrified her.  On Thursday, Politico published an excerpt from Brazile’s new book in an article entitled “Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC”…

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

Brazile ultimately found the proof that she was looking for by following the money.  The Democratic National Committee has been in terrible financial shape for years, and by the time Brazile took over it had become completely and utterly dependent on the Clinton campaign for financial support.  Here is more from her new book…

The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

But this dependence on the Clinton campaign did not begin once she had won the nomination.

Actually, it started all the way back in August 2015, which was just four short months after Hillary Clinton originally announced that she would be running for president.

Brazile was able to find the joint fundraising agreement that had begun this arrangement, and it is the “smoking gun” which proves that Bernie Sanders never had a fair shot at winning the nomination…

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

How in the world was Bernie Sanders supposed to have a fair chance if Hillary was in full control of “the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised”?

The mainstream media has spent months trying to prove that President Trump colluded with the Russians and they haven’t come up with anything.

And yet now we have smoking gun evidence that Hillary Clinton actually did collude with the DNC to cheat Bernie Sanders out of a fair shot at the Democratic nomination, and the big media outlets so far are not making a big deal out of it.

Sadly, most Americans have just become resigned to the fact that our political system has become a cesspool of filth and corruption.  Most of us simply accept that it has always been this way and that things will never change.

Well, I happen to believe that things can change if we are willing to fight back.  The election of Donald Trump showed us that anything is possible, and we need a new generation of leaders that are willing to go to Washington and drain the swamp.

We cannot let Hillary Clinton off the hook, and so please share this article as widely as possible.  Just because she lost the election does not mean that we should forget about her crimes.  We tend to get on members of Congress for doing this, but it is our responsibility as well.

It has been said that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”, and if we want to take our country back we have to hold corrupt leaders such as Hillary Clinton accountable.  Because if we don’t shine a light on this kind of corruption, it will just keep on happening…

Michael Snyder is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his official website. His new book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.

~~~~~~~~~~