Now that the WSJ's "False Flag" article re: Clinton Foundation, has come out today with crap reporting...let's revisit when that Book "Clinton Cash" came out which got the media attention until it was disputed. But, was all of it fabrication or has what has been revealed about "CGI" that's come out in the last year caused more information to be revealed?
MSNBC's Chris Matthews describes scope of "Clinton Cash" reporting
Published on Apr 23, 2015
Hardball hosts notes Clinton Cash revelations have "hit every major news organization in America."
...And Chris reveals his Son worked for Clinton Foundation in Rawanda...as he hits "Clinton Cash Book" which was coming out in May, 2015. A Good watch for Background and an interesting Panel that Discusses.
It was a revisit after all these years.
Kind of goes with our times and revisiting put some pieces together...
Didn't they figure out already? "The Donald" has never been and never will be ...A Team Player! Now they've got big troubles...
Top Trump ally on Capitol Hill: He snubbed us
By Rachael Bade
05/12/16 02:33 PM EDT
One of Donald Trump's top allies in Congress slammed the presumptive GOP nominee after he failed to meet with rank-and-file lawmakers backing his campaign during his ballyhooed trip to Capitol Hill on Thursday.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) told POLITICO that Trump refused multiple requests to meet with members of Congress working to round up support for him in Washington.
I think it would have been good of him" to meet with "the first endorsers," Hunter said, as well as those who've gotten on board more recently, Hunter said. There is no reason not to have as many people on your side as you can and he missed a real opportunity here.
Trump met with House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and several others in leadership during a series of meetings on Thursday morning.
His most ardent congressional backers, however, asked his campaign several times for a few minutes with the candidate, too. They thought it would energize the team running traps to whip support for him in Washington. They also wanted Trump to meet with a core group of committee chairs they thought would make for powerful future allies.
Hunter said the complaint isn't about his ego, contending that face time with rank-and-file lawmakers would actually have helped Trump in the long run by making it easier for them to vouch for the candidate with voters in their districts.
If they endorse him, then go back to their districts to say theyve met him and hes not crazy, it goes a long way, Hunter said. It helps if you can say, 'I met the guy' ... and can be beneficial for Trump, too.
Purged, Hacked, Switched: On Election Fraud Allegations in Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders
by Doug Johnson Hatlem--Counter Punch
Antonio Gonzalez of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project (SVREP) is no stranger to exit polling misses. Gonzalez ran a national exit poll of Latino voters in 2004 that proved more correct than Edison Researchs polling for the National Election Pool, but has defended Edison against claims that they misread the Latina and Latino vote in the Nevada caucuses on the Democratic side in 2016. Last week I asked Gonzalez why exit polls are missing so badly for primaries between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders. The exit polls, he believes, were accurate in who actually turned out, in who tried to vote.
A woman named Chloe (whose personal information is otherwise redacted below) describes registering as a new voter more than a week before New Yorks deadline with the Department of Motor Vehicles. In spite of persistent efforts, including a record of more than a dozen calls and emails stretching to page fifteen of Exhibit A in Election Justice USA (EJUSA)s lawsuit filed in New York City, Chloe still has not been registered as a Democrat.
Included in well over a hundred of pages of similar proofs in the Exhibits, another denied voter named Daniel provided a copy of an email sent by Debbie Wasserman Schultz to registered Democrats on April 19, the day of the New York election, encouraging them to get out and vote. Daniels registration was purged or switched in the 24 hours before he tried, and was denied, the right to vote.
While Gonzalez attributes much of the trouble in New York and Arizona to confusion over who was eligible to vote, CounterPunch has reviewed details and supporting evidence from databases of voters wrongly denied the right to vote in closed primary contests between Clinton and Sanders. Three databases with records of over a thousand cases show that would-be voters who followed proper procedures to register as Democrats were disenfranchised either denied the right to vote or forced to vote provisionally or by affidavit.
For those who did vote provisionally or by affidavit, the vast majority of their votes have not counted. This includes 91,000 uncounted affidavit ballots in New York City alone and 20,000 uncounted provisional ballots in Maricopa County, Arizona. For Arizona, CounterPunch reviewed each individual record in a 151 person database collected and published by the online collective Anonymous. Details of 716 entries in a denied-voter database are summarized in Exhibit I of EJUSAs New York City lawsuit. The third database includes records from would-be voters experiencing registration problems in a wide variety of states from California (which does not vote until June 7th) to Pennsylvania as well as more than one hundred cases, from counties throughout New York, that have not yet been incorporated into EJUSAs lawsuits. EJUSA gave us limited access to the databases for verification purposes.
The impacts of registrations denied or switched and of voters improperly purged from voting rolls, even when they followed stated laws and procedures, goes well beyond those 100,000+ uncounted ballots, however. Thousands more voters appear to have been denied ballots altogether or simply stayed home when online State records told them they would not be allowed to have their vote counted. The only available conclusion is that forces supporting the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton were willing to use any means necessary legal, gray, or flatly illegal to put down the Bernie Sanders insurgency that threatened to upend Clintons coronation as the presumptive Democratic nominee.
CounterPunch has obtained a copy of the lawsuit filed by EJUSA in New York City and the accompanying Exhibits. Together with the databases and emerging story, they paint a picture of a Democratic machine every bit as corrupt as the Tammany bosses of the 1920s and 1930s who opposed Franklin Delano Roosevelt at every turn.
More of long article describing latest findings of Election Tamperings in Arizona and New York:
(This is all there is of the interview)
By Josh Gerstein
05/11/16 01:23 PM EDT
FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday he feels "pressure" to complete the federal investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's private email server competently and quickly.
However, Comey said the pressure is similar to other high-profile cases the bureau handles such as terrorism investigations.
"We want to do it well and we want to do it promptly. I feel pressure to do both of those things," Comey told reporters during a roundtable at FBI headquarters. "As between the two things, we will always choose 'well.'"
Comey indicated he's not taking into account political events, including the upcoming conventions or the fall election.
"I don't tether to any external deadline," the FBI chief said.
Comey swatted away a series of questions about the status of the investigation, describing it only as "ongoing."
Asked about complaints from some security clearance holders that they would be in jail if they acted similarly to Clinton, the FBI director declined to comment directly, but said: "There's no special set of rules for anybody that the FBI investigates."
In response to another question, Comey said he wasn't familiar with the term "security inquiry" that Clinton and her aides have used to describe the ongoing probe. Comey said he considers the work agents are doing to be an "investigation."
"It's in our name. I'm not familiar with the term 'security inquiry','" the director said.
However, he passed up the chance to repeat a reporter's characterization of it as a "criminal" probe.
saying.."rest of speech is just the usual" and goes to Maddow implying Bernie won't stay in to the end.
I went back to CNN who is still covering this Inspiring Speech with Cheers where he goes after Trump and Hillary.
Anyway....CNN had the "fareist/balenced wrap up"....imho..unless something went on over at MSNBC that was better than when I turned off Rachel.
Bernie was Clear: He's In It to WIN IT!
Scroll down a bit for the map. Almost all for Bernie but the numbers just aren't changing since the Call for Bernie by NYT and CNN. Anyway...Bernie really did great here and I hope as the rest of the Precinct Numbers come in he will have an even Bigger Win.
By Julian Hattem - 05/08/16 06:00 AM EDT
The FBI investigation swirling around Hillary Clintons presidential run appears to have entered its final stages.
Many of the former secretary of States top aides have been interviewed over the course of the last month, and Clinton herself is expected to answer investigators questions about her use of a private email server in the coming days or weeks.
Multiple media outlets have reported federal officials have yet to find any evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law.
Still, that might not necessarily get her off the hook from some misdemeanor charges, according to national security lawyer Bradley Moss.
The extent to which the person intended to remove classified documents is irrelevant, he said in an email to The Hill. All that matters for strict legal purposes of culpability is whether the person, by virtue of their official position, came into possession of classified information and affirmatively removed the information to an unauthorized location (i.e., the private server).
Whether the person knew or suspected the information was classified is irrelevant.
Other legal experts questioned the claim, hinting at the legal minefield that could await any potential criminal case.
The FBI did not respond to an inquiry about the investigation. A spokesman with the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, which is reportedly assisting in the case, declined to comment.
In addition to the interviews, federal investigators will have reams of files to go through.
It remains unclear whether officials have managed to recover any of the roughly 30,000 emails Clinton deleted from her machine, which she claimed were personal. If they did, the messages could provide a treasure trove of information.
Bryan Pagliano, the IT specialist believed to have helped set up and maintained Clintons server, was granted immunity in exchange for his help with the investigation.
Whatever the outcome of the case, the political controversy over Clintons email setup is unlikely to subside.
Even if the Justice Department comes up empty, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits are currently making their way through the courts and are likely to shed additional light on Clintons setup for months to come.
Over the next two months, at least six current or former aides to Clinton will be asked to give depositions as part of those cases, which are being led by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. Clinton herself could be asked to testify as well, a federal judge has ruled.
Our litigations going to continue, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told The Hill in a recent interview.
It doesnt really matter what the FBI does, what the Justice Department does, in the sense that we have an independent right to get some accountability and to have the FOIA law vindicated.
(Look for the Disinfo in this Release)
May 6, 2016
Huma Abedin, a close aide to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, was questioned last month by FBI agents investigating whether classified material was mishandled on the private email server used by the former secretary of State and her aides, according to a person familiar with the investigation.
Abedin was interviewed for about two hours at the FBIs field office in Washington on April 5, according to the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
Abedin is one of Clinton's longtime confidantes and the interview is the latest indication that FBI agents have completed much of their background work and are nearing a conclusion in the politically sensitive probe.
Abedin's lawyer, Karen Dunn, could not be reached for comment. Mike Kortan, a spokesman for the FBI, did not immediately return phone messages seeking comment.
These FBI interviews are another reminder of the gross negligence Hillary Clinton displayed as Secretary of State when she set up an off the books email server that exposed classified information on thousands of occasions, he said. This reckless attempt to skirt government transparency laws put our national security at risk, and underscores just how big of a risk a Hillary Clinton presidency truly is.
As investigators interview Clinton aides, they will try to verify information and look for inconsistencies.
The primary question is whether Clinton or her aides distributed classified material in email systems that fell outside the department's secure classified system.
Even if prosecutors determine that she did, the chances that she will be found criminally liable are low, experts say. Federal law makes it a crime only if someone knowingly or willfully retains classified information, handles it in a grossly negligent manner or passes it along to someone not entitled to see it.
"Based on what we know now, it is extremely unlikely that Clinton will be charged for mishandling classified materials, said Steven Levin, a former federal prosecutor in Maryland who handled cases involving classified information.
For a prosecutor to bring a case, even a misdemeanor, against such a high-profile target of a criminal investigation, he or she would want to have overwhelming evidence of guilt. To date, we have yet to see that kind of evidence as significant questions remain about what materials were classified at the time, whether Clinton knew any materials were classified, and whether Clinton mishandled any classified materials with a bad purpose in mind. "