Former British spy Christopher Steele provided false dossier information to the FBI and the FBI pushed the info to a FISA court on behalf of Fusion GPS, memo shows
WASHINGTON (INTELLIHUB) — The U.S, House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released the highly controversial Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA) memo on Friday, which contains bombshell information suggesting that the entire Trump-Russia collusion narrative was fabricated, pushed, and paid for by the opposition during the run-up to the 2016 Presidential Election and that the FBI went along with it.
Without further ado, here is the full memo:
A small amount of information pertaining to the surveillance of Carter Page was redacted.
(ANTIMEDIA) — Donna Brazille,former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, called Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign a “cult” while speaking with Joe Scarborough on MSNBC Wednesday morning.
Scarborough asked Brazille her opinion on why she believed the Clinton campaign ultimately lost to Trump: “Why did they lose? Was it at the end of the day arrogance?”
“It was a cult,” Brazile said. “I felt like it was a cult. You could not penetrate them.”
Brazille went on to refer to herself as a “grassroots organizer.”
“I know how to touch people where they live, work, play and pray,” she said.
“I cannot help a candidate if I don’t have the resources, if I cannot spend the resources that the party is raising.”
It was revealed earlier this week that Brazille put “patriot” Seth Rich on a list of people she included in the dedications of her new book, Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House.
Seth Rich was a former DNC staffer who was murdered in the early morning hours of July 10, 2016, under mysterious circumstances. Some have speculated that he may have been involved in the leaks that plagued the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the 2016 presidential election cycle. His death still remains unsolved.
Donna Brazile revealed that she feared for her life after Seth Rich was murdered, and was encouraged by Democratic Officials not to talk about the DNC Leaks.
Editor’s note: It appears that things are starting to take place behind the scenes that are not so favorable for former members of the Clinton campaign as Ryan Saavedra points out in his piece for the Daily Caller:
Special Counsel Robert Mueller issued subpoenas seeking testimony from executives who worked on a campaign organized by Paul Manafort – including the Podesta Group — an NBC exclusive report published Friday revealed.
The Podesta Group, co-founded by John Podesta, who was chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, was one of six lobbying firms that worked on Manafort’s campaign to get Ukraine into the European Union between 2012 to 2014 – a fact buried in the ninth paragraph of NBC’s report.
An executive, whose firm received a subpoena, said Mueller’s team is particularly interested in taking a close look at the lobbying campaign that included the Podesta Group.
Featured Image: Center For American Progress/Flickr
(ANTIMEDIA)— The latest Bloomberg national poll has found that despite the fact that Donald J. Trump possesses one of the lowest approval rates of all time (41 percent), he is still more popular than Hillary Clinton, who has a net favorability of 39 percent.
The result is likely somewhat distressing and arguably inexplicable to Democrats and liberals. Donald Trump has banned poor Muslims from a host of countries the U.S. is actively bombing, has been accused of waging war crimes in Iraq and Syria, has implemented a war on the working class, tweets incessantly, and is supposedly a Russian lackey and traitor, to name a few – and yet he is somehow still more popular than Clinton, someone who has hardly made scandalous headlines at all this entire year. How can this be?
“Keeping up with the Trumps” may be a real life Kim Kardashian meets Game of Thrones reality TV show for the apathetic masses, but people generally have fairly decent memories and are not as forgetful as the media would like to think.
History will always remember that it was Hillary Clinton who gave us Donald Trump as a prominent presidential candidate in the first place through a sick and twisted “Pied Piper” strategy that sought to make Trump a top presidential contender.
In an email with the subject header “Friday Strategy Call,” archived by Wikileaks, the Clinton campaign concluded that they “need[ed] to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they [were] leaders of the pack,” also including a directive to “tell the press to take them seriously.” The Pied Piper candidates included Donald Trump, as well as Senator Ted Cruz and Ben Carson.
The idea was that by elevating Trump, the Democrats could completely undermine the Republican party and dismantle the remaining aspects of its prospects of winning the election, a strategy that backfired miserably.
As a result, Trump was given billions of dollars’ worth of free airtime, and his campaign took momentum in ways no one could have predicted.
A number of other emails also showed that the Democratic National Committee (D.N.C.) deliberately tried to derail the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders even though he was reportedly more popular than both Clinton and Trump.
And why was Trump’s campaign so successful? Clinton and her Democratic colleagues seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that it was Hillary Clinton’s policies that created Donald Trump and his cohort of Islamophobic nationalist buffoons from the outset.
Prior to 2011, Libya had the highest standard of living out of any country in Africa. Muammar Gaddafi was also instrumental in keeping a lid on migrants who wanted to flee Africa and into Europe. Now, the country is openly trading slaves, and migrants attempting to flee Libya are drowning. Those people who would not have connected the dots between Clinton’s regime change policy and the refugee crisis — as well as the rise of terrorist activity — were gifted this opportunity to educate themselves when Trump highlighted the issue many times in the lead up to the election.
Clinton also voted in favor of the Iraq war and was heavily involved in destabilizing Syria – a conflict that has led to one of the most infamous humanitarian catastrophes in recent history and a constant flow of refugees. The fact thathundreds of thousandsof refugees are returning to areas reclaimed by the Syrian government shows Clinton was on the wrong side of history when she implemented a strategy to heavily weaken the Syrian president.
Clinton’s policies gave way to a flow of Muslim refugees that many Americans feared fear would threaten their way of life. This made Trump’s rhetoric appealing to his support base. Whether or not he was and is correct — and whether or not his support base makes the connections between Clinton’s foreign policy strategy and the crises unfolding in the world right now — remains to be seen. Either way, Trump supporters understood that Clintonhad not providedthem with the safety and security they wanted, and they warmly welcomed an alternative.
Let’s be honest: Hillary Clinton gave the world Donald Trump in more ways than one. The fact that Trump won the election merely bolsters the notion that Clinton is wildly unpopular as a human being and a potential world leader.
The Donald Trumps of this world, no matter how abhorrent, thuggish, racist and infinitely unwise, only exist because of the policies of the Clinton and Obama-style neoliberal eras.
Clinton and Trump’s unpopularity levels are ultimately tied together and will descend into the abyss as one collective entity. The more unpopular Trump finds himself, Clinton will always be just as equally lagging, as history will never forget her cruel and twisted legacy.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange came forward after a long period of silence for a videointerviewwithFox News’ Sean Hannity — in particular, to decimate claims leaked emails from the Democratic establishment had been hacked and provided by Russian government actors.
“The narrative has begun that, in fact, the U.S. government is accusing Wikileaks of having received materials from Russia and Russia’s cybercriminals with the political agenda of influencing the election. And obviously they’re talking, not just about the John Podesta emails, the DNC emails, but in other ways. I’ve asked you before, I’ll ask you again today — did Russia give you this information, or anybody associated with Russia?”Hannityasked.
“Our source is not a State party,”Assange told Hannity, once again confirming assertions he and Wikileaks have made on previous occasions.“So, the answer for our interactions is ‘no.’”
Continuing, he explained the political establishment has attempted to distract from the revelations in the leaked documents — which exposed the true words of Clinton and others in her campaign,
“And the American public read that information, true information, and said, ‘We don’t like these people.’ And then voted accordingly.”
Rather than acknowledge the breadth of corruption and behind-the-curtains nastiness on display in the documents, the establishment has attempted to conflate Wikileaks with Russians hacking the election — an accusation Assange explained amounted to bait-and-switch, as,
“Even Obama has had to admit that there was no hacking of U.S. voting machines.”
“But … the main focus for most Americans is that, they are being told by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, by the President of the United States, there are the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, et cetera, that in fact,”Hannity asked,“that Wikileaks was working with the Russian government to influence the election. Is that true in any way, shape, matter, or form?”
“No, it is absolutely false,”Assange replied,“and, if you read their statements carefully, you’ll see they don’t actually say that. They kind of mention one fact here, and one fact there, and nothing else.
“In the most up-to-date information, the twenty-ninth of December, where the FBI, DHS, White House, et cetera, made a statement, what is completely absent — from all those statements — is Wikileaks. Totally absent. So, what’s going on?
“I believe two things are going on. Number one, they don’t have the evidence that Wikileaks is involved in that way. Now, why am I confident about that? Because there is one person in the world — and I think it’s actually only one — who knows exactly what is going on with our publications. And that’s me.”
Asked whether he could state“unequivocally”the information published by Wikileaks did not come from any person associated in any way with the Russian government, Assange stated,
“We can say, and we have said repeatedly over the last few months, our source is not the Russian government, and it is not a State party.”
Again refusing to comment on the clarifying details concerning the source of documents leaked to the publishing organization, Assange emphasized that — although he could not confirm or deny reports from close friend and former British intelligence agent, Craig Murray the leaker came from within the Democratic establishment —“our sources are not a State party.”
Hannity then directly requested clarification for several accusations bandied about by the United States political establishment, asking if Assange had ever conversed with Russian President Vladimir Putin, to which he replied flatly,“No.”
“Have you ever talked to any of his surrogates?”the host continued.
“No.”
“Have you ever talked to Donald Trump?”Hannity asked, addressing suspicions Wikileaks had acted on behalf of the billionaire businessman’s campaign.
“No.”
“Any of his surrogates?”
“No.”
“Not one?”Hannity prodded.
“No,”Assange firmly responded.
“There was some report you might have talked to someone who was not associated with the campaign, Roger Stone?”
“No. That’s false.”
Claiming The Russians hacked anything has been largely a creation of the corporate press and politicians, and, as he explains, Obama is“acting like a lawyer,”and“If you look at most of his statements, he doesn’t say that. He doesn’t say that WikiLeaks obtained its information from Russia, or worked with Russia.”
Addressing one of the most frequently touted ideas that leaked documents influenced the election in order to sway the election for Donald Trump, Assange noted it would be impossible to tell for sure, but,
“If it did, the accusation is that the true statements of Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta, and the DNC head, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz — their true statements is what changed the election.”
Discussing millions of documents hacked by the Chinese, about which the aforementioned parties and the Obama administration have selectively chosen not to focus, Hannity asked whether Assange felt the move was intended to“delegitimize Donald Trump — what’s your interpretation of that?”
Assange explained,“It is exactly what it is designed to do … If you look at what the allegations are, they don’t mention Wikileaks, for the 29th, they don’t mention our publications. Our publications had wide uptake by the American people. They’re all true. But that’s not the allegation that’s been presented by the Obama White House. So, why such a dramatic response? Well, the reason is obvious: they’re trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House. They’re going to try — they are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate”president.
The Wikileaks head went on to explain the Democratic Party continues to attempt“short term wins”in such criticisms, while ignoring the factual substance of leaked documents — and the American people“want as much true information as possible.”
Wikileaks has been vilified for not releasing documents pertaining to Trump or his campaign — but, as Assange has repeatedly contended, no such documents were provided to the publisher.
“If the information you had was about Donald Trump and his campaign,”Hannity asked,“would you have equally released that?”
“Yes,”Assange responded without hesitation.“Absolutely.”
Murray, Assange’s associate — and former intelligence officials entirely unassociated with Wikileaks — have suggested the documents were leaked by a disgruntled party inside the Democratic establishment. On that topic, after Assange noted the perfect record Wikileaks has maintained in regard to authenticity of documents and refusal to expose the identity of sources, Hannity asked, since the leaker was not Russian,
“Can I ask … take it one step further. Can you say that the source was within the United States?”
After a frustrated pause, Assange replied,“I don’t want to constrain whether it was someone inside the United States, in the DNC, in the service providers that provide for the DNC, or outside, et cetera. I think that we have already pushed it quite a lot … more than we would like, by saying it was not a State party.”
But speaking out with that qualification had been a necessity as“there was a serious attempt to distract from the content of our publications with this Russian narrative.”
On the joint report from DHS and the FBI, Assange noted the tools provided as loose evidence of Russian hacking are commercially available — to anyone — and nothing laid out by the agencies evinced solid proof.
Additionally, Podesta’s careless choice of “password” for his password, and his staff’s erroneous assertion the infamous phishing email he received was legitimate, Assange said,
“This is something a fourteen-year-old kid — a fourteen-year-old kid — could have hacked Podesta that way.”
On the topic of corporate media’s lack of coverage of the content of the leaked documents — and exposed collusion with the Clinton campaign — Assange described the American mainstream press as“ethically corrupt.”
Despite allegations Assange and his organization had been somehow motivated to influence the election in favor of Trump, he noted,
“My motivation, for twenty years — ten years with Wikileaks — is to publish true information that is otherwise unassailable.”
Emphasizing he has no party political agenda, he added,
“We believe that the best type of government comes from a government that is scrutinized by the people, when they have true information about how governments and major corporations, other power actors in society, are behaving.”
Assange has been confined for years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London under threat of extradition to the United States — effectively making him a political prisoner. But vociferous anti-Russia rhetoric and allegations Russian hackers provided documents to Wikileaks forced Assange to come forward — first in an interview on Hannity’s radio program, and then this face-to-face interview — to call out the claims as hollow and baseless.
Although mainstream media has parroted these allegations against Russia, perhaps hearing Assange’s words in this rare appearance will help quiet the new Red Scare propaganda — and bring logic and common sense back to the table.
(INTELLIHUB) — Our sources tell us that Wikileaks will be releasing, adding, new bombshell information to the Podesta email collection in the next few days that may rock the Clinton campaign’s world.
In fact, Intellihub News expects the release to be so damning that the Clinton campaign’s communication director pre-planted the following tweet Sunday morning in anticipation of the coming Wiki-dump:
Friends, please remember that if you see a whopper of a Wikileaks in next two days – it’s probably a fake.
This presidential election cycle has been nothing, if not a controversy-laden shit show of the bizarre — and a monumentally pricey one, at that. It’s now estimated the stupefying cost for the duopoly to provide us with twoaltogether unappealingcandidates — possibly the least liked in American electoral history — as well as congressional minions,totalsno less than $6.6 billion.
And that’s a conservative figure.
Despite nearly a century of anti-marijuana propaganda inundating schools, ads, and politics, in fact,legalizing cannabis has greater approval from the publicthan either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Yet, the two candidates, their respective political parties, outside groups, and individual donors will, all told,spendaround 86.5 million inflation-adjusted dollars more than on the 2012 presidential election.
There simplymustbe a cheaper way to find two people no one wants to vote for.
Hell,Giant Meteor— the satirical no-party candidate whose slogan, “Just end it already,” speaks volumes to weariness — has amassed a sizeable following in recent months, as the public apparently abandons all pretense of hope.
To wit, 70 percent of voters likely to support Hillary Clinton, and a stunning 41 percent of all likely voters, wouldre-elect President Barack Obamaif a third term were legal, Rasmussen reports.
So, if the public harbors only negligible fondness for Clinton and Trump, who deems them worthy of such colossal sums?
Unsurprisingly in both cases, it’s the elite — the billionaires and millionaires directly, indirectly, and sometimes shadily channeling their fortunes in hopes their chosen nominee will conform policy favorable to their interests from the helm of the White House.
“Candidates and news outlets have decried the outsized influence of a small number of donors throughout the election season. Here’s a startling statistic: The top 100 families have given about 11.9 percent to the total $5.5 billion raised at this point, compared to 5.6 percent in all of 2012. Their names are familiar — Thomas and Kathryn Steyer have given $57.2 million to liberal causes, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson have doled out $47.3 million to GOP-allied forces, and Donald Sussman has so far provided $34.4 million to groups helping Democrats. Expect to see this list shift a bit: Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz pledged an additional $35 million to defeat Donald Trump earlier this month.”
Perhaps surprisingly to some, billionaire globalist and avid political influencer, George Soros, ranked only 9th in the list of top donors, contributing ‘just’ $17,689,038.
And this election cycle hasn’t been devoid of grassroots political donors, either, although their chosen ‘voice of the people’ candidate, Bernie Sanders, has since dropped out and endorsed Hillary Clinton — leaving a legacy of heartbroken, if not embittered, young voters scrambling for options — and an older, wiser generation hardly able to contain itsI told you so’s.
OpenSecrets continues:
“The Obama re-election campaign floored campaign finance experts with his knack for tapping into the small donor pool — an impressive 32 percent of the campaign’s total funds came from people giving $200 or less in 2012. But Bernie Sanders topped that. More than half of his contributions, or 59 percent, came from small donors, totaling $134.6 million, which is about one and half times as much as Clinton and more than twice as much as Trump.”
Clearly, the so-called ‘little guy’ has nary the clout enjoyed by the privileged, moneyed class — and though that might be widely understood — the reminder dark horse candidates rarely make it to the big race seems more pronounced than ever in recent years.
As an Independent, Sanders’ decision to run on the Democratic ticket against the all-powerful Clinton, as a Democratic Socialist, no less, seemed fated to fail from the start — after all, groundbreaking though his bid was, a populist David vowing to disassemble the corporate, banking Goliath could never reap the billionaire financing to endure.
“In a campaign that has broken new ground in lots of ways, there’s at least one thing we can depend on, and that’s record-breaking spending on U.S. elections,”explainedSheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.“While this campaign saw the rise of the small donor and a fall in spending reported by groups thathidetheir donors, overall, important trends hold true: More money is still coming from a tiny set of elite donors. It’s going to super PACs that are scarcely independent of the campaigns they support. And it’s targeting competitive races where the vote will be closest and the opportunity to have an impact, greatest.”
In effect, the elite doles out its fortunes on elite candidates who will best serve the elite’s interests — but, nah, take it from Hillary: the Russians might rig the election.
Money is proportionate to influence, it could justifiably be argued, and in an election cycle costing upwards of $7 billion, the overwhelming majority of us pull literally zero weight.
Finagling the popular vote constitutes little more than a distraction for the political heavyweights, whose insider connections and corporate and industry backers effectively usurped what little import the average American voter maintained when the Supreme Courtruled intheirfavorwith the notoriouscorporations are peopleCitizens United decision in 2010.
Whatever vociferous contention Clinton and Trump might garner from an unusually alert populace this election season, don’t be fooled — the elite ultimately pull the strings — the vote is merely an illusory construct of a severely limited choice between two candidates of their choosing. Not ours.
All told, just remember the words of Mark Twain:
“If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.”
Yes, Virginia, there really IS a poll fairy skewing the polls in favor of Hillary Clinton.
Yesterday, I wrote about a brand new leak that had come my way. I read through the first 5 pages, confirmed that the two entities in the document were genuine and were really in cahoots, and quickly got out the information that the polls we are seeing with Clinton in the lead are fake.
But, in full disclosure, I made a mistake. I really should have read the last 3 pages, because if I had, I wouldn’t have published the document as a legitimate leak. It was full of outrageous Hollywood sci-fi “salvage options” for the campaign that included magnetized mind control and a fake alien invasion. It’s interesting to note that all of those options actually do exist – DARPA experiments on things like that, and things even creepier. However, it seems far-fetched that the Clinton campaign would/could go that far, and even more so that a business that does polls and analyzes them would have experimented with the tactics.
So, I removed the post. There are enough lies and rumors going around the internet without me adding to them.
That isn’t the end of the story, though, because part of that document was legit.
I began to do further research and discovered that the gist of the fake document was accurate. The polls in the MSM that show Hillary in the lead are being faked, and they’re being bought and paid for. We’re all being manipulated by the collusion of Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the media. Their attempts at predictive programming through fake polls is so blatant that even the most oblivious people have noticed that something seems awry.
It has long been a successful method of propaganda to leave in just enough truth to make the lie seem viable. In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler wrote (emphasis mine):
All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
First of all, I found a copy of the disbursements from a Clinton-aligned SuperPac called Priorities USA Action on the website Red State Watcher.
(click image to enlarge)
This shows that the SuperPac paid the princely (or should I say, presidential?) sum of $391,250.00 for polls that were overwhelmingly positive to Clinton.
These documents appear to be legitimate. The website Conservative Treehouse did a great analysis and posted links to the FEC(Federal Election Commission) filing PDFs from the SuperPac, as well as screenshots. Here are links to the PDF – pages 92 and 118 show that they did indeed make the payments shown above.
But…
When I did a reverse image search, I found the same thing on the following sites. And by the same thing, I mean exactly the same. And, these sites with conservative sounding names are all relatively new sites. I checked on Alexa.com to see how long they’d been around. Aside from Red State Watcher, which is definitely legit and has been around for a long time, here’s the rundown on a few of the others.
http://usapoliticsnow.com/ – since May 2016
http://incredibleusanews.com/ not long enough for statistics to be available
http://truthfeed.com/ – since May 2016
Now, this doesn’t say for certain these sites are fake ones, put up by the opposition, but it does cast some questions on the credibility.
These stories are all based on a video alleged to be by Anonymous, but in actuality, the YouTube channel is Anonymous Patriots.Their first video was posted 7 months ago – March 16, 2016.
Other sources concur that the polls being broadcast by the mainstream are skewed or outright fake.
A professor at SUNY has been saying all along that Donald Trump was strongly in the lead. Back in February, Fortune magazine published an article by Dr. Northrup that showed, based on his analysis, Trump had a 97% chance of winning the election. He still stands by this opinion. Dr. Helmut Norpoth wrote a post for The Hill explaining how these polls published by the MSM are misleading.
To start with something basic, opinion polls are really about “opinions,” not actions. At their best, they can tell us how people feel about political issues and personalities. Do voters, for instance, like or dislike candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?
Yet having an opinion and acting on it are two different things. Barely 6 in 10 voting-age American citizens turn out for presidential elections. Ascertaining the opinions of 100 citizens is just a start. Now you have to determine which 60 of them actually take the time to mark a ballot. They are the “likely voters.” They are the only ones that count. But to find them is no easy chore.
It is ingrained in all of us that voting is civic duty. So nearly all of us say, oh yes, I’ll vote, and then many will not follow through.
Dr. Northrup is not alone in his claims that Trump is far, far ahead of Hillary Clinton. The website Govt. Slaves reported on a polling app called Zip back in August.
Despite a majority of opinion polls showing the 2016 presidential election going to Democrat Hillary Clinton, a smartphone app developer says his data suggests challenger Donald Trump will be the victor.
“Based on the stats we see, he looks strong,” says Ric Militi, co-founder of San Diego-based Crazy Raccoons, maker of the Zip question and answer app. His app poses questions and polls responses based on an average of 100,000 daily users. “I go with Trump, based on what we see.”
Speaking exclusively to Breitbart News, political polling pioneer Pat Caddell said the Reuters news service was guilty of an unprecedented act of professional malpractice…”This comes as close as I have ever seen to cooking the results,” said the legendary pollster and political consultant. “I suppose you can get away with it in polling because there are no laws. But, if this was accounting, they would put them in jail.”
…
“The looks to me, are far as I can indicate, they have merely decided to go back and revise their numbers in a formula that removes voters or allocates them–I am not sure how they are doing this–proportionately,” he said.
Reuters has rejiggered its methods in order to get the results they want, said the man, whose out-of-the-box interpretations of the American electorate were the brain-work behind the insurgent presidential campaigns of Sen. George McGovern (D.-S.D.) in 1972, Georgia Gov. James E. “Jimmy” Carter in 1976, President Carter 1980 and Sen. Gary Hart (D.-Colo.) in 1984.
In view of so much fake poll data that is systematically dumped into the public domain by the MSM, the American people being gradually conditioned to believe that Clinton is really ahead in this race. With each passing week the Clinton numbers increase by 5 or 10% which should put her with 175% of the populace by now. Yes, there contrivance of poll numbers is that ridiculous.
These same fraudulent tactics were utilized during the democratic primary with much success. Bernie Sanders’ loss was the direct result os so much fixing and rigging, manipulating and scheming. That Sanders himself permitted all the fraud is the biggest scandal of all, particularly after he heartily endorsed Comrade Clinton for president. Such a transparent betrayal of his once loyal will most assuredly push many voters over to Trump.
But here’s the real conspiracy.
I think there is a Clinton-based conspiracy to cast doubt on everything coming out of the opposition, which in turn reinforces everything coming from them.
First of all, vet your sources. Here’s how.
When you see an article from a source you don’t recognize, go over to Alexa.com and paste in the homepage address. You’ll see a chart that shows you how long the website has been around, and below that will be the global and national ranking of the site. This isn’t conclusive, of course. There are legitimate new websites popping up all the time, but I have to think that some of these more outrageous, allegedly “conservative” websites could be new websites started by those who want Hillary Clinton to be in office. These sites can perpetrate all sorts of wild rumors and fake documents and this has a two-fold effect.
Most importantly, these types of stories cast doubt on the real leaks that are out there. What better way to discredit the massive information being provided by Wikileaks than to mix in a bunch of fake leaks? People without critical thinking skills will extrapolate from this: “This leak is fake, so all the leaks must be fake. Holy cow, they’re lying about our Queen Hillary.”
Secondly, crazy rumors being spread through conservative and libertarian sources make us all look…well, crazy. If we are dispensing inaccurate information from questionable sources, then everything we say becomes subject to more doubt.
With all the liberal distortions and dishonesty we decided to have a small team of actuarial and statistics professionals take a look at a couple of the recent polls to get their take on the reliability of these polls. They selected the recent FOX poll from October 14 showing Hillary up by 7 and the WSJ/NBC poll from October 16 showing Hillary with an 11 point lead.
The first observation is that both polls are heavily skewed towards Democrats. At a high level, the FOX poll consists of 43 Dems to 36 Reps to 21 Other while the NBC poll shows 44 Dems to 37 Reps to 19 Other.
By selecting more Dems the polls are designed to provide a Dem result.
Our experts next analyzed the data and calculated results using the same data from the two surveys on a split of 40 Dems, 40 Reps and 20 Other. The results show that using either sets of data Trump comes out ahead with a larger margin of victory using the FOX data.
Clearly the polls using data that is heavily weighted towards Democrat voters is incorrectly skewed.
… it is difficult to determine what the independent voters will do but many independent voters partook in the primaries to vote for Trump. Therefore it is more likely that Independent voters vote for Trump as well.
If more Democratic voters vote for Trump than Republicans vote for Hillary and more Independents vote for Trump than Hillary, both scenarios which are highly likely, then the results of the general election will likely be a Trump landslide.
It’s easy to see how this supports the possibility of a stolen election.
Remember during the debate when Donald Trump refused to say that he would accept the outcome of the election if it wasn’t in his favor?
Not only has Camp Clinton been caught more than once rigging the election, they’re redoubling their efforts in social perception. Here are a few ways they’re doing it:
The discrediting of websites who are open about their dislike of Hillary Clinton.
The fake polls that assure everyone that Clinton’s victory is guaranteed.
The manipulation of public opinion through false reporting in the MSM.
Potentially putting up websites with fake conservative names in order to spread misinformation in the hopes that other conservative websites will make the posts go viral, then “disproving” the rumor they started themselves.
Coincidentally (or not), I’ve spent hundreds of dollars over the past few weeks because my websites have been hacked. I’d love to know if any other alternative media sites are having these issues. If you have information on this, drop me a quick private message on Facebook.
(The Real Agenda News) More details have emerged about the never ending levels of corruption among the DNC, the Obama White House and the Hillary Clinton campaign, as a result of James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas’ investigation.
Corrupt practices go from promoting seemingly harmless campaigns to have people dressed as ducks at Trump rallies to collusion between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change.
In the third video put out by Project Veritas, Hillary’s cohorts confess how they managed to coordinate with her campaign and the DNC to set up what can be described at the very least as provocative moves to get the Trump campaign in trouble and to have the corrupt mainstream media cover the events while blaming Trump for violent outbursts outside his rallies.
As we learned from the previous two videos, it was the Clinton campaign itself the one using agent provocateurs to cause violence outside Trump rallies as these agents disguised themselves as Bernie Sanders’ followers.
In his second video, James O’Keefe showed how the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, hire operatives to successfully carry out commit voter fraud on a massive scale.
Scott Foval, who has since been fired, admits that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years.
In his first video, Rigging the Election – Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies, O’Keefe showed how second and third parties associated with the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign, were responsible for violence and attacks on Trump supporters all over the country.
As we said before, the veil of corruption that surrounds the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party continues to fall and people can easily see what is behind their fake progressive and fake liberal masks.
(The Real Agenda News) In his second video of a series of exposes, James O’Keefe shows how the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, hire operatives to successfully carry out commit voter fraud on a massive scale.
Scott Foval, who has since been fired, admits that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years.
In his first video, Rigging the Election – Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies, O’Keefe showed how second and third parties associated with the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign, were responsible for violence and attacks on Trump supporters all over the country.
The veil of corruption that surrounds the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party continues to fall and people can easily see what is behind their fake progressive and fake liberal masks.
Donna Brazile revealed that she feared for her life after Seth Rich was murdered, and was encouraged by Democratic Officials not to talk about the DNC Leaks.
