Unfortunately, the "mainstream" in this election is so far in the tank for Clinton (for whatever reason [excuse it on Trump being "deplorable" if it makes you feel better]), that if they cover this stuff at all it's along the lines of "wah...look at how those terrible hackers stole private info."
(This, mind you, being the same institution that thought [not wholly without justification] that Daniel Ellsberg was a hero)
Republicans pressured the State Department on Monday to remove Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy after newly released FBI records confirmed quid pro quo with federal authorities.
Documents revealed Kennedy tried to horse-trade with the FBI, offering additional slots for the bureau overseas if they would de-classify a particular email from Hillary Clinton’s server marked “SECRET.” The files also revealed he repeatedly tried to “influence” the bureau’s decision when his offer was denied, even taking his plea up the chain of command.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said at a campaign rally in Wisconsin that the new revelation was worse than Watergate.
"The FBI documents show that Under-Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy made the request for altering classification as part of a 'quid pro quo,' in other words a deal," Trump told supporters. "This is felony corruption. Under-Secretary Kennedy needs to resign."
Before his rally, Trump described the actions by the State Department to Fox News' Carl Cameron as "a criminal act," while also hurling criticisms at fellow Republicans.
"It's a crime, and I hear the Republicans are going to hold hearings after the election, why would you hold them after the election? We want to hold those hearings before the election," Trump said. "It's a criminal act and it's incredible that they can do this and get away with it."
In a joint statement, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., called Kennedy’s actions “extremely disturbing” and “reckless.”
"We find Under Secretary Kennedy's actions extremely disturbing. Those who receive classified intelligence should not barter in it - that is reckless behavior with our nation's secrets,” the statement read.
“Someone who would try to get classification markings doctored should not continue serving in the State Department or retain access to classified information. Therefore, President Obama and Secretary Kerry should immediately remove Under Secretary Kennedy pending a full investigation."
This is just the tip of the iceberg, amid the literal THOUSANDS of internal DNC e-mails being released now almost every day, incriminating Hillary Clinton, her closest advisors, and the entire corrupt DNC leadership.
In a world where journalism still existed, and the press was not just a zealous auxiliary of the Hillary Clinton campaign, this immense corruption would be getting 95% of the coverage, instead of convenient sexual allegations against Donald Trump, that are instead getting 95% of the coverage.
“These documents further demonstrate Secretary Clinton’s complete disregard for properly handling classified information. This is exactly why I called on DNI Clapper to deny her access to classified information,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement. “Moreover, a senior State Department official’s attempt to pressure the FBI to hide the extent of this mishandling bears all the signs of a cover-up.”
Kennedy appears in other sections of the FBI documents as well. According to another FBI interview, Kennedy wanted some information changed to an obscure code known as B9 to “allow him to archive the document in the basement of DoS [Department of State] never to be seen again.”
The State Department inspector general also told the FBI Kennedy’s “tone and tenor were definitely not positive when dealing” with their office.
Outright contempt for classified information. As I've posted previously, Hillary Clinton also has outright contempt for our military and police, and even for the Secret Service agents who guard her, who regard it as "punishment" to be assigned to protect her.
Untrustworthy with classified information. Unfit to be president.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Donald Trump called for an investigation into President Barack Obama on Tuesday after hacked emails from Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta, published by WikiLeaks, suggested Obama may have had prior knowledge of Clinton's use of a private email.
In an interview with Reuters, Trump called the revelation "a big thing." "This means that he has to be investigated," Trump said.
During a rally in Sanford, Florida Tuesday afternoon, Trump addressed the latest emails. "But newly public emails — Wikileaks — prove otherwise," he said of Obama's knowledge of the private server used by Clinton while she served as his secretary of state.
The Republican presidential nominee said "now I understand" why Obama supported Clinton in the presidential election. "Because he didn't want to get caught up in the big lie," he said. "We have to investigate the investigation. We have to investigate."
The latest hacked emails showed top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills' response when Clinton's traveling press secretary, Nick Merrill, forwarded a tweet that quoted Obama as saying he learned about the private server "the same time everybody else" did. "We need to clean this up," Mills wrote to Podesta. "He has emails from her — they do not say state.gov." The exchange seemed to imply that Obama knew about Clinton's use of a private email server, which would contradict what he said during an interview with CBS News in March 2015.
When CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Obama when he learned that Clinton used an email system outside the US government for official business while she was secretary of state, Obama responded, "The same time everybody else learned it through news reports."
The White House has addressed this supposed inconsistency. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said after the CBS interview aired that Obama "was referring specifically to the arrangement associated with Secretary Clinton's email."
"Yes, the president was aware of her email address," Earnest said. "He traded emails with her. That shouldn't be a surprise that the president of the United States is going to trade emails with the secretary of state. But the president was not aware of the fact that this was a personal email server and that this was the email address that she was using exclusively for all her business. The president was not aware of that until that had been more widely reported."
The FBI investigated Clinton's use of the server, but ultimately declined to recommend the Justice Department move forward with charges against her.
If we still have an FBI and Justice Department that respect the rule of law, this is big legal breakthrough. Obama is on the record blatantly lying and covering up what he knew. I would say perjury if he'd said it in court. But it's at least obstruction of justice.
It's also very incriminating of Hillary Clinton and her top aides, making clear what they knew and when they knew it. And why they were desperate to bleach-bit Frau Hitlery's e-mails, to hide the self-incriminating record of that.
Donald Trump’s campaign charged Monday that new undercover video shot by a conservative activist proves Hillary Clinton “directly” coordinated with a liberal group that’s been accused of inciting violence at Trump rallies.
The latest video from Project Veritas allegedly showed a Democratic operative – who previously had been linked to individuals accused of planting provocateurs at Trump events – bragging about receiving orders from Clinton to deploy Donald Duck-suited protesters to Trump events.
“In a totally disqualifying act that is a violent threat to our democracy, Hillary Clinton directly involved herself in inciting violence directed at Trump supporters,” Trump senior communications adviser Jason Miller said in a statement, demanding an investigation.
The third Project Veritas video, released Monday, shows how the plan came together to have an activist in a duck costume follow Trump with a sign reading, “Donald ducks releasing his tax returns.” The footage features Democracy Partners head Robert Creamer suggesting the plot came from the Democratic presidential nominee herself.
“And in the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground. So, by God, we will get ducks on the ground,” Creamer says in the video.
He quickly adds: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.”
There's no evidence that the duck stunt incited anyone to violence, despite the Trump campaign statement.
However, the video points to alleged collaboration between the Clinton camp and the group tied a separate purported incitement scheme disclosed in the first two Project Veritas videos released last week.
“It’s what we would call unethical, illegal, dirty tricks,” former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said on “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday. “It’s like paying people to break up Trump rallies and beat people up, and then have the press report for two months that Trump has violent rallies when in fact they people were paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC.”
The fallout from the earlier Veritas videos has claimed both Creamer and one of his cohorts. Creamer announced last week he was “stepping back” from efforts to elect Clinton. National Field Director of Americans United for Change Scott Foval, a sub-contractor of Creamer’s group who eagerly described ‘bussing’ practices and placing agitators at Trump events in the first video, was booted from his job as well.
In Monday’s video, Creamer is shown twice describing how the Donald Duck plan was conceived – and supposedly approved by Clinton. Creamer said he was initially not wild about the concept, given that “it’s not easy to find Donald Duck costumes for adults.” But once he got his marching orders, he got his ducks in a row.
“Hillary just loved it,” Creamer says during another point in the video.
The videos were produced by James O’Keefe, a controversial activist who’s come under fire in the past for heavily editing and manipulating his recordings. Some of his tactics have also been called into question. O’Keefe was arrested trying to gain access to Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office in Louisiana in 2010 and later sentenced to three years’ probation after being charged with a misdemeanor.
"James O'Keefe is a discredited right wing fringe activist, paid by Donald Trump's sham foundation, with a history of offering misleading video out of context," Petkanas said.
Again, this shows prosecutable illegal activity, where Hillary Clinton clearly (and illegally) coordinated with supposedly independent grassroots front groups.
Still waiting for the FBI and Justice Dept to do their jobs and investigate/prosecute this.
Well, it all seems to be a moot point now doesn't it?
Unless Clinton is found to have on video personally handed bombs to ISIS (and, for the avoidance of doubt, if there is anything very serious backed by clear evidence and not mere and arguable allegations, which comes out in the next fortnight then she deserves to lose), Trump's road to the White House is now, statistically, highly improbable.
Trump will institute legal challenges because his psychological make up is that he can't handle losing (a poor character trait). If he loses by a clear majority - and this seems very likely with Arizona and even Texas and Utah swinging to the Democrats and Florida on a knife edge - then those challenges will be a very steep uphill battle. The litigation might go on for years, depending upon whether they are expedited to the Supreme Court. Oh well.
The reports of militia which seems to be arming itself in apprehension of a Clinton presidency is intriguing but the laughable bit about the right to bear arms is that the US military has incomparably better arms, tactics and training. I guess there might be some shoot-outs and deaths involving those who think its time to overthrow tyranny. Curiously, despite the rise of extremist "Patriot" groups since Obama was elected, I can't find any evidence online of the government putting them down.
Curiously, despite the rise of extremist "Patriot" groups since Obama was elected, I can't find any evidence online of the government putting them down.
Because those reports are wildly exaggerated.
Quote:
Unless Clinton is found to have on video personally handed bombs to ISIS (and, for the avoidance of doubt, if there is anything very serious backed by clear evidence and not mere and arguable allegations, which comes out in the next fortnight then she deserves to lose), Trump's road to the White House is now, statistically, highly improbable.
You seem to be imposing a higher standard for Clinton (i.e., a criminal standard or at least a preponderance of the evidence one) for 'proving' allegations against a candidate than against Trump (his 'confession' to Billy Bush is evidence but, standing on it down insufficient to convict). But perhaps I am misunderstanding your point
Australia-Dave, I don't understand why you, of all people here (aside from G-man) being a lawyer, don't see how incredibly odd this all is regarding Hillary Clinton's remarkably brazen criminality, and the blind eye turned away from it by federal Justice and FBI agencies.
Generals who have done far less are having their careers ended and doing jail-time for a FRACTION of what Hillary Clinton has done to seriously endanger national security.
FBI director James Comey went out and gave a press conference making an incriminating case of evidence against Hillary Clinton. And then said "no reasonable person would prosecute" right after making an abundant case of evidence. WHAT??!
Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch makin an ex parte meeting on her private plane, under cover of darkness. Both have previously and are serving as attorney generals, and undertand the illegality of this better than anyone.
At my last count, five people were given immunity regarding their knowledge of Hillary Clinton's illegal e-mails, server and destruction of subpoenaed evidence. Yet if they were given immunity to shield them from prosecution for their knowledge, WHY ARE THEY NOT BEING CALLED TO TESTIFY WHAT THEY KNOW, WHY IS NO ONE BEING CONVICTED?
You seem to have an irrational animosity toward Donald Trump, who has done nothing overtly criminal, while the personification of Alinsky Rules For Radicals deception, lawlessness and evil stands right in front of you with a blazing 666 on her forehead!
You seem to have an irrational animosity toward Donald Trump, who has done nothing overtly criminal, while the personification of Alinsky Rules For Radicals deception, lawlessness and evil stands right in front of you with a blazing 666 on her forehead!
I don't think my animosity towards Trump is irrational, but that's not your point.
My understand is that the four issues Clinton has been confronted with - Benghazi, emails, and John Podesta, and the yes vote on use of force in Iraq, has been scrutinised and found wanting by both allies and enemies.
To charge a person for a felony, at least in this country, the charge must be based on a presumption that the case to answer is beyond reasonable doubt. I confess that I don't know the exact details why Comey didn't press charges, but that absence of knowing doesn't mean that its a conspiracy. You say its an "abundant case of evidence", but the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation formed the view that there was not enough to lay charges. I trust the man's experience and that someone in his position and office is beyond reproach.
And, frankly, if Nixon can be impeached for illegal activities, as he should have been, then Clinton as a candidate stands no chance of ducking a criminal charge if there was meat on the bone.
I was thinking about your perspectives on media bias yesterday. I read somewhere that if Trump hadn't "sucked the oxygen" out of media examination of Clinton's cock-ups, then this would have had an impact on voters. But again, your guy keeps shooting himself in the foot. Again. And again.
Anyway, I read an article today in the Times of India about a New York professor with a statistical model that still predicts an 87% probability of Trump in the White House, and this professor only ever got it wrong once (he predicted Gore over Bush - Gore got the popular vote so its a technical error), so perhaps I shouldn't engage in a eulogy of Trump's campaign just yet.
If Trump does get in, then I certainly will take all of your complaints about mainstream media conspiracy on reporting and polls extremely seriously and re-read the detail of your comments, because that would be a mind-blowing outcome presently not predicted by anyone other than this guy in New York.
I should add, notwithstanding Pariah's poo-pooing of my empathy towards disenfranchised blue collar workers, that, again, I'm grateful for the insights. I certainly don't agree with a lot of what you all say (other than Russia, it seems) but without your (to say the least, super-enthusiastic) perspectives I wouldn't know what lies on the other side of the fence. It is easy to dismiss a lot of your views as out on the fringe, but if Trump has 30 million core supports, then something is going on. And I don't believe that it can just be not-college educated white men in their last stand against multicultural America. I think it is, as you said Dave, a deep cynicism of the political process.
To charge a person for a felony, at least in this country, the charge must be based on a presumption that the case to answer is beyond reasonable doubt. I confess that I don't know the exact details why Comey didn't press charges, but that absence of knowing doesn't mean that its a conspiracy. You say its an "abundant case of evidence", but the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation formed the view that there was not enough to lay charges. I trust the man's experience and that someone in his position and office is beyond reproach.
And, frankly, if Nixon can be impeached for illegal activities, as he should have been, then Clinton as a candidate stands no chance of ducking a criminal charge if there was meat on the bone.
The standard to charge someone is probable cause, which is a lesser standard.
Neither the FBI nor its director is supposed to decide who gets charged. If there's probable cause (and Comey's speech about what the agency found was practically a brief that there was probable cause), the Bureau is supposed to refer the matter to Department of Justice for empanelment of a grand jury. That didn't happen here. Instead, the Attorney General (Comey's boss) had a secret meeting with Bill Clinton, after which, the AG announced that Comey would make a recommendation.
In his subsequent speech, Comey ignored the mens rea of the statute and imposed an intent as an element of the offense that does not exist under the law. An intent requirement that has not been required to successfully prosecute both rank and file goverment employees and high ranking ones (most famously CIA Director Gen. Petraeus). Comey further alleged that no prosecutor would have pursued charges against Clinton, despite the fact (according to subsequent reports) both field agents and field prosecutors felt she should be charged.
There's more evidence that Comey, at the very least, bowed to political pressure and a desire to not "decide the election" for the voters by recommending indictment. But that's all I recall off the top of my head.
Your comparison to Nixon is not a particularly apt one. Politics in this country were very different back in the early 70s (ie, over 40 years). In the intervening years, for whatever reason, things have gotten more partisan and members of congress tend to treat the president of their party as their party leader (basically a parliamentarian style of thinking) and one would likely never get sufficient votes from the president's own party to convict in the Senate. I would also note that the House and Senate were, in fact, both Democrat controlled at the time Nixon was facing impeachment. You also had a media that was not only anti-Nixon, but was broadcasting the congressional hearings all day on all three networks. So the public was more engaged now than they were back then.
Finally, and I am frankly surprised I have to point this out to you, I don't think you have to be of a particular political view to understand that the extremely rich and extremely powerful have been known to get special treatment by law enforcement officers and the courts...regardless of how much "meat" happens to be "on the bone.
Like Trump? How about that classy way he bragged about how he could grab pussy because he's an old rich white guy. As for Clinton, republicans were fine with Comey deciding Clinton's fate till he didn't deliver what they wanted. There have been many articles explaining why the evidence didn't add up to the FBI going after Clinton. I would add that it's getting fairly apparent that anything that doesn't help the GOP is attacked. I think you guys are about ready to go after democracy if the country doesn't elect Trump.
FBI Director James Comey wrote in a letter to top members of Congress Friday that the bureau has “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”
Comey did not detail those emails, saying only that they surfaced “in connection with an unrelated case.”
He told lawmakers the investigative team briefed him on the information a day earlier, “and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”
He said the FBI could not yet assess whether the new material is significant and he could not predict how long it will take to complete “this additional work.”
A senior law enforcement official separately told Fox News the FBI decision is not linked to WikiLeaks messages or any hack, and the newly discovered emails did not come from the Clinton server – but from another device from another government official.
And now comes the news that this is tied to...wait for it...the Anthony Weiner investigation. Carlos Danger rides again!
Emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server were found after the F.B.I. seized electronic devices once shared by Anthony D. Weiner and his estranged wife, Huma Abedin, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton, federal law enforcement officials said Friday.
The F.B.I. is investigating illicit text messages that Mr. Weiner sent to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. The bureau told Congress on Friday that it had uncovered new emails related to the Clinton case — one federal official said they numbered in the thousands
Will there be any Democrats who will urge Clinton to step aside?
Exactly three weeks ago, the Washington Post released tapes showing Donald Trump bragging about committing actions that easily meet the legal test for sexual battery. In the aftermath, a number of Republicans asked him to step aside for the good of the country.
Now it’s the Democrats’ turn. Their candidate is back under criminal investigation. Millions of people have already cast votes for her believing she’d been “cleared.” Is her personal ambition worth this national pain?
As has been evidenced abundantly, Comey himself is arguably just another paid-off stooge of Hillary Clinton. Comey is releasing this information now to avoid being accused post-election of withholding evidence to help Hillary Clinton get elected. (i.e., he is engaging in a face-saving covering of his ass by releasing information now that would inevitably be released right after the election, otherwise he would be perfectly willing to cover for Hillary, if his own credibility and potential obstruction of justice in protecting her were not about to inevitably be revealed.)
But Comey's July 5th press conference makes clear there is definitely a case against Hillary Clinton.
As Australia-Dave seems immune to, "very careless" with classified information is the convictable offense of "gross negligence".
And both General Petraeus and General Cartwright are paying a far higher price for far lesser crimes than Hillary Clinton's diverse buffet-table of treason (Benghazi negligence and cover-up, e-mail server compromising national security EVERY day of her 4 years to the Russians and Chinese, pay-to-play selling of State Dept access to the highest bidder through the Clinton Foundation, and giving lip service to securing our borders while telling wealthy Brazilians she wants "an open borders western hemisphere" that would further destroy U.S. sovereignty.)
Your bitching about the media was lame before this. Trying to equate the two seems like bananas to me but you stopped surprising me a long time ago. You may not care for Hillary but this was not right.
The media is free to do what it wants G-man. It's not the borg. It includes biased media that acts like a propaganda arm for your party that you are fine with. Your comparison is silly. I will point out that I never made the rigged claim btw. So I guess we know what you really think about Comey's letter.
lol, straw man building time. Your previous rigged argument is about the media correct? I don't excpect you to go after Comey but you really can't defend what he did.
I find this development with Comey super-interesting.
The guy is between the devil and the deep blue sea. He doesn't report the re-opening of the investigation - he gets skewered by GOP congressmen and potentially indicted.
He reports it - he is in breach of the Hatch Act (that was a no one by me).
Personally, I don't think he had much choice but to notify Congress that he was reopening the investigation, even through he doesn't know what is in the emails as yet because he doesn't have a warrant. I have said before - on this very thread, I think - that no one should doubt his credentials and office.
Because this reads as a "Hillary has been hiding something" type story, Clinton's poll numbers have slumped.
As an orange panted Democrat former congressional advisor said on Australian television on the weekend, she is a "deeply flawed" candidate.
In 2012, Obama was ahead of Romney by double-digits all the way up until the last week when the media outlets felt compelled to retain their credibility by tightening up the polls, restoring them them to actuality. Of course, the larger suspicion this time around is that the inflated poll numbers were designed to make a Trump loss in states like Texas less surprising as she and Soros rig the electronic votes to make them match CNN and friends' projections.
But even if a portion of Hillary supporters would turn away from her over this revelation, it's highly unlikely that the drop would be over a full 12 points--which is what we've been seeing. The two camps are far too galvanized to be disillusioned by anything less than, say, a snuff tape.
As far as Comey is concerned, the alleged FBI agent that posted revealing data on 4chan had already prophesied that he would be pushed up against the wall by his own agency if he didn't act on the intelligence and evidence that they had compiled against Hilldawg. Former FBI agents with ears in on what's going on at the Bureau are telling tales of agents protesting, en masse, Comey's obviously corrupt decision to let her off the hook--whether the evidence incriminated Obama or not. As you say, devil and a deep blue sea.
People shouldn't get it in their heads that this man is principled or has integrity simply because he came forward with this information. He's as pozzed as he ever was--especially with his history of being an executive operator at the Clinton Foundation.
In 2012, Obama was ahead of Romney by double-digits all the way up until the last week when the media outlets felt compelled to retain their credibility by tightening up the polls, restoring them to actuality.
Yes, that gels with what I cited earlier, that polls are deliberately weighted by Democrat pollers, to have 15% more Democrats in the sample rather than sampling known ratios of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. So the sample inevitably shows (falsely) that polls favor Hillary Clinton. And then in the last week of the polls, to save their credibility, they show a "tightening" that is in truth what they would have shown, if not slantedly polled, all along.
Originally Posted By: Pariah
Of course, the larger suspicion this time around is that the inflated poll numbers were designed to make a Trump loss in states like Texas less surprising as she and Soros rig the electronic votes to make them match CNN and friends' projections.
That's a scarier prospect. Particularly with Homeland Security (i.e., Obama and the DNC) taking over electronic voter monitoring. Just as Obama and the DNC have diverted actual investigation and actual justice from occurring in the FBI and Department of Justice, regarding Hillary Clinton's e-mails, the Clinton Foundation, and other criminal Clinton-related matters. If DHS similarly controls electronic voting as they have the FBI and Justice Dept investigating Bill and Frau Hitlery, then we are truly doomed.
With millions of the dead still suspiciously registered and voting, dual-residence Democrats double-voting in multiple states, ACORN and similar Democrat groups registering about 3 million fake voters (classic Saul Alinsky tactics, overwhelm the system with fraud, so 90% might get caught, but 10% still get by undetected, and that would still be 300,000 votes), preventing inquiry about illegal immigrant status so thousands of illegals now just show a driver license and say without need for documentation they are U.S. citizens, and thus register to vote.
Add electronic voter fraud to that, and a Republican victory is that much more difficult. And if Trump and other Republicans challenge the election result, they'll just be portrayed by the complicit 96% Hillary-donating liberal media as sore losers, paranoid, or more likely, bigoted and racist as well.
The FBIRecordsVault is dumping a shit-ton of information on Twitter right now.
Apparently, the material has to do with Marc Rich:
Comey parlayed the Whitewater job into top posts in Virginia and New York, returning to Manhattan in 2002 to be the top federal prosecutor there. One of his first cases as a line attorney in the same office 15 years earlier had been the successful prosecution of Marc Rich, a wealthy international financier, for tax evasion. But on his last day as President in 2001, Bill Clinton pardoned Rich. “I was stunned,” Comey later told Congress. As top U.S. prosecutor in New York in 2002, appointed by George W. Bush, Comey inherited the criminal probe into the Rich pardon and 175 others Clinton had made at the 11th hour.
Jebus. Now apparently the Rothschilds have been hacked and over a hundred thousand emails are out in the open.
Warning, Spoiler:
http://8ch.net/pol/res/8045224.html#8045815
This is getting extraordinarily fishy. I suspect that the powers that be are trying to overload the autists with information so they'll get distracted from the real dirt that's floating around this week.
It seems that shit is going down. Apparently, a site called VL has had communications with both the Wikileaks network and the Counter-Coup operatives, and has been submitting videos revealing details about the whole debacle in advance for some time now. I didn't believe some of them, but they've panned out.
All the relevant videos:
Warning, Spoiler:
---accompanying video---->
They're fairly short, just giving news snippets here and there as details unfold.
Salient points:
-NYPD raid a DNC office in Philadelphia and find fraudulent voter registration forms. Massive voter fraud.
-Pieczenik reveals the existence of a counter-coup, naming the NYPD as a participating organization.
-Youtuber receives private message, clarifying Pieczenik's statement and explaining that up to twenty agencies had been observing Hillary's ongoing agenda before deciding to act and hacking her server.
-Youtuber alleges that Julian Assange found proof that Clinton had Seth Rich killed for leaking DNC docs.
-In coordination with what the FBI has found on Weiner's laptop, the NYPD has allegedly uncovered evidence that Clinton dealings involve pedophile sex-rings (as was already alluded to by FBI Anon on 4chan).
-After FBI releases info on the Vince Foster investigation--due to FOIA requests submitted by /pol/. Even more suspicious than we originally thought.
-Discloses suspcious proximity between E Lee Hennessee's death and Clinton Foundation CEO's, John Braverman's, request for asylum in Russia.
-FBI order NYPD not arrest cooperating witness Huma Abedin.
On top of everything else, Huma Abedin's extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic radical groups. Both her parents are major players in radical Islam.
And yet all the 96% Hillary Clinton-donating liberal media can talk about is sexual allegations toward Donald Trump.
