Hillary State department Bribes FBI.. Corrupt Justice Department Laughs it off. Congress MUST DEMAND INVESTIGATION NOW!

Hillary State Department Official Tried to BRIBE the FBI. OBAMA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT KNOWS THIS BUT LOOKS THE OTHER WAY!

THIS IS THE CROOKED STATE DEPARTMENT LACKEY OF HILLARY CLINTON..
PATRICK KENNEDY

Thanks to the whistleblowers at WikiLeaks and fighters in the Republican Congress, we’re beginning to know the true extent of Hillary Clinton’s corruption.

The media can ignore the revelations and try to protect Hillary, but Americans are learning the truth: Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy made a series of attempts to bribe the FBI in an effort to protect Hillary Clinton.
Kennedy offered a ‘quid pro quo’ to an FBI agent, in which he promised to open up overseas slots for FBI agents in exchange for the FBI retroactively declassifying an email marked SECRET that was found on Clinton’s unsecured illegal private email server.
This revelation comes from summaries of FBI interviews, called 302s, from their criminal investigation of Clinton.

In an exchange that included redacted names, the interview notes state that “[REDACTED] received a call from [REDACTED] of the International Operations Division (IOD) of the FBI, who ‘pressured’ him to change the classified email to unclassified. [REDACTED] indicated he had been contacted by PATRICK KENNEDY, Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.’”

Attempted bribery of a government official is a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. But as we’ve seen over and over again in the corrupt Obama administration, they will use their power to commit crimes and then protect themselves from any responsibility.
The State Department’s official response has been: “Pat Kennedy is going to stay at his job, and he has the full confidence of the Secretary of State.” The FBI has denied the existence of a quid pro quo. The State Department admits no wrongdoing. But we have the evidence! What can we do about it?
Right now citizens are petitioning Congress to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Kennedy. We already know that if enough people make their voice heard, the politicians are forced to listen.
The Republican Congress should absolutely investigate Obama’s State Department for criminal wrongdoing.
Donald Trump called Kennedy’s duplicity “one of the great miscarriages of justice in the history of our country.” Newt Gingrich and Marco Rubio have both called for Kennedy to be suspended and investigated.
Republican Congressmen Jason Chaffetz and Devin Nunes have called on President Obama to suspend Kennedy and convene an investigation.
America needs real leadership. We can no longer sit silently while the political establishment breaks any law they feel like!

Congress MUST appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this bribery claim? He is also the same State Department Lackey who headed the Benghazi Investigation..

The Bureaucrat at the Center of Hillary’s Scandals

 

Patrick Kennedy has been linked to Benghazi and Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Here's how he survived years of GOP and FBI investigations.

From Justice Jeanine Pierro
"This is the same Patrick Kennedy that Hillary put in charge of her blue ribbon accountability review board for lessons learned from Benghazi.  By the way, already learned from the Khobar towers review board,  lessons never implemented by Hillary. 

The same Patrick Kennedy who appointed the Clinton pals who then chose not to question Hillary the secretary of state. 
Kennedy knows the urgency of destroying this particular email as opposed to thousands of others, so he engages in what some say is an attempt to bribe and others say is a quid pro quo discussion offering the fbi long sought positions overseas in exchange for getting rid of top secret emails.
Curious that our ambassador personally and his staff requested security more than 600 times to protect their lives ..yet Kennedy can come up with positions to cover Hillary's¦ career. 
Fbi agents summaries known as 302's say Kennedy actually offered a quid pro quo. FBI positions to declassify and then mark with code 9, which would archive the email in the basement of the department of state-never to be seen again.  The agent -- although he felt pressured--  refused the offer. Kennedy then makes the same offer to  the FBI head of counter intelligence.   And when this offer is refused, Kennedy knowing the criminal investigation is already underway  asks- will the FBI make a public statement about this?   When told they will not, he knows the coast is clear.  They'll deal with the FBI and the DOJ later,but for now Hillary can  publicly lie to all of us. 
So now Kennedy - one of the darkest characters in the  Clinton playbook - and that's saying something folks-skates.   But then the 302's are released.  Congress says wait a minute-that sounds like bribery, obstruction of justice, contempt of congress.  Is it?
The state department-the one that wouldn't allow the inspector general oversight and had no Hillary Clinton information available to the press -suggests that the FBI is lying.  Really?  Both  agents lying?  - maybe they misunderstood.  By the way, since the state department is willing to say that the FBI got it wrong, do the whole mounty.  How about the FBI director got it wrong when he said she shouldn't be charged?
Others say quid pro quo's, horse trading is what they do in Washington. We're just not used to watching them make sausage. Come on.  But not declassifying and destroying top-secret information on benghazi which is under federal subpoena to be retained and preserved of a pathological liar who is running to be commander in chief. 
Others say this is just what they do in dc : no crime
Since when in the history of American criminal justice does one have to announce: 'here ye here ye it is my intent to now commit this crime' before he can be held to account.
And if  there was no intent to prevent congress from knowing, answer this:  why did no one tell congress? Of at least the attempt to bribe federal officials or quid pro quo.  The FBI didn't (which makes me think they knew there would be no charges before they even started¦)  Kennedy sure as hell didn't. And I spoke with one: Trey Gowdy, the chair of the select committee on benghazi who told me  no one reached out to tell him that there was an attempt to prevent him and congress from getting the information he had subpoenaed."

WHAT PATRICK KENNEDY DID WAS A FELONY AND IT WAS DONE ON BEHALF OF THE CLINTONS.. BECAUSE HUSSEIN OBAMA IS INVOLVED. HE USED A FAKE NAME ON AN UNSECURE SERVER TO COMMUNICATE WITH HILLARY ABOUT SHARING SOME OF THE LOOT IN THE CLINTON FOUNDATION SCAM.

FELONY UNDER... 18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

(a) For the purpose of this section—

(1)

the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;

(2)

the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and

(3)

the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.

(b) Whoever—

(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—

(A)

to influence any official act; or

(B)

to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

(C)

to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

(A)

being influenced in the performance of any official act;

(B)

being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

(C)

being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

(3)

directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

(4)

directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(c) Whoever—

(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—

(A)

directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or

(B)

being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;

(2)

directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;

(3)

directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

(d)

Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.

(e)

The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.

 

Can A Devout Practicing Catholic Vote For Clinton/Kaine? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Read and Share!

PLEASE SHARE ON PAGES WHERE YOU HAVE CATHOLIC WOMEN..

 

Can A Catholic Vote For Clinton/Kaine?
 
Attention Catholics: A vote for Clinton/Kaine (with full knowledge and approval of their declared pro-abortion platform) is a grave mortal sin and would in-effect be an action of self-excommunication.

This is a very serious matter for Catholics and may even require direct confession and absolution from a Bishop.

A Catholic cannot vote for, and in effect participate in, intrinsic evil. The Clinton/Kaine position and documented policy on ABORTION is intrinsic evil. Voting for Clinton/Kaine is approval of these heinous acts.

Just to set the record straight: Kaine is confused on the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on Capital Punishment. Kaine has professed that the Death Penalty is the equivalent of Abortion. This is FALSE!

Roman Catholic teaching and doctrine on ABORTION is the equivalent to the murder in the highest degree – the murder of a helpless innocent child.

The Church teaching on the Death Penalty is eloquently explained here in the writings of Saint John Paul the Great:
“It is clear that, for the [purposes of punishment] to be achieved,the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and [the state] ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. —Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56, emphasis in the original.”

Mr. Kaine is confused and creating scandal by espousing an intrinsically evil philosophy and policy.
Sen. Kaine’s claim that while he is personally against ABORTION, he must bow to the law of the land.
What if we applied Kaine’s argument to NAZI Germany? Could we condone the actions or inactions of NAZI officials who were personally opposed to the Death Camps and Gas Chambers but participated in the genocide because it was at the direction of der Führer – Adolph Hitler?
It was the law of the land – yes?

The Church considers ABORTION as the most serious of murders very much on the level of the Holocaust.
Roman Catholics must give this the most serious consideration before voting for the Clinton/Kaine ticket. It could very well be their ticket to Hell.

WHAT THEY ARE SAYING ABOUT THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN’S ANTI-CATHOLIC BIGOTRY

“[The Emails Illustrate] The Open Anti-Catholic Bigotry Of Her Senior Advisers, Who Attack The Deeply Held Beliefs And Theology Of Catholics.” – Joseph Cella, Founder Of The National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

WSJ Opinion: “It’s no secret that progressive elites despise religion, but it’s still striking to see their contempt expressed so bluntly as in the leaked email chains that include Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.” (WSJ, 10/13/16)

Angela Flood: “It is an attempt to undermine the faith.” (FOX News, 10/13/16)

Raymond Arroyo: “For someone to come and say, ‘I have a political organization to change your church to complete my political agenda or advance my agenda,’ I don’t know how anybody could embrace that.” (WaPo, 10/12/16)

Joseph Cella: The emails illustrate “the open anti-Catholic bigotry of her senior advisers, who attack the deeply held beliefs and theology of Catholics,” (Catholic News, 10/13/16)

Matt Schlapp: “Hillary likes to say she ‘goes high’ but she and her campaign are as low as a snake’s belly.” (Talk Media News, 10/12/16)

Mercedes Schlapp: “the comments are incredibly offensive.” (Talk Media News, 10/12/16)

Former Ambassador Jim Nicholson: “said the emails left him gasping. ‘I was greatly offended and disappointed when I read these comments made by senior members of Hillary Clinton’s staff.’”He said Clinton “absolutely ought to apologize. No religion should suffer this kind of denigration.” (Talk Media News, 10/12/16)

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.): “’This attack is not limited to just Catholics.’ He implored on the public to “call on your bishops, call on your faith-based leaders” to condemn the remarks.” (Talk Media News, 10/12/16)

Newt Gingrich: “’Calista and I both feel this is an assault on Catholics.’ He referred to Clinton’s “bigoted, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic staff.” (Talk Media News, 10/12/16)

Calista Gingrich: “extremely offensive.” (Talk Media News, 10/12/16)

Speaker Paul Ryan: “If anything, these statements reveal the Clinton campaign’s hostile attitude toward people of faith in general. … All Americans of faith should take a long, hard look at this and decide if these are the values we want to be represented in our next president.” (Fortune, 10/13/16)

CNN: “Dozens of religious leaders who signed the statement expressed their ‘outrage at the demeaning and troubling rhetoric used by those within Secretary Clinton’s campaign.’” (CNN, 10/14/16)

Bill Donohue: “Yesterday, I stopped short of asking Hillary Clinton to fire John Podesta, her campaign chairman. In light of the latest Wikileaks revelations, she has no choice but to cut all ties with this man. The man is hell bent on creating mutiny in the Catholic Church and must therefore be fired.” (Newsmax, 10/13/16)

Washington Times: Clinton campaign mocks Catholics, Southerners, ‘needy Latinos’ in emails “Long before Hillary Clinton called millions of Americans a “basket of deplorables,” her top campaign advisers and liberal allies openly mocked Catholics, Southerners and a host of other groups, according to newly released emails that offer a stunning window into the vitriol inside the Clinton world less than a month before Election Day.” (Washington Times, 10/12/16)

Kellyanne Conway: “For 30 years Hillary Clinton has been openly hostile to practicing Catholics,” she said, citing Clinton’s support of partial birth abortion and the ObamaCare contraception mandate. “Now her staff is caught calling Catholics ‘backwards’ in emails seething with disdain.” (FOX News, 10/13/16)

Hillary Clinton is a Crook and a Liar. Here is a list. TRUST YOUR INSTINCTS PEOPLE. THE MEDIA IS HIDING THE TRUTH.

SO...BE HONEST...WHAT DO YOUR INSTINCTS TELL YOU ?? IS HILLARY CLINTON A CROOK AND A LIAR?

WHERE THERE IS SMOKE THERE IS A FIRE.
"The phrase 'where there's smoke there's fire' means that if something looks wrong then it probably is wrong -- just like if you see smoke there probably is a fire somewhere. ... When the signs of trouble are there, then that means that trouble is probably there as well."

Clear enough? The Clintons have been lighting and trying to put out "fires" started by the combustible material of their shifting ethics and morals long before Bill was governor of Arkansas. Earliest memory recalls Hillary making a killing in the cattle futures market.
Clinton has lied so many times on so many subjects that she makes husband Bill (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman”) look like an honest man.

Hillary Clinton has a proven track record of scandalous dealings, both past and present. IT JUST CANNOT BE A SIMPLE CASE OF being in the wrong place, at the wrong time; 

FACT IS THERE more to Hillary’s past… SHE IS A CROOK.. YES WORSE THAN HER HUSBAND IN MANY WAYS. 

These scandals make Hillary unfit for the role of Commander in Chief! 

Check out Hillary’s some of the most notorious scandals, and decide for yourself. WHERE THERE IS SMOKE THERE IS A FIRE. 

1. Email Server Scandal
Hillary has always had email issues. Not that she’s not good with a keyboard but more to do with “privacy.” During her time as Secretary of State, she send some emails via a private server when she worked from her New York residence. As such, her aides were able to decide which emails to turn over to the State Department, when requested, and which emails they did not. Due to the secretive and often sensitive nature of some of those emails, this is one of many of Hillary’s scandals.

2. Paula Jones Scandal
Paula Jones was a government worker in Arkansas, who alleged she was sexually harassed by Bill Clinton when he was a governor there. She filed a suit in 1994 looking for just under a million dollars in damages, although the case was settles out of court. Many years later, in 2015, the same Paula Jones told reporters that she believed that Hillary Clinton knew all about the sexual harassment yet did nothing and simply supported her husband.

3. FBI Background Scandal
After the Clinton administration was found to have more than 700 FBI background reports on their rivals, the Republicans, all sorts of questions were raised. One big question was that of the director of the Office of Personnel Security, Craig Livingstone, and how he came to have that high-profile job. As the story goes it was Hillary who pushed for him to get the job as she was close buddies with his mother.

4. Norman Hsu Scandal
For those of you who don’t know, Norman Hsu was a big contributor and fundraiser for the Democrat party during Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign of 2008. He was the man who collected contributions to the party, from a variety of “sources” and went a long way to promoting Hillary. However, Clinton was left with egg on her face when it turned out that HSU was a criminal, and more than that a fugitive, who had been scamming people and businesses for many long years.

5. Vince Foster Scandal
This chap, a well-known Arkansas lawyer, was a childhood friend of Bill Clinton and also worked closely with Hillary at Rose Law Firm during the 1970s. When Bill became President he joined the administration as the deputy White House counsel. Foster was known to suffer from depression and in the July of 1993 he allegedly committed suicide in his Virginia Park home with a single gunshot. Most said it was suicide, while many claimed it had something to do with Hillary and Bill and some “foul play.”

6. Jorge Cabrera Scandal
Jorge Cabrera was a supported of the Democrats in the mid-90s and even wrote them a personal check of $20,000. During that time he was even seen in pictures, taken by the press along with the then-First Lady. However, just a few short months later and Cabrera was arrested in a drug bust in Miami and was given 19 years behind bars.

7. Sniper Fire Scandal
When she was First Lady as her husband sat in the Oval Office at the White House, Hillary went on an official visit to Bosnia and met with American troops stationed there. On her return she told the press that she had herself come under sniper fire and could have been killed at the airport when she arrived. Just one week later and Hillary took back those comments claiming she had “made a mistake” in the recounting of what actually happened.

8. Personal Email Scandal
When she was Secretary of State, Hillary also used a personal email address but used it to conduct official business. She allegedly used her personal email to conduct all of her official business. She claimed she never used her personal email to send or receive “classified” information but no one is sure of the real truth about this scandal.

9. Travelgate Scandal
Just a few months after Bill Clinton entered the White House the well-known Travelgate scandal ensued. It started in the spring of 1993 when seven White House employees were fired for questionable accounting practices. Apparently Hillary knew all about the sudden firings way before they actually happened and may well have had a part in them.

10. Monica Lewinsky Scandal
Everyone remembers this one, as the relationship between Bill and Monica, who worked closely with him at the White House came out. She was only an intern at the time, and apparently had sexual relations with Bill, even though he was married. Hillary totally denied that her husband did anything untoward and said on the record that the whole thing had been a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

11. 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Scandal
When the Clinton administration handed over the keys of the White House to the incoming Bush administration, allegations of “damage, theft, vandalism and pranks” were in abundance. When the Clinton’s moved from the White House to their New York home they allegedly took items from the White House which they shouldn’t have, totaling a shocking $190,000. The couple ultimately returned the items, but the scandal lived on.

12. Whitewater Scandal
Whitewater is the generic term for a bunch of scandals attributed to the Clintons. For example, they purchased a few hundred acres of land with their personal friends Jim and Susan McDougal along the White River in the Ozarks. That deal failed and many shady business dealings came out. This scandal led on to the Lewinsky scandal and was seen as “the first domino” that plagued the Clintons for years to come.

13. Clinton Foundation Scandal
Many people have heard of the Clinton Foundation, which was set up by Bill after he left the White House. The foundation was meant to be a nonprofit operation and was set to deal with issues like global warming and climate change. Many alleged at the time that the Clintons used the foundation to forward their own personal agendas. It culminated in allegations of back handers and dodgy dealings which prevail to this day.

14. Benghazi Scandal
This is one of the most famous scandals that Hillary Clinton found herself embroiled in. Back in 2012, four Americans were killed during attacks on a US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, including the then-Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Hillary Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State was bought into question due to her various email accounts and the way she used them.

15. Cattle Money Scandal
This scandal dates back to the 1970s when Hillary Clinton made a tidy profit of $100,000 trading on the cattle futures market. She was in cahoots with a personal friend at the time who worked for Tyson Foods Inc. Apparently, according to a New York Times article from 1994, Tyson Foods received $9 million in government loans, deeming the whole sage very unsavory and questionable.

16. Clinton Speeches Scandal
It’s not just Bill who made a packet for giving 45 minute speeches at various institutions, but also daughter Chelsea, and of course, wife Hillary Clinton. While Chelsea’s standard fee in 2014 was around the $65,000 mark, Hillary reported a personal income of a staggering $11 million for a total of 51 speeches she gave in just a year. If that’s not scandalous nothing is!

WHERE THERE IS SMOKE THERE IS A FIRE.

The Media is rigging the polls with Directions from THE CLINTON CAMP. Here is definitive proof

THE POLLS ARE WRONG... THE POLLSTERS KNOW IT..
History is on our side and AMERICA knows what it needs to do in the end.

OCTOBER 23rd 2016...

New Podesta Email Exposes Dem Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples"

SO are even #billoreilly and #Chriswallace just too stupid to do the research?

BREAKING FROM WIKILEAKS: CLINTON CAMPAIGN BRIBES #LEFTYMEDIA TO RIG THE POLLS.
Now, for all of you out there who still aren't convinced that the polls are "adjusted", we present to you the following Podesta email, leaked earlier today, that conveniently spells out, in detail, exactly how to "manufacture" the desired data. The email starts out with a request for recommendations on "oversamples for polling" in order to "maximize what we get out of our media polling."
I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.
The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations. In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:
Research, microtargeting & polling projects
- Over-sample Hispanics
- Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets)
- Over-sample the Native American population.

Earlier we wrote posted the obvious sampling bias in the latest ABC / Washington Post poll that showed a 12-point national advantage for Hillary.  Like many of the recent polls from Reuters, ABC and The Washington Post, this latest poll included a 9-point sampling bias toward registered democrats. 

"METHODOLOGY – This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats - Republicans - Independents."

Of course, while democrats may enjoy a slight registration advantage of a couple of points, it is nowhere near the 9 points reflected in this latest poll. 
Meanwhile, we also pointed out that with huge variances in preference across demographics one can easily "rig" a poll by over indexing to one group vs. another.  As a quick example, the ABC / WaPo poll found that Hillary enjoys a 79-point advantage over Trump with black voters.  Therefore, even a small "oversample" of black voters of 5% could swing the overall poll by 3 full points.  Moreover, the pollsters don't provide data on the demographic mix of their polls which makes it impossible to "fact check" the bias...convenient.


Now, for all of you out there who still aren't convinced that the polls are "adjusted", we present to you the following Podesta email, leaked earlier today, that conveniently spells out, in detail, exactly how to "manufacture" the desired data. The email starts out with a request for recommendations on "oversamples for polling" in order to "maximize what we get out of our media polling."

I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.

The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations.  In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:

Research, microtargeting & polling projects
-  Over-sample Hispanics
-  Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets)
-  Over-sample the Native American population

For Florida, the report recommends "consistently monitoring" samples to makes sure they're "not too old" and "has enough African American and Hispanic voters."  Meanwhile, "independent" voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first.

-  Consistently monitor the sample to ensure it is not too old, and that it has enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state.
-  On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.

Meanwhile, it's suggested that national polls over sample "key districts / regions" and "ethnic" groups "as needed."

-  General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions
-  Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed
-  Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed

And that's how you manufacture a 12-point lead for your chosen candidate and effectively chill the vote of your opposition. 

Here is the full report of "Polling & Media Recommendations" from "The Atlas Project."

DO NOT FRET.. JUST KEEP SPREADING THE WORD IN SOCIAL MEDIA.

 
TRUMP WILL WIN.. UNLESS GEORGE SORROS AND THE DEMOCRATS RIG THE VOTING MACHINES IN SWING STATES.

FOR DETAILS ON HOW THE POLLING IS A FRAUD CLICK ON MY BLOG HERE http://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/2016/10/polling-your-leg-whole-polling-scam-by.html

This years elections are different from the 1980 elections in that the Media were not blatantly for Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump. So the polls reflect that 100%. The Mood on the Ground is totally different. AMERICANS KNOW WHAT TO DO. Keep Spreading the truth.

The Media does not have the exponential power of our joint network of Americans.

Confidence in the press is low compared to most other institutions. Only Politicians fare worse than the Media.

      YOU CAN SEE WHY.. THEY ARE ALL CROOKS

Confidence in the press is low compared to most other institutions

	A great deal of confidence	Only some confidence	Hardly any confidence
Military	48%	45%	6%
Scientific community	35%	53%	10%
Supreme Court	26%	59%	14%
Organized religion	20%	56%	24%
Banks and financial institutions	17%	59%	24%
Press	6%	52%	41%
Congress	4%	46%	50%

SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE MEDIA REPORTING HAS NEXT TO ZERO VALUE .. ONLY THE MONKEYS WHO  WANT HILLARY BELIEVE THEIR BIASED BULLSHIT.

In a Gallup poll on October 26th in 1980, two weeks before the election, Gallup had it Jimmy Carter 47, Ronald Reagan 39.  That election two weeks later ended up in a landslide that was so big that Carter conceded before California closed.
United States presidential election, 1980

1980

Month	Ronald Reagan (R) %	Jimmy Carter (D) %	John B. Anderson (I) %
December 1979/January 1980	33%	62%
February/March	31%	60%
	33%	58%
	34%	40%	21%
April/May	34%	41%	18%
	32%	38%	21%
	32%	40%	21%
June/July	32%	39%	21%
	33%	35%	24%
	37%	32%	22%
	37%	34%	21%
August/September	45%	29%	14%
	38%	39%	13%
	39%	39%	14%
October/November	40%	44%	9%
	39%	45%	9%
	47%	44%	8%
Actual result	51%	41%	7%
Difference between actual result and final poll	+4%	-3%	-1%

Incumbent President Jimmy Carter initially had a huge lead in the polls, due to the rally-around-the flag effect of the Iranian hostage crisis and the perceived extremism of Reagan. The continuing hostage crisis and the poor economy hurt Carter, and the prospect John B. Anderson running as an independent appealed to around 20% of Americans who saw Carter as a lesser evil to Reagan. As a result, Anderson took a third of Carter's support in the spring, but did not seem to hurt Reagan, despite Anderson being a Republican. Carter would never recover this loss of support, while Reagan would end up peeling around two-thirds of initial Anderson voters. This race remained close until near the end, when Reagan asked Americans if they were better off than they were four years ago. Afterwards Reagan managed to win a huge landslide victory in the general election.^{[15]
SO I SAY TO ALL OF YOU ..}

Joshua 1:9

Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.”

Watch undercover video where Clinton and Democrat Operatives Destroy America with the Complicit approval of OBAMA and the Justice Department. TAKE THEM ALL DOWN OR WE ARE DONE!

Published on Oct 17, 2016. THIS MUST BE SHARED WITH WOMEN WHO PLAN TO VOTE FOR HILLARY.. SHAME ON THEM !

Rigging the Election - Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies

In this explosive new video from Project Veritas Action, a Democratic dirty tricks operative unwittingly provides a dark money trail to the DNC and Clinton campaign. The video documents violence at Trump rallies that is traced to the Clinton campaign and the DNC through a process called birddogging. 

A shady coordinated communications chain between the DNC, Clinton Campaign, Hillary Clinton’s Super PAC (Priorities) and other organizations are revealed. A key Clinton operative is on camera saying, “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker."
Website: http://projectveritasaction.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ProjectVerit...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/@Pveritas_Action


SHARE WITH ALL MAJOR NEWS MEDIA. ON THEIR FACEBOOK PAGES, ON THEIR TWITTER FEED. ON THEO COMMENTS SECTION OF THE WEBSITES!

These Fuckers have been at it for 20 years. Many of you are just waking up to the facts!

THE ONLY REASON THAT THE OBAMA THUGS & THE BUSHES HAVE NOT SHUT IT DOWN IS THAT THEY ARE FEEDING FROM THE SAME TROUGH.

THE DEPTH OF THE CLINTON'S & THE CLINTON FOUNDATION'S 

CORRUPTION IS UNBELIEVABLE.
IT IS THERE IN PLAIN SIGHT AND THE ONLY REASON THAT THE OBAMA THUGS & THE BUSHES HAVE NOT SHUT IT DOWN IS THAT THEY ARE 

FEEDING FROM THE SAME TROUGH. 

For nearly three decades, ONLY three names have ruled the free world: Bush, Clinton & the Hussein Obama. If you plan on casting your vote to continue this tyranny for another decade, then you are really stupid!
If you think a perpetual liar, a cheater, a murderer, a thief, a proven criminal, a sexual predatory enabler, a pro-amnesty & TPP sellout, a two-faced, double speak Wall Street & Washington insider is the Right person.. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?

CLINTON CORRUPTION: TEN INCONVENIENT TRUTHS ABOUT THE CLINTON FOUNDATION

Here Are Ten Facts Everyone Should Know About The Massive Conflict Of Interest And Corruption Issues Facing The Clinton Foundation

---

FACT ONE – There Are Major Overlaps Between Clinton’s Campaign Donors And Her Foundation Donors, Raising Ethical Red Flags:
According To The Washington Post, Nearly Half Of The Major Donors To Ready For Hillary And Nearly Half Of Her 2008 Campaign Bundlers Have Given At Least $10,000 To The Foundation. “Nearly half of the major donors who are backing Ready for Hillary, a group promoting her 2016 presidential bid, as well as nearly half of the bundlers from her 2008 campaign, have given at least $10,000 to the foundation, either on their own or through foundations or companies they run.” (Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Steven Rich, “Clintons’ Foundation Has Raised Nearly $2 Billion — And Some Key Questions,” The Washington Post, 2/18/15)

• “The Clintons Have Relied Heavily On Their Close Ties To Wall Street, With Donations From The Financial Services Sector Representing The Largest Share Of Corporate Donors.”(Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Steven Rich, “Clintons’ Foundation Has Raised Nearly $2 Billion — And Some Key Questions,” The Washington Post, 2/18/15)

The Foundation “Has Given Contributors Entree, Outside The Traditional Political Arena, To A Possible President.” “The financial success of the foundation, which funds charitable work around the world, underscores the highly unusual nature of another Clinton candidacy. The organization has given contributors entree, outside the traditional political arena, to a possible president. Foreign donors and countries that are likely to have interests before a potential Clinton administration — and yet are ineligible to give to U.S. political campaigns — have affirmed their support for the family’s work through the charitable giving.” (Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Steven Rich, “Clintons’ Foundation Has Raised Nearly $2 Billion — And Some Key Questions,” The Washington Post, 2/18/15)
The Washington Post’s Review Of The Foundation’s Seven Biggest Donors Found “That There Is Strong Overlap Between The Family’s Political Base And The Foundation,” And That A Substantial Number Of Its Donors Are Based Outside Of The U.S. “The review found that there is strong overlap between the family’s political base and the foundation and that a substantial number of the foundation’s largest donors — those who have given at least $1 million — are based outside of the United States. Financial institutions also make up the largest portion of the foundation’s corporate giving.”(Rosalind S. Helderman, “Here Are The Seven Biggest Donors To The Bill, Hillary And Chelsea Clinton Foundation,” The Washington Post, 2/19/15)
Bill Allison Of The Sunlight Foundation: “The Clinton Foundation Is A Unique Non-Profit That Can’t Be Separated From The American Political System.” “Bill Allison, senior policy analyst at the Sunlight Foundation, a campaign finance watchdog group, says the Clinton foundation is a unique non-profit that can’t be separated from the US political system. ‘If there is foreign money coming into the Clinton Foundation, it will raise the question of - is the president going to be doing favors for a foreign business, a foreign government, a foreign individual? And you just cannot have that in the American system of government, where the president is supposed to represent the American people,’ Allison said.” (Julianna Goldman, “Chinese Company Pledged $2 Million To Clinton Foundation In 2013,” CBS News, 3/16/15)
FACT TWO –Several Major Clinton Foundation Donations Came From Companies Lobbying The Federal Government:
The Wall Street Journal Headline: “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)
As Secretary Of State Clinton “Was One Of The Most Aggressive Global Cheerleaders For American Companies…” “Among recent secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton was one of the most aggressive global cheerleaders for American companies, pushing governments to sign deals and change policies to the advantage of corporate giants such as General Electric Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

• “At The Same Time, Those Companies Were Among The Many That Gave To The Clinton Family’s Global Foundation…” “At the same time, those companies were among the many that gave to the Clinton family’s global foundation set up by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)

“At Least 60 Companies That Lobbied The State Department During Her Tenure Donated A Total Of More Than $26 Million To The Clinton Foundation…” “At least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public and foundation disclosures.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)
“At Least 44 Of Those 60 Companies Also Participated In Philanthropic Projects Valued At $3.2 Billion That Were Set Up Though A Wing Of The Foundation Called The Clinton Global Initiative…” “At least 44 of those 60 companies also participated in philanthropic projects valued at $3.2 billion that were set up though a wing of the foundation called the Clinton Global Initiative, which coordinates the projects but receives no cash for them.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)
“As Secretary Of State, She Created 15 Public-Private Partnerships Coordinated By The State Department, And At Least 25 Companies Contributed To Those Partnerships.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)
Clinton “Has A Web Of Connections To Big Corporations Unique In American Politics—Ties Forged Both As Secretary Of State And By Her Family’s Charitable Interests.” “As Mrs. Clinton prepares to embark on a race for the presidency, she has a web of connections to big corporations unique in American politics—ties forged both as secretary of state and by her family’s charitable interests.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)
“Those Relationships Are Emerging As An Issue For Mrs. Clinton’s Expected Presidential Campaign As Income Disparity And Other Populist Themes Gain Early Attention.” (James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Hillary Clinton’s Complex Corporate Ties,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/19/15)
FACT THREE – The Clinton Foundation Accepted Millions From Foreign Governments:

“Rarely, If Ever, Has A Potential Commander In Chief Been So Closely Associated With An Organization That Has Solicited Financial Support From Foreign Governments.” “Rarely, if ever, has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments. Clinton formally joined the foundation in 2013 after leaving the State Department, and the organization was renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.” (Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Foreign Governments Gave Millions To Foundation While Clinton Was At State Dept.,” The Washington Post, 2/25/15)
FACT FOUR – The Clinton Foundation Accepted Millions From Other Foreign Sources While Clinton Served As Secretary Of State:
“More Than 40 Percent Of The Top Donors To The Clinton Foundation Are Based In Foreign Countries.” “More than 40 percent of the top donors to the Clinton Foundation are based in foreign countries, according to an analysis by McClatchy.” (Anita Kumar, “Clinton Foundation Limits Foreign Donations,” McClatchy, 4/15/15)
According To The Wall Street Journal, While The Clinton Foundation “Swore Off Donations From Foreign Governments,” It Was Still Raising Millions From “Foreigners With Connections To Their Home Governments. “The Clinton Foundation swore off donations from foreign governments when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That didn’t stop the foundation from raising millions of dollars from foreigners with connections to their home governments, a review of foundation disclosures shows.” (James Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15)
While Bill Clinton Promised The Obama Administration To Stop Accepting Money From Foreign Governments, The Agreement Did Not “Place Limits On Donations From Foreign Individuals Or Corporations.” “Former President Bill Clinton promised the Obama administration the foundation wouldn’t accept most foreign-government donations while his wife was secretary of state. The agreement didn’t place limits on donations from foreign individuals or corporations.” (James Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15)
The Donors Have Personal, Familial, And Business Ties To Foreign Governments. “Some donors have direct ties to foreign governments. One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others are individuals with close connections to foreign governments that stem from their business activities. Their professed policy interests range from human rights to U.S.-Cuba relations.” (James Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15)
During Clinton’s Tenure At The State Department, Foreign Donors And Their Organizations Accounted For Between $34 And $68 Million In Donations And $60 Million In Commitments To The Foundation. “All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show. Some donors also provided funding directly to charitable projects sponsored by the foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million.” (James Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus, “Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15)
FACT FIVE – Last Week The Clinton Foundation Announced They Wouldn’t Take Foreign Or Corporate Money If Clinton Is Elected, But Other Charities Still Will Be Allowed To:
Last Week Bill Clinton Said The Clinton Foundation “Would Only Accept Contributions From U.S. Citizens And Independent Charities” If Hillary Clinton Is Elected President. “The Clinton Foundation will no longer accept foreign and corporate donations if Hillary Clinton is elected president. … Bill Clinton said if Hillary Clinton wins the White House, the family's foundation would only accept contributions from U.S. citizens and independent charities.” (Ken Thomas, “Clinton's Foundation To Alter Donations Policy If Elected,” The Associated Press, 8/18/16)
Other Clinton Charities Will Continue To Take Foreign And Corporate Donations Should Clinton Become President. “Big chunks of the Clinton family’s charitable network would be exempt from a self-imposed ban on foreign and corporate donations if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, loopholes that highlight the complexity of disentangling her from the former first family’s myriad potential conflicts of interest.” (Annie Linskey, “Not All Clinton Charities Bound By New Set Of Rules,” Boston Globe, 8/20/16)
These Charities Include The Clinton Health Access Initiative, The Alliance For A Healthier Generation And The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership. “The most prominent of the exceptions applies to the Boston-based Clinton Health Access Initiative, which in 2014 accounted for 66 percent of spending by the Clinton network of charities. … They include the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, an entity cofounded by the American Heart Association and the Clinton Foundation, and the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, a joint venture between Bill Clinton and Canadian mining billionaire Frank Giustra.” (Annie Linskey, “Not All Clinton Charities Bound By New Set Of Rules,” Boston Globe, 8/20/16)
FACT SIX – The FBI Wanted To Open An Investigation Into The Clinton Foundation, But The Effort Was Scuttled By The Obama Administration:
The FBI And Department Of Justice Met In Early 2016 To Discuss Opening A Public Corruption Case Into The Clinton Foundation. “Officials from the FBI and Department of Justice met several months ago to discuss opening a public corruption case into the Clinton Foundation, according to a US official.” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)
Three FBI Field Offices Wanted To Investigate If Suspicious Banking Activity From A Foreigner Was Involved A Criminal Conflict Of Interest With The State Department And The Clinton Foundation. “At the time, three field offices were in agreement an investigation should be launched after the FBI received notification from a bank of suspicious activity from a foreigner who had donated to the Clinton Foundation, according to the official. FBI officials wanted to investigate whether there was a criminal conflict of interest with the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during Clinton's tenure. The Department of Justice had looked into allegations surrounding the foundation a year earlier after the release of the controversial book ‘Clinton Cash,’ but found them to be unsubstantiated and there was insufficient evidence to open a case.” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)
Obama’s Department Of Justice Pushed Back Against Opening A Case. “As a result, DOJ officials pushed back against opening a case during the meeting earlier this year. Some also expressed concern the request seemed more political than substantive, especially given the timing of it coinciding with the investigation into the private email server and Clinton's presidential campaign.”(Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)
The FBI Field Offices Were “Waved Off” By The DOJ. “Accusations that Clinton has committed crimes, and gotten away with them, have colored Republican campaigns for decades. They've picked up since the FBI announced that it would take no further steps to investigate her ‘careless’ use of a private email server after a year-long probe; they've gained more steam after reports that three (of 56) FBI field offices wanted to probe the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation over a foreign donation but were waved off by a DOJ that had come up empty in a similar probe.” (David Weigel, “‘Lock Her Up’ Sentiment Comes To A Congressional Campaign,” The Washington Post, 8/12/16)
FACT SEVEN – Clinton’s Chief Of Staff At State Had A Deep And Simultaneous Involvement In The Clinton Foundation:
CNN Headline: “Top Clinton State Department Aide Helped Clinton Foundation” (Drew Griffin, “Top Clinton State Department Aide Helped Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/26)
It Was Discovered That Clinton’s Chief Of Staff At The State Department Cheryl Mills Went To New York In 2012 To Interview Executives For A Top Position At The Clinton Foundation. “A CNN investigation found that Clinton aide Cheryl Mills was involved in the Clinton Foudnation while she was also employed as Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State. On a trip to New York in 2012, Mills interviewed two executives for a top position at the Clinton foundation. The State Department said she was on personal time. Mills' attorney says she was, doing ‘volunteer work for a charitable foundation. She was not paid.’” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)
“The Fact That The Aide, Cheryl Mills, Was Taking Part In Such A High Level Task For The Clinton Foundation While Also Working As Chief Of Staff For The Secretary Of State Raises New Question About The Blurred Lines That Dogged The Clinton As Secretary Of State.” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)
The State Department Has Been Stonewalling Congressional Investigators On This Matter. “The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, has tried to get answers about Mills' New York trip as well. Grassley sent Secretary of State John Kerry a letter in January asking the purpose of Mills' trip. The State Department did not officially respond to the letter.” (Drew Griffin, Pamela Brown and Shimon Prokupecz, “Inside The Debate Over Probing The Clinton Foundation,” CNN, 8/11/16)
FACT EIGHT – Sidney Blumenthal Collected $10,000 A Month From The Clinton Foundation While Providing Libyan Intelligence To Clinton:
Clinton Wanted To Bring Blumenthal On Board To The State Department In 2009, But The Hire Was Turned Down By The Obama White House Because Of His “Harsh Attacks” In The Democratic Primary. “As White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel was the one to bring the hammer down on Sidney Blumenthal. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wanted to hire Mr. Blumenthal, a loyal confidant who had helped her promote the idea of a ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ more than a decade ago. But President Obama’s campaign veterans still blamed him for spreading harsh attacks against their candidate in the primary showdown with Mrs. Clinton last year. So Mr. Emanuel talked with Mrs. Clinton, said Democrats informed about the situation, and explained that bringing Mr. Blumenthal on board was a no-go.” (Peter Baker and Jeff Zeleny, “Emanuel Wields Power Freely, And Faces The Risks,” The New York Times, 8/15/09)
Blumenthal “Earned About $10,000 A Month As A Full-Time Employee Of The Clinton Foundation” While At The Same Time He Provided Intelligence On Libya To Then-Secretary Clinton. “Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant of Bill and Hillary Clinton, earned about $10,000 a month as a full-time employee of the Clinton Foundation while he was providing unsolicited intelligence on Libya to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to multiple sources familiar with the arrangement.” (Kenneth P. Vogel, “Clinton Foundation paid Blumenthal $10K per month while he advised on Libya,” Politico, 5/28/15)

• Politico Headline: “Clinton Foundation Paid Blumenthal $10K Per Month While He Advised On Libya”(Kenneth P. Vogel, “Clinton Foundation Paid Blumenthal $10K Per Month While He Advised On Libya,” Politico, 5/28/15)

Blumenthal Was Added To The Clinton Foundation’s Payroll In 2009, “Not Long After Advising Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign — At The Behest Of Former President Bill Clinton…” “Blumenthal was added to the payroll of the Clintons’ global philanthropy in 2009 — not long after advising Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — at the behest of former president Bill Clinton, for whom he had worked in the White House, say the sources.” (Kenneth P. Vogel, “Clinton Foundation Paid Blumenthal $10K Per Month While He Advised On Libya,” Politico, 5/28/15)
Some Clinton Foundation Officials “Questioned” Blumenthal’s “Value And Grumbled That His Hiring Was A Favor From The Clintons.” “While Blumenthal’s foundation job focused on highlighting the legacy of Clinton’s presidency, some officials at the charity questioned his value and grumbled that his hiring was a favor from the Clintons, according to people familiar with the foundation.”(Kenneth P. Vogel, “Clinton Foundation Paid Blumenthal $10K Per Month While He Advised On Libya,” Politico, 5/28/15)
“When The Clintons Last Occupied The White House, Sidney Blumenthal Cast Himself In Varied Roles: Speechwriter, In-House Intellectual And Press Corps Whisperer.” “When the Clintons last occupied the White House, Sidney Blumenthal cast himself in varied roles: speechwriter, in-house intellectual and press corps whisperer. Republicans added another, accusing Mr. Blumenthal of spreading gossip to discredit Republican investigators, and forced him to testify during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial. Now, as Hillary Rodham Clinton embarks on her second presidential bid, Mr. Blumenthal’s service to the Clintons is again under the spotlight.”(Nicholas Confessore and Michael S. Schmidt, “Clinton’s Friend’s Memos On Libya Draw Scrutiny To Politics And Business,”The New York Times, 5/18/15)
Blumenthal’s Work With Clinton Has Been “Wide-Ranging,” “Complicated,” And Embodied “The Blurry Lines Between Business, Politics And Philanthropy That Have Enriched And Vexed The Clintons And Their Inner Circle For Years.”“But an examination by The Times suggests that Mr. Blumenthal’s involvement was more wide-ranging and more complicated than previously known, embodying the blurry lines between business, politics and philanthropy that have enriched and vexed the Clintons and their inner circle for years.” (Nicholas Confessore and Michael S. Schmidt, “Clinton’s Friend’s Memos On Libya Draw Scrutiny To Politics And Business,”The New York Times, 5/18/15)
“t May Be Difficult To Determine Where One Of Mr. Blumenthal’s Jobs Ended And Another Began.” “But interviews with his associates and a review of previously unreported correspondence suggest that — once again — it may be difficult to determine where one of Mr. Blumenthal’s jobs ended and another began.”(Nicholas Confessore and Michael S. Schmidt, “Clinton’s Friend’s Memos On Libya Draw Scrutiny To Politics And Business,”The New York Times, 5/18/15)
“[T]he Clintons’ Past Does Provide Some Evidence That When It Comes To Friends And Politics, They Prize Loyalty Over All Else.” “Why didn’t Clinton do either of those things? Who knows. But, the Clintons’ past does provide some evidence that when it comes to friends and politics, they prize loyalty over all else.” (Chris Cillizza, “Hillary Clinton Is Defending Her ‘Loyal Old Friends.’ Here’s Why That’s A Mistake.,” The Washington Post, 5/19/15)
FACT NINE– The Clinton Foundation Failed To Disclose $26.4 Million In Speaking Honoraria While Clinton Was Secretary Of State:
Politico Headline: “New Clinton Speech Disclosures Reveal Foundation’s Take”(Josh Gerstein, “New Clinton Speech Disclosure Reveal Foundation’s Take,” Politico, 5/21/15)
In May 2015, The Clinton Foundation Reported That It Has Received As Much As $26 Million In Previously Undisclosed Speaking Fees. “The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups … The money was paid as fees for speeches by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Foundation officials said the funds were tallied internally as “revenue” rather than donations, which is why they had not been included in the public listings of its contributors published as part of the 2008 agreement.” (Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments,” The Washington Post, 5/21/15)
“The Clinton Foundation Confirmed Thursday That It Received As Much As $26.4 Million In Previously Unreported Payments From Foreign Governments And Corporations For Speeches Given By The Clintons.”(Alexandra Jaffe and Dan Merica, “Clinton Foundation Didn’t Disclose As Much As $26M In Speaking Fees,” CNN, 5/21/15)
The Disclosure Came As The Foundation Faced Questions “Over Whether It Fully Complied With A 2008 Ethics Agreement To Reveal Its Donors And Whether Any Of Its Funding Sources Present Conflicts Of Interest. “The disclosure came as the foundation faced questions over whether it fully complied with a 2008 ethics agreement to reveal its donors and whether any of its funding sources present conflicts of interest for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she begins her presidential campaign.”(Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments,” The Washington Post, 5/21/15)
The Disclosure Of Speaking Fees Was “The Latest In A String Of Admissions From The Foundation That It Didn’t Always Abide By A 2008 Ethics Agreement To Disclose Its Funding Sources Publicly.” “It's the latest in a string of admissions from the foundation that it didn't always abide by a 2008 ethics agreement to disclose its funding sources publicly. That agreement, penned as Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, is certain to continue the headache that the foundation's work and donors have become for Clinton as she makes another run at the White House.” (Alexandra Jaffe and Dan Merica, “Clinton Foundation Didn’t Disclose As Much As $26M In Speaking Fees,” CNN, 5/21/15)
The Clinton’s Paid Speaking Honorariums Included Six Figure Speaking Fees From Foreign Companies And Wall Street Banks. “The paid appearances included speeches by former president Bill Clinton to the Nigerian ThisDay newspaper group for at least $500,000 and to the Beijing Huaduo Enterprise Consulting Company Ltd., an investment holding company that specializes in the natural gas market, for at least $250,000. Citibank paid at least $250,000 for a speech by Hillary Rodham Clinton.” (Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments,” The Washington Post, 5/21/15)
Clinton Herself Delivered 15 Speeches On The Foundation’s Behalf, “Including One Address To Goldman Sachs And Another To JPMorgan Chase.” “But the new disclosure indicates that the former president has also spent considerable time speaking on the foundation’s behalf — 73 times since 2002. Hillary Clinton has delivered 15 such speeches, including one address to Goldman Sachs and another to JPMorgan Chase.” (Rosalind Helderman and Tom Hamburger, “Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments,” The Washington Post, 5/21/15)
FACT TEN – Since 2003, The Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50 Million On Travel:
The New York Post Headline: “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50 Million On Travel Expenses” (Geoff Earle, “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50 Million On Travel Expenses,” New York Post, 8/20/13)
From 2003 To 2012, The Clinton Foundation Spent More Than $50 Million On Travel. “Bill Clinton’s foundation has spent more than $50 million on travel expenses since 2003, an analysis of the non-profit’s tax forms reveal.” (Geoff Earle, “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50 Million On Travel Expenses,” New York Post, 8/20/13)
In Just 2011, The Clinton Associated Foundations Spent $12.1 Million On Travel. “The web of foundations run by the former president spent an eye-opening $12.1 million on travel in 2011 alone, according to an internal audit conducted by foundation accountants. That’s enough to by 12,000 air tickets costing $1,000 each, or 33 air tickets each day of the year.” (Geoff Earle, “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50M On Travel Expenses,” New York Post, 8/20/13)
The William J. Clinton Foundation Spent $4.2 Million On Travel In 2011. “That overall figure includes travel costs for the William J. Clinton Foundation (to which Hillary and Chelsea are now attached) of $4.2 million on travel in 2011, the most recent year where figures are available.” (Geoff Earle, “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50M On Travel Expenses,” New York Post, 8/20/13)
“The Clinton Global Health Initiative Spent Another $730,000 On Travel In 2011, While The Clinton Health Action Initiative (CHAI) Spent $7.2 Million On Travel.”(Geoff Earle, “Bill Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50M On Travel Expenses,” New York Post, 8/20/13)

MORE INFO:
Their fundraising haul, which began with $178,000 that Bill Clinton raised for his long-shot 1974 congressional bid, is on track to expand substantially with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 White House run, which has already drawn $110 million in support.

The Post identified donations from roughly 336,000 individuals, corporations, unions and foreign governments in support of their political or philanthropic endeavors — a list that includes top patrons such as Steven Spielberg and George Soros, as well as lesser-known backers who have given smaller amounts dozens of times. Not included in the count are an untold number of small donors whose names are not identified in campaign finance reports but together have given millions to the Clintons over the years.

The majority of the money — $2 billion — has gone to the Clinton Foundation, one of the world’s fastest-growing charities, which supports health, education and economic development initiatives around the globe. A handful of elite givers have contributed more than $25 million to the foundation, including Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra, who is among the wealthy foreign donors who have given tens of millions.

A CORRUPT DYNASTY STEALING FROM AMERICA!

litical support

$1 billion

The couple’s biggest individual political benefactors are Univision chairman Haim Saban and his wife, Cheryl, who have made 39 contributions totaling $2.4 million to support the Clintons’ races since 1992. The Sabans have also donated at least $10 million to the foundation.
The Clintons kept big contributors in their orbit for decades by methodically wooing competing interest groups — toggling between their liberal base and powerful constituencies, according to donors, friends and aides who have known the couple since their Arkansas days.

They made historic inroads on Wall Street, pulling in at least $69 million in political contributions from the employees and PACs of banks, insurance companies, and securities and investment firms. Wealthy hedge fund managers S. Donald Sussman and David E. Shaw are among their top campaign supporters, having given more than $1 million each.

The Clintons’ ties to the financial sector strained their bonds with the left, particularly organized labor. But unions repeatedly shook off their disappointment, giving at least $21 million to support their races. The public employees union AFSCME has been their top labor backer, giving nearly $1.7 million for their campaigns.

The Clintons’ fundraising operation — $3 billion amassed by one couple, working in tandem for more than four decades — has no equal.

By comparison, three generations of the Bush family, America’s other contemporaneous political dynasty, have raised about $2.4 billion for their state and federal campaigns and half a dozen charitable foundations, according to a Post tally of their fundraising from 1988 through 2015 — even though the family has collectively held the presidency longer than the Clintons.