IF HILLARY CLINTON CANNOT REMEMBER HER TIME AS SECRETARY OF STATE..SHE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT. PERIOD!

The 40 Things Clinton "Could Not Recall" During Her FBI Interview. She is Lying to stay out of jail or too incompetent top be President. 

NOW AT THE DEBATE IF SHE REMEMBERS ANYTHING IT COULD BE A FABRICATION.. OR SHE LIED THAT SHE CANNOT REMEMBER.

UPDATE JUDICIAL WATCH GAVE HER 25 QUESTIONS TO ANSWER UNDER OATH:

Hillary Answers Judicial Watch Under Oath - "Does Not Recall" Most Of Her Tenure As Secretary Of State. AND SHE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT? HOW CAN SHE USE ALL HER EXPERIENCE SHE CLAIMS IF SHE CANNOT REMEMBER ANY OF HER PAST? ( SHE IS A LIAR! )

Back in August, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan granted Judicial Watch the right to ask 25 questions of Hillary Clinton about the creation of her private email server which she was required to answer under oath (we wrote about it here).  This morning Hillary filed her response to those 25 questions which can be best summarized by the following stats:

Occurrences of the phrase "Does Not Recall":  20
Occurrences of the word "Object" or "Objection":  84

To summarize the 23-page response, Hillary "does not recall" the majority of her tenure as Secretary of State and "objects" to everything that she does recall.
Another phrase that occurs throughout the document, well at least in response to the questions that she actually decided to answer, implies that she was under the illusion that all of her emails subject to FOIA requests would be captured on the email systems of her staffers who actually decided to follow the law and use "state.gov accounts."

"...her practice was to e-mail State Department staff on their state.gov accounts, her e-mail was being captured in the State Department’s recordkeeping systems."

Isn't it ironic that Hillary recognizes the legal basis for using "state.gov" accounts but then says that she "does not recall whether she had a specific expectation that the State Department would receive FOIA requests for or concerning her e-mail."  Of course, FOIA requests are such uncommon things...why should she expect to receive one?  The blatant disregard for maintaining federal records, in and of itself, is just astonishing. 
Moreover, what about emails that Hillary sent to people outside of the State Department?  Did she not send any "work-related" emails to people outside the government?
In response to a question on whether Hillary's 30,000 "personal emails" were retained, Hillary said she did not think they were kept but denied "any personal knowledge about the details" of their deletion.

"She believes that her personal e-mails were not kept, and she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process."

So we're supposed to honestly believe that some rogue staffer or techie unilaterally decided to delete 30,000 emails belonging to the former Secretary of State of the United States of America without first asking her permission to do so?  Really?

While the whole document is a total farce, here is a list of a couple of the questions to which Hillary actually replied:

Question:  After President Obama nominated you to be Secretary of State and during your tenure as secretary, did you expect the State Department to receive FOIA requests for or concerning your email?

Response:  Secretary Clinton does not recall whether she had a specific expectation that the State Department would receive FOIA requests for or concerning her e-mail.  She understood that, because her practice was to e-mail State Department staff on their state.gov accounts, her e-mail was being captured in the State Department’s recordkeeping systems.

Question:  During your tenure as Secretary of State, did you understand that email you sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business was subject to FOIA?

Response:  Secretary Clinton understood that e-mail she sent or received in the course of conducting official State Department business was subject to FOIA.  She further understood that, because her practice was to e-mail State Department staff on their state.gov accounts, her e-mail was being captured in the State Department’s recordkeeping systems.

Question:  During your tenure as Secretary of State, what, if any, effort did you make to inform the State Department’s records management personnel (e.g., Clarence Finney or the Executive Secretariat’s Office of Correspondence and Records) about your use of a clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business?

Response:  Secretary Clinton does not recall specifically informing the State Department’s records management personnel about her use of her clintonemail.com e-mail account to conduct official State Department business; she did openly communicate via her clintonemail.com account with many people in the State Department.  Secretary Clinton does not recall interacting with Clarence Finney or employees of the Executive Secretariat’s Office of Correspondence and Records.  

Question:  In a November 13, 2010 email exchange with Huma Abedin about problems with your clintonemail.com email account, you wrote to Ms. Abedin, in response to her suggestion that you use a State Department email account or release your email address to the Department, “Let’s get a separate address or device.”  Why did you continue using your clintonemail.com email account to conduct official State Department business after agreeing on November 13, 2010 to “get a separate address or device?”  Include in your answer whether by “address” you meant an official State Department email account (i.e., a “state.gov” account) and by “device” you meant a State Department-issued BlackBerry.  A copy of the November 13, 2010 email exchange with Ms. Abedin is attached as Exhibit B for your review.

Response:  Secretary Clinton recalls that her November 13, 2010 e-mail exchange with Huma Abedin attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories was triggered by a problem with the State Department’s telephone system.  When Secretary Clinton wrote, “This is not a good system,” she was referring to the way in which the State Department would notify her of telephone calls.  Secretary Clinton does not recall what precisely she meant by the words “address” or “device.”  To the best of her recollection, she meant that she was willing to use a State Department e-mail account or device if it would resolve the problems with receiving telephone calls, so long as her personal e-mails with family and friends would not be accessible to the State Department.  Following this e-mail exchange, the State Department changed the way in which it notified Secretary Clinton of telephone calls, resolving the problem that triggered this e-mail.  

Question:  After you left office, did you believe you could alter, destroy, disclose, or use email you sent or received concerning official State Department business as you saw fit?  If not, why not?

Response:  Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 21 as outside the scope of permitted discovery in this case for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 3.  Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 21 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall considering after she left office whether she could alter, destroy, disclose, or use e-mails concerning official State Department business.  Secretary Clinton further refers Plaintiff to her Response to Interrogatory No. 22.

Question:  In late 2014, the State Department asked that you make available to the Department copies of any federal records of which you were aware, “such as an email sent or received on a personal email account while serving as Secretary of State.”  After you left office but before your attorneys reviewed the email in your clintonemail.com email account in response to the State Department’s request, did you alter, destroy, disclose, or use any of the email in the account or authorize or instruct that any email in the account be altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used?  If so, describe any email that was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used, when the alteration, destruction, disclosure, or use took place, and the circumstances under which the email was altered, destroyed, disclosed, or used?  A copy of a November 12, 2014 letter from Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy regarding the State Department’s request is attached as Exhibit F for your review.

Response:  Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 22 as outside the scope of permitted discovery in this case for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 3.  Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 22 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5.  Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 22 insofar as it requests information about all e-mail in her clintonemail.com account, including personal e-mail.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall altering, destroying, disclosing, or using any e-mails related to official State Department business from her tenure as Secretary of State in her clintonemail.com account or instructing anyone else to do so after she left office and before her attorneys reviewed the e-mails in her clintonemail.com e-mail account in response to the State Department’s request.

Question:  After your lawyers completed their review of the emails in your clintonemail.com email account in late 2014, were the electronic versions of your emails preserved, deleted, or destroyed?  If they were deleted or destroyed, what tool or software was used to delete or destroy them, who deleted or destroyed them, and was the deletion or destruction done at your direction?

Response:  Secretary Clinton objects to Interrogatory No. 23 as outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 3.  Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 23 on the ground that it requests information that is outside the scope of permitted discovery for the reason set forth in General Objection No. 5.  Secretary Clinton further objects to Interrogatory No. 23 insofar as it requests information about all e-mail in her clintonemail.com account, including personal e-mail.  Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Secretary Clinton states that it was her expectation that all of her work-related and potentially work-related e-mail then in her custody would be provided to the State Department in response to its request.  Secretary Clinton believes that her attorneys retained copies of the e-mails provided to the State Department in December 2014, but she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process.  Secretary Clinton decided that, once her work-related and potentially work-related e-mails were provided to the State Department, she had no reason to keep her personal e-mails, which did not relate to official State Department business.  She believes that her personal e-mails were not kept, and she does not have any personal knowledge about the details of that process. 

The complete court document can be viewed here:

TAKE YOUR PICK! BOTH WAYS SHE IS DISQUALIFIED AND SHAME ON THE MEDIA FOR ALLOWING THIS TO CONTINUE!

 

BACK TO THE OLDER STORY ABOUT THE FBI....

The FBI just threw Clinton cautiously under the bus with the following statement which links Hillary's "inability" to "recall" her transition instructions with her 2012 concussion and blood clot (see "Smoking Gun? FBI Reveals Hillary Could Not Recall Briefings Due To Concussion, Clot"):



But it turns out Hillary "could not recall" a lot of things about her tenure as Secretary of State.  In fact, during her 3.5 hour interview with the FBI, Hillary couldn't recall at least 40 questions posed by the FBI, at least some of which were fairly material events during her service which probably should have stood out.  Below is a list of just a couple of the things Hillary "could not recall."

HOW THE HELL CAN A WOMAN WHO CAN'T REMEMBER EVENTS BE QUALIFIED TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF?
Below is the exchange with FBI investigators where Clinton apparently doesn't "recall" ever receiving any training from the State Department related to retention of federal records or handling of classified information...she doesn't even recall when she received her security clearance.



Well, per the Nondisclosure Agreement below, signed by Hillary, we would guess she received her "briefing or training by State" on or around January 22, 2009.  So that leads us to derive only 3 logical conclusions, either (1) Hillary committed perjury by signing the NDA below without receiving the training indicated, (2) Hillary lied to the FBI during her interview or (3) Hillary simply has no long-term recollection of many of the key moments of her term as Secretary of State which brings into question her mental competency.




Of course, training wasn't even that relevant because Clinton doesn't "recall" ever even receiving a single "classified" email on her private server.  And even if she did, it would be the fault of her staffers as she "relied on State officials to use their judgement when emailing her" on her "unclassified system."  Which begs the question, how else were people supposed to get her information since the only email she had was hosted on her "unclassified" private server?  We're sure Clinton does not recall. 


And here is Clinton not recalling the process for "nominating a target for a drone strike."  Why would that be important...that was more Obama's thing.


In total, Hillary "could not recall" the following 40 past events in her short interview the FBI. 

Here’s All 40 Times Hillary Clinton Told the FBI She Couldn’t Remember Something

 

All of the below quotes are taken verbatim from the FBI notes of their interview of Hillary Clinton released this Friday:
1.

“Clinton could not recall when she first received her security clearance and if she carried it with her to State via reciprocity from her time in the Senate.”

2.

“Clinton could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information.”

3.

“Clinton was aware she was an Original Classification Authority (OCA) at State. Clinton could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by State.”

4.

“Clinton recalled being briefed on special access program (SAP) information but could not recall any specific briefing on how to handle information associated with SAP’s.”

5.

“Clinton was certain she signed an agreement memorializing her access to SAP material, but she could not recall specific detail.”

6.

“Clinton could not recall a specific process for nominating a target for a drone strike and recalled much debate pertaining to the concurrence process.”

7.

“When Clinton’s BlackBerry malfunctioned, her aides would assist in obtaining a new BlackBerry. After moving to the new device, her old SIM card was disposed of by her aides. Clinton did not recall how any data stored on the device was destroyed.”

8.

“While on international travel, Clinton never suspected her BlackBerry was tampered with, nor did she ever lose a BlackBerry while traveling. There were a few occasions where Clinton staff was provided with the secure cell phone, the Clinton did not recall the circumstances or frequency with which this event occurred.”

9.

“Clinton requested a secure BlackBerry while at State, but could not recall why they were unable to provide one.”

10.

“Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system.”

11.

“Clinton did not recall her specific conversations regarding the creation of the clintonemail.com domain, but around January 2009, directed aides to create the email account.”

12.

“Clinton did not recall receiving guidance from State regarding email policies outlined in the Foreign Affairs Manual.”

13.

“Some aides had access to Clinton’s BlackBerry and email accounts, but she could not recall specifically who had access.”

14, 15.

“Additionally Clinton did not recall any specific routine for deleting emails from her account while Secretary of State, nor did she recall ever receiving any messages indicating her account was reaching a storage limit.

16.

“Huma Abedin also had an account on clintonemail.com because she frequently assisted client in with personal matters. Clinton did not recall any other individuals being offered an account on clintonemail.com.”

17.

“After reviewing an email dated June 4, 2011 with the subject line ‘RE: Google email hacking and woeful state of civilian technology,’ Clinton stated she did not recall the compromise of State employees’ Gmail accounts.”

18, 19.

“After reviewing a State communication dated June 28, 2011 with the subject line ‘Securing Personal Email Accounts,’ Clinton stated all cables of a certain policy nature went out under her name and she did not recall the specific cable. Additionally, Clinton did not recall this cable correlating with Brian Pagliano upgrading the clintonemail.com server.”

20.

“When Clinton had technical issues with her server, she contacted [Justin Cooper]. She could not recall ever contacting Pagliano for technical support.”

21.

“She did not recall using an iPad mini until after her tenure as Secretary of State and has never used a MacBook or other computer to access her email.”

22.

“After reviewing an email dated October 13, 2012 with the subject line ‘This am Green on Blue,’ Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

23.

“After reviewing an email dated [REDACTED] with subject line [REDACTED], Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

[Editor’s note: that exact phrase appears several time on this list. Each time is a separate instance.]
24.

“After reviewing an email dated [REDACTED] with subject line [REDACTED], Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

25.

“Clinton did not recall [Jacob Sullivan] using his Google email account for official business and could not say why it was used in this instance.”

26.

“After reviewing an email dated [REDACTED] with subject line [REDACTED], Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

27.

“Clinton did not recall a State policy on confirming classified information and media reports.”

28.

“After reviewing an email dated August 25, 2010, with subject line ‘FW: New York Times article on Salehi,’ Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

29.

“After reviewing email dated [REDACTED] with subject line [REDACTED], Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

30.

“After reviewing an email dated December 27, 2011, with the subject line ‘FW: SBU,’ Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

31.

“After receiving an email dated [REDACTED] with subject line [REDACTED] Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

32.

“After reviewing an email dated June 17, 2011, subject line [REDACTED], Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

33.

“Clinton had no recollection of actually receiving a ‘non-paper’ or a secure fax and this instance.”

34.

“[REDACTED] talking points are typically classified, but Clinton did not recall in this instance.”

35.

“After reviewing an email dated April 9, 2012, with subject line ‘Call to President Banda,’ Clinton stated she did not remember the email specifically.”

36.

“In December of 2012, Clinton suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot. Based on her doctor’s advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received.”

37.

“After reviewing an email dated December 11, 2012 with the subject line ‘FW: Significant FOIA Request,’ Clinton stated she did not recall the specific request and was not aware of receiving any FOIA requests for information related to her email during her tenure as Secretary of State.”

38.

“Clinton did not recall being read-out of her clearance or any SAP’s by State personnel.”

39.

“Clinton’s email address was publicly disclosed in March 2013 when Sydney Blumenthal‘s email account was compromised. As a result Clinton was advised to change her email address and did so, but she did not recall specifically who made this recommendation.”

40.

“Clinton believed [REDACTED] was her primary BlackBerry phone number and she did not recall using a flip phone during her tenure at State, only during her service in the Senate.”

Unfortunately for him, it seems to be that the "Undisclosed PRN Staff Member,"  "The "Oh Shit" Moment: Hillary Wiped Her Server With BleachBit Despite Subpoena") who had the infamous "oh shit moment" and admitted to deleting Hillary's emails even though he was aware of a federal subpoena, is the only person around Hillary who isn't suffering from a severe case of amnesia.  Poor guy, sanity is a curse.

BULLET POINTS OF TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION POLICY.. PERFECT!!

TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION POLICY.. PERFECT!!

GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump spoke in Phoenix to lay out his immigration policies in front of thousands of people at

The Phoenix Convention center which is packed. Standing room only!

Meanwhile Hillary spoke to 20 people at the American Legion under dimmed lights to hide the sparse crowd...and instead talking about her policies... whined about Donald Trump.



 
While his speech reinforced ideas he has promoted in the past, such as his signature proposal to build a border wall at Mexico's expense, he enumerated his ideas in a 10-point plan.

That plan, he said, "if rigorously followed and enforced, will accomplish more in a matter of months than our politicians have accomplished on this issue in the last 50 years."

Point One: The Wall

Presidential candidate Donald Trump gestures as he says there will be zero tolerance for criminal illegal immigrants as he lays out his immigration plan during his rally at the Phoenix Convention Center Wednesday, Aug. 31, 2016 in Phoenix, Ariz.   

 

“We will build a great wall along the southern border," Trump said.
“And Mexico will pay for the wall. They don’t know it yet, but they’re going to pay for the wall. Great people and great leaders, but they’re going to pay for the wall."
Trump said he would build a wall that was tall, impenetrable and beautiful.
“We will use the best technology,” he said, “including above and below-ground sensors, towers, aerial surveillance, to supplement the wall.”
Trump said he believed Mexico would help with his plan that he said would stop criminal cartels.
“Especially after meeting with their wonderful, wonderful president today,” Trump said, “they want to solve this problem along with us, and I’m sure they will.”

Point Two: End 'Catch and Release'

Trump said he would require any immigrants caught committing crimes be held until deportation, rather than being released to await hearings.
"Anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are moved out of our country," Trump said, "and back to the country from which they came."
Trump also said that deported immigrants will not be dropped at border towns, but placed deep within their countries of origin.
"We will take them great distances," Trump said.

Point Three: Zero tolerance for criminal aliens

Trump said that according to "federal data," there were approximately 2 million "criminal aliens" in the United States.

Donald Trump and Arizona

He said there would be an operation to remove those individuals from the country. It would be a joint operation among federal and local law enforcement, he said.
"Police and law enforcement, they know who these people are," he said. "They live with these people. They get mocked by these people."
Trump said the roundup would be quick. “Day one, my first hour in office, those people are gone,” Trump said. “And you can call it deported if you want. …You can call it whatever the hell you want. They’re gone.”
Trump said any illegal immigrant arrested “for any crime whatsoever" would be placed in removal proceedings.
He said he would restore programs, namely Secure Communities and 287(g), that deputized police officers to act in a limited capacity as immigration agents.
He also said he would triple the number of immigration offices.
He said his deportation task force would stop immigrants from evading justice. “Just like Hillary Clinton has evaded justice,” Trump said. “Maybe they’ll be able to deport her.”

Point Four: Block funding for 'sanctuary cities'

Trump said he would end federal funding for any “sanctuary cities,” those places that he said don’t cooperate with federal agencies on enforcing immigration laws.
"They won't receive taxpayer dollars," he said.

Point Five: Cancel Obama executive orders on immigration

Trump said he would end deferred-action programs put in place through executive orders by President Barack Obama. Trump called those programs unconstitutional.

One program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA, remains in place. Another that would have applied to parents of those immigrants was stopped by federal courts.
Trump decried those programs as amnesty. "And how about all the millions who are waiting in line going through the process legally?" he said. "So unfair."

Point Six: Suspend visas from certain countries with inadequate screenings

Trump said he would stop issuing visas to any countries "where adequate screening cannot occur."
Trump said those nations would include Syria and Libya.
Part of that plan, he said, would involve “extreme vetting.” He said that would include ideological tests where applicants would be asked their attitudes toward women and gay people and whether they adhered to “radical Islam.”
“Very, very few will slip through the cracks,” he said. “Hopefully none.”

Point Seven: Ensure countries take back immigrants the United States deports

Trump said there were countries that refuse to accept immigrants the country wishes to remove.

Courts have ruled that those immigrants must be released into the United States, Trump said.
Trump cited a Boston Globe report that said 13,000 immigrants, from 2008 to 2014, were released into U.S. cities because their home countries would not take them.

Point Eight: Complete the biometric entry-exit visa tracking system

Trump said that people who overstay their visas "pose a substantial threat to our national security."
He said people issued a temporary visa must leave when that visa has expired.
"We must send a message that visa expiration dates will be strongly enforced," he said.

Point Nine: Turn off the jobs and benefits magnet

Trump said he would expand use of the employment-verification system, E-Verify. He would also stop what he said was the issuance of benefits like food stamps to people in the country illegally.

Point Ten: Reform legal immigration

Trump said he would reform the immigration system to “serve the best interests of workers.”
Trump said he would bring jobs back to the United States and punish companies that tried to move operations to other countries. “There will be consequences,” he said.
Trump said he would use what he called a “peace dividend” resulting from his program to rebuild the country’s inner cities.
Trump said those currently in the country illegally would have “one route” to legal status: “to return home and apply for re-entry like everybody else" under the rules of his new system.
He said that several years from now, after his plan would be in place and illegal immigration had been stopped, "then and only then will we be in a position to consider the appropriate disposition of those individuals who remain."


Please be aware Patriots.. that there will be massive Voter Fraud. It will be done many fronts

1. Illegals will vote in States with no voter ID
2. Non Residents of States will drive to States and vote more than once
3. The Electronic Voting machines will alter your votes
4. Absentee ballots that are counted by elections officials will be tampered with and Trump votes will be shredded
5. Military Overseas votes will be delayed and tampered with so it skews for Clinton
6. Voter Intimidation will happen.

IN THIS ELECTION THEY ARE PULLING OUT ALL THE STOPS!

So You think The Electronic Voting machines cannot be hacked? Watch this and know that America is about to be stolen

This should piss you off enough to vote in MASSIVE NUMBERS FOR TRUMP.. to offset the MASSIVE FRAUD THEY WILL PERPETRATE!

THE OLIGARCHS DO NOT WANT TRUMP TO WIN... PERIOD! THEY ARE SETTING UP BOGUS POLL NUMBERS ETC ETC TO OFFSET THE ULTIMATE FRAUD THAT IS IN THE WORKS...

UNLESS.. UNLESS WE VOTE IN MASSIVE NUMBERS!! WE LOSE AMERICA!! IT IS ALREADY RIGGED.. I HAVE BLOGGED ABOUT THE VOTING MACHINE COMPANIES OWNED BY GEORGE SORROS AND WARREN BUFFET!
Google Scytel and Diebold voting machine fraud!

This is the hack that proved America's elections can be stolen using a few lines of computer code. The 'Hursti Hack' in this video is an excerpt from the feature length Emmy nominated documentary 'Hacking Democracy'. The hack of the Diebold voting system in Leon County, Florida, is real. It was verified by computer scientists at UC Berkeley. 

YOU CAN WATCH THE FULL HD MOVIE ON VIMEO at: http://bit.ly/2baClg4
On iTunes at: http://apple.co/2bpiJnt

HACKING DEMOCRACY -
Directed by Simon Ardizzone and Russell Michaels
The disturbingly shocking HBO documentary HACKING DEMOCRACY bravely tangles with our nation’s ills at the heart of democracy. The film the Diebold corporation doesn’t want you to see, this revelatory journey follows tenacious Seattle grandmother Bev Harris and her band of extraordinary citizen-activists as they set out to ask one simple question: How does America count its votes? From Florida and California to Ohio and Washington State, filmmakers Simon Ardizzone, Russell Michaels and Robert Cohen starkly reveal a broken system riddled with secrecy, incompetent election officials, and electronic voting machines that can be programmed to steal elections. Equipped only with a powerful sense of righteous outrage, the activists take on voting machine industry, exposing alarming security holes in America’s trusted voting machines. They even go dumpster diving at a county election official’s office in Florida, uncovering incendiary evidence of miscounted votes. But proving our votes can be stolen without a trace culminates in a duel between Diebold voting machines and a computer hacker from Finland – with America’s democracy at stake.
'Hacking Democracy' was nominated for an Emmy award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism.
"Disturbing stuff. . . It's not shocked-shocked you feel watching this; it's genuine shock.' - Even the The New York Slimes reports
“It is hard to imagine a documentary that is more important to the civic life of the nation — let alone one that is so compelling and ultimately moving" - Baltimore Sun
After we filmed the 'Hursti Hack' California's Secretary of State ordered an investigation. The best computer scientists at UC Berkeley analysed the Diebold voting machines' computer source code.
The UC Berkeley Report can be found here: https://www.supportthevoter.gov/files...
Page 2 of the report states: "Harri Hursti's attack does work. Mr. Hursti's attack on the AV-OS is definitely real. He was indeed able to change the election results by doing nothing more than modifying the contents of a memory card. He needed no passwords, no
cryptographic keys, and no access to any other part of the voting system, including the GEMS election management server."
We hope that as many people as possible will vote because the bigger the turnout the harder it is for someone to rig the total national results.
PATRIOTIC AMERICA WAKE UP!!

IF HILLARY IS INCAPACITATED... THIS MAN IS NEXT IN LINE TO BE PRESIDENT! Elections have consequences!

THIS IS MUSLIM LOVER TIM KAINE HILLARY CLINTON’S VP. NOW YOU KNOW WHY HE WAS CHOSEN!

John Gaultier·Tuesday, August 30, 2016

IF HILLARY IS INCAPACITATED... THIS MAN IS NEXT IN LINE TO BE PRESIDENT!  

 Elections have consequences! 

 

Tim Kaine’s Islamist Ties Click on links for verification of facts!

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s newly-announced running mate, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, has a history of embracing Islamists. He appointed a Hamas supporter to a state immigration commission; spoke at a dinner honoring a Muslim Brotherhood terror suspect; and received donations from well-known Islamist groups.

SPREAD THIS: Tim Kaine’s SHOCKING Muslim Brotherhood Connections Revealed

Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton might be feeling rather pleased with her selection of Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, but his disturbing connections to Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood are leaving the rest of American voters feeling nervous. Breitbart News reported that in 2007, Kaine, then-governor of Virginia, appointed Muslim American Society President Esam Omeish, supporter of the terrorist group Hamas, to the state’s Immigration Commission. At least one Muslim organization against Islamism, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, criticized Kaine’s decision. In 2008, federal prosecutors alleged in court documents that MAS was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.”

Omeish’s website indicates he was president of the National Muslim Students Association, which was was created by Muslim Brotherhood members at the University of Illinois. In addition, Kaine served for two years on the national board of the Islamic Society of North America, a group identified as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. On Sept. 25, 2011, Kaine spoke at an event that presented an activist named Jamal Barzinji with a Lifetime Achievement Award. The event was organized by the New Dominion PAC, an Arab American political action committee based in northern Virginia.

The Global Muslim Brotherhood Watch describes Barzinji as a “founding father of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.” The New Dominion PAC donated $43,050 to Kaine’s gubernatorial campaign between 2003 and 2005, Breitbart reported. It also has strong ties to the Democratic Party in Virginia, with nearly $257,000 in donations going toward various projects. Other donors to Kaine’s campaigns include Islamic Society of North America and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. 

 

It looks like Clinton has chosen a running mate with as many disturbing Islamist connections as she has. Kaine puts as much value in the vetting process as President Barack Obama does (which isn’t much) and doesn’t seem to mind taking money from organizations linked to terrorism. According to many in the mainstream media, Clinton chose Kaine because he somehow added strength to her campaign’s national security credentials. 

 

His Islamic ties are just as shady as Clinton and Obama’s — and they should have every American worried about what kind of leadership they would bring the country. H/T Red Flag News Share this story to let everyone know about Kaine’s dangerous ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. 

 

ANOTHER BREAKING STORY!! Appointing a Muslim Brotherhood Front Leader Who Supports Hamas In 2007, Kaine was the Governor of Virginia and, of all people, chose Muslim American Society (MAS) President Esam Omeish to the state’s Immigration Commission. A Muslim organization against Islamism criticized the appointment and reckless lack of vetting. Federal prosecutors said in a 2008 court filing that MAS was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” A Chicago Tribune investigation in 2004 confirmed it, as well as MAS’ crafty use of deceptive semantics to appear moderate. Convicted terrorist and admitted U.S. Muslim Brotherhood member Abdurrahman Alamoudi testified in 2012, “Everyone knows that MAS is the Muslim Brotherhood.” Read our fully-documented profile of MAS here. According to Omeish’s website, he was also President of the National Muslim Students Association (click there to read our profile about its Muslim Brotherhood origins) and served for two years on the national board of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which the Justice Department also labeled as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-financing trial. His website says he was Vice President of Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a radical mosque known for its history of terror ties including having future Al-Qaeda operative Anwar Al-Awlaki as its imam and being frequented by two of the 9/11 hijackers and the perpetrator of the Fort Hood shooting. Omeish’s website says he remains a board member. It says he was chairman of the board of Islamic American University, which had Hamas financier and Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef Al-Qaradawi as chairman of its board until at least 2006. Omeish was also chairman of the board for the Islamic Center of Passaic County, a New Jersey mosque with heavy terrorist ties and an imam that the Department of Homeland Security wants to deport for having links to Hamas. Omeish directly expressed extremism before Kaine appointed him. He claimed the Brotherhood is “moderate” and admitted that he and MAS are influenced by the Islamist movement. In 2004, Omeish praised the Hamas spiritual leader as “our beloved Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.” Videotape from 2000 also surfaced where Omeish pledged to help Palestinians who understand “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land” (he denied this was an endorsement of violence). When a state delegate wrote a letter to then-Governor Kaine warning him that the MAS has “questionable origins,” a Kaine spokesperson said the charge was bigotry. Kaine obviously failed to do any kind of basic background checking in Omeish. Omeish resigned under heavy pressure and Kaine acknowledged that his statements “concerned” him. But, apparently, they didn’t concern him enough to actually learn about the Muslim Brotherhood network in his state and to take greater precautions in the future.  

 

Speaking at a Dinner Honoring Muslim Brotherhood Terror Suspect In September 2011, Kaine spoke at a “Candidates Night” dinner organized by the New Dominion PAC that presented a Lifetime Achievement Award for Jamal Barzinji, who the Global Muslim Brotherhood Watch describes as a “founding father of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.” He first came on to the FBI’s radar in 1987-1988 when an informant inside the Brotherhood identified Barzinji and his associated groups as being part of a network of Brotherhood fronts to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” The source said Barzinji and his colleagues were “organizing political support which involves influencing both public opinion in the United States as well as the United States Government” using “political action front groups with no traceable ties.” Barzinji had his home searched as part of a terrorism investigation in 2003. U.S. Customs Service Senior Special Agent David Kane said in a sworn affidavit that Barzinji and the network of entities he led were investigated because he “is not only closed associated with PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad]…but also with Hamas.” Counter-terrorism reporter Patrick Poole broke the story that Barzinji was nearly prosecuted but the Obama Justice Department dropped plans for indictment. Barzinji played a major role in nearly every Brotherhood front in the U.S. and was vice president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, which came under terrorism investigation also. Barzinji’s group was so close to Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Sami Al-Arian that IIIT’s President considered his group and Al-Arian’s to be essentially one entity. The indictment of Al-Arian and his colleagues says that they “would and did seek to obtain support from influential individuals, in the United States under the guise of promoting and protecting Arab rights” (emphasis mine). 

 

The quotes about Brotherhood operative Barzinji’s aspirations to use civil rights advocacy as a means to influence politicians are especially relevant when you consider that video from the event honoring Barzinji shows Kaine saying that it was his fourth time at the annual dinner and thanked his “friends” that organized it for helping him in his campaign for Lieutenant-Governor and Governor and asked them to help his Senate campaign. Islamist Financial Support Barzinji’s organization, IIIT, donated $10,000 in 2011 to the New Dominion PAC, the organization that held the event honoring Barzinji that Kaine spoke at. The Barzinji-tied New Dominion PAC donated $43,050 to Kaine’s gubernatorial campaign between 2003 and 2005. That figure doesn’t even include other political recipients that assisted Kaine’s campaign. The PAC has very strong ties to the Democratic Party in Virginia, with the Virginia Public Access Project tallying almost $257,000 in donations. This likely explains why Barzinji’s grandson served in Governor McAuliffe’s administration and then became the Obama Administration’s liaison to the Muslim-American community. The Middle East Forum’s Islamist Money in Politics database shows another $4,300 donated to Kaine’s Senate campaign in 2011-2012 by officials from Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Another $3,500 came from Hisham Al-Talib, a leader from Barzinji’s IIIT organization. It’s worth noting that Barzinji’s IIIT donated $3,500 to Esam Omeish’s 2009 campaign delegate campaign, tying together the cadre of Muslim Brotherhood-linked leaders who got into Kaine’s orbit. Conclusion Kaine has no excuse. If he has an Internet connection, then he and his staff should have known about their backgrounds. They were either extremely careless (something Kaine would have in common with the top of the ticket) or knew and looked the other way in the hopes of earning donations and votes. Clinton’s choice of Kaine is widely seen as a way of strengthening her campaign’s national security credentials. How can you trust a candidate on national security who appoints a Hamas supporter to their immigration commission and speaks at a dinner honoring a Muslim Brotherhood terror suspect? And how can you trust a candidate who picks such a person as their “strong on national security” running mate?

Minnesota Born Tim Kaine Shares Similar Islamist Ties To Keith Ellison

Before he was named Hillary Clinton’s running mate for the Democratic presidential ticket, Tim Kaine was born in St. Paul, became a governor and senator from Virginia and he also has a history of embracing Islamists. According to recent articles in Breitbart and The Clarion Project, Kaine had appointed a Hamas supporter to a state immigration commission when he was Governor of Virginia. Kaine also spoke at a dinner honoring a Muslim Brotherhood terror suspect and he received donations from well-known Islamist groups. During Kaine’s tenure as Governor, he chose Muslim American Society (MAS) President Esam Omeish to the state’s Immigration Commission. This appointment was criticized by The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) a Muslim organization against Islamism and said that Omeish’s appointment was a reckless lack of vetting. According to it’s website, the AIFD’s mission is to advocate for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state. In a 2007 letter written by AIFD’s founder Dr. M. Zudhi Jasser, it read, “Many of Dr. Omeish’s statements and activities in the past have in fact been a manifestation of political Islam and his attempt to use the Muslim community as a tool in a specific Islamist political agenda. This not only violates the core principles of the separation of religion and politics, which is a cornerstone of our nation, but is in fact the main mechanism of influence of transnational Islamism. His public advocacy of ‘jihad’ in the Middle East by co-religionists implicitly via terrorist organizations like Hezbullah or HAMAS against Israel, an ally of the United States, should certainly highlight the toxicity of Islamism as a political ideology– regardless of the ideological jujitsu one uses to define ‘jihad’. This becomes especially concerning in an individual appointed to contribute to a more sound immigration policy because it begs the question: Will this appointee’s point of view be one primarily of American nationalism and security first, or will it be one of transnational global Islamism?” In a 2008 court filing, federal prosecutors said that MAS was “founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” A 2004 Chicago Tribune investigation confirmed this, as well as MAS’ use of deception to appear moderate. Abdurrahman Alamoudi, a convicted terrorist and admitted U.S. Muslim Brotherhood member testified in 2012, “Everyone knows that MAS is the Muslim Brotherhood.” Omeish’s website lists a resume of his Muslim Brotherhood affiliations including President of the National Muslim Students Association (MSA) and serving on the national board of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The Justice Department labeled ISNA a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-financing trial. Omeish was also the vice president of Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, which is a radical mosque with a history of terrorist ties. Al-Qaeda operative Anwar Al-Awlaki served as its imam and the mosque was frequented by two of the 9/11 hijackers as well as Nidal Hassan, who was responsible for the Fort Hood shootings. In addition, Omeish was chairman of the board for both the Islamic American University and The Islamic Center of Passaic County. Yousef Al-Qaradawi, a Hamas financier and Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader was chairman of the board of the Islamic American University. The Islamic Center of Passaic County is a New Jersey mosque also with terrorist ties. The Department of Homeland Security wanted to deport the imam at this particular mosque for having links to Hamas. Prior to being appointed by Tim Kaine to the Virginia’s Immigration Commission, Omeish directly expressed extremism and claimed the Muslim Brotherhood is “moderate” and admitted that he and MAS are influenced by the Islamic movement. A videotape from 2000 surfaced where Omeish pledged to help Palestinians who understand “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.” Afterwards, he denied this was an endorsement of violence. When a state delegate, in a written letter to then Governor Kaine, warned the governor that MAS had “questionable origins,” a spokesperson for Kaine said the charge was bigotry. Eventually, Omeish resigned his position on the state immigration commission under much pressure. Kaine acknowledged that Omeish’s statements “concerned him” but obviously didn’t concern him enough to learn about Omeish’s Muslim Brotherhood ties and to properly vet him before appointing him to the commission. In an interesting tie to Minnesota politics, Omeish has donated approximately $4,950 to Keith Ellison’s congressional campaign from 2006 through 2015, according to the website Islamist Watch, “which illuminates a little-explored facet of Islamist political influence in the United States.” The website goes on to say that by tracking such donations, Islamist Watch seeks to “highlight this hidden concern and hold politicians accountable for accepting funds from individuals, who in the words of the Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum, understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within.” In September 2011, Kaine was a speaker at a “Candidates Night” dinner which was sponsored by the New Dominion PAC that presented a Lifetime Achievement Award to Jamal Barzinji, who is described as a “founding father of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood” by the Global Muslim Brotherhood Watch. According to an article in Clarionproject.org, Barzinji first came to the FBI’s attention in 1987-1988 when an informant inside the Muslim Brotherhood identified Barzinji and his associated groups as being a part of a network of Brotherhood fronts to “institute the Islamic Revolution in the United States.” The source said that Barzinji and his groups were “organizing political support which involves influencing both public opinion in the United States as well as the United States Government using political action front groups with no traceable ties.” In 2003, Barzinji’s home was searched as part of a terrorism investigation. A U.S. Custom’s Service Senior Special Agent said in a sworn affidavit that Barzinji and the network of entities he led were investigated because he is not only closely associated with Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), but also with Hamas. Barzinji was nearly prosecuted, however the Obama justice department dropped plans for indictment. Barzinji has played a major role in nearly every Brotherhood front in the United States and was vice president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), which was also being investigated for terrorist ties. The group was essentially considered one entity with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad because of Barzinji’s close ties to the PIJ’s operative Sami Al-Arian. Al-Arian and his colleagues “would and did seek to obtain support from influential individuals, in the United States under the guise of promoting and protecting Arab rights.” Barzinji’s use of civil rights advocacy as a means to influence elected officials are glaring when you consider a video from the event that honored Barzinji shows Kaine telling the audience that it was his fourth time at the annual dinner. Kaine thanked his “friends” for helping him in his campaign for lieutenant-governor and governor and he asked them to help his senate campaign. Clarionproject.com reports that Barzinji’s IIIT donated $10,000 in 2011 to the New Dominion PAC, the organization that held the event honoring Barzinji at which Kaine spoke. The Barzinji-tied New Dominion PAC donated $43,050 to Kaine’s gubernatorial campaign between 2003 and 2005. That figure doesn’t even include other political recipients that assisted Kaine’s campaign. (Barzinji also donated $2,750 to Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison from 2008 to 2013, according to Islamist-Watch.org.) The New Dominion PAC has extremely strong ties to the Democratic Party in Virginia, with the Virginia Public Access Project raking in almost $257,000 in donations. Interestingly, Barzinji’s grandson served in Governor McAuliffe’s administration and then became the Obama Administration’s liaison to the Muslim-American community. Tim Kaine and his ties to Esam Omeish and Jamal Barzinji are either extremely careless or he knew about their backgrounds and looked the other way in the hopes of earning more donations and votes. The choice of Tim Kaine as Hillary Clinton’s vice president was seen as a way to boost her campaign’s national security experience, yet she is asking America to trust a candidate with national security expertise who appoints a Hamas supporter to an immigration commission and attends and speaks at dinners that honor a Muslim Brotherhood terror suspect.

THE DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN MUST USE THE OLD FASHIONED METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTED LEAFLETS TO REACH THE DISAFFECTED VOTER

 THE DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN MUST USE THE OLD FASHIONED METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTED LEAFLETS TO REACH THE DISAFFECTED VOTER WHO DOES NOT TRADITIONALLY VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICANS AND EXPLAIN DONALD TRUMP'S POSITIONS.

The opposition is very good at it but they do not have the numbers we do. LETS MOBILIZE!!

 

LEAFLET CAMPAIGNS HAVE BEEN USED IN OUR COUNTRY IN THE PAST TO BYPASS THE BIASED MEDIA!
See pic below

 

ITS BEING DONE ALL AROUND THE WORLD..

Shown below are the facts about how people who vote get their information.  
The U.S. turnout in the 2012 presidential election which was 53.6%, based on 129.1 million votes cast and an estimated voting-age population of just under 241 million people.
I realize that on social media that we the “political preachers” are preaching to the political choir of our kind of people! Some choirs are bigger than others!
To win we have to start preaching in other people's churches ( metaphorical! ) The public square. Main Street America.
We have to use fliers and leaflets that are printed on copy machines across the country .. in offices we own or work at.. (so there is no extra cost to the Trump Campaign)
Then we must be bold and march out across the country and hand them out at flea markets, supermarkets, churches, colleges, train stations, subway stations, malls anywhere where cross sections of people move through or congregate!
We the Trump Army must be ready to mobilize in cities across the USA.. and change the minds of those who do not hear the real message.
WE MUST NEUTRALIZE THE LEFTIST PRO HILLARY MEDIA THAT IS TRYING TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE.
WE ASK THE DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN TO JUST PROVIDE THE WEEKLY OR DAILY MESSAGE ON A ONE PAGE PDF SO WE CAN PRINT AND DISSEMINATE THE MESSAGE ACROSS AMERICA.
SHARE THIS CALL. I HAVE REACHED OUT TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND SO SHOULD YOU!

********************************************************************************

About nine-in-ten Americans learn about the election in a given week, but they are divided over the most helpful type of source

By Jeffrey Gottfried, Michael Barthel, Elisa Shearer and Amy Mitchell

News and information about the contentious 2016 presidential election is permeating the American public, according to a new survey of 3,760 U.S. adults by Pew Research Center. About nine-in-ten U.S. adults (91%) learned about the election in the past week from at least one of 11 types of sources asked about, ranging from television to digital to radio to print.

This is true even among younger Americans, as 83% of 18- to 29-year-olds report learning about the presidential election from at least one stream of information, according to the survey conducted Jan. 12-27, 2016, using Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel.

This high level of learning about the 2016 presidential candidates and campaigns is consistent with recent research that has shown strong interest in this election, even more so than at the same point in the previous two presidential elections.¹

Americans are divided, though, in the type of sources they find most helpful for that news and information.

When asked if they got news and information about the election from 11 different source types, and then asked which they found most helpful, Americans were split: None of the source types asked about in the survey was deemed most helpful by more than a quarter of U.S. adults.

At the top of the list is cable news, named as most helpful by 24% of those who learned about the election in the past week. That is at least 10 percentage points higher than any other source type. Our past research indicates though, that the 24% is likely divided ideologically in the specific network they watch and trust.

After cable, five source types are named as most helpful by between 10% and 14% of those who got news about the election: Local TV and social networking sites, each at 14%, news websites and apps at 13%, news radio at 11% and national nightly network television news at 10%.

In the bottom tier are five source types named by no more than 3% of Americans who learned about the election. This includes print versions of both local and national newspapers, named by 3% and 2% respectively. It also includes late night comedy shows (3%) as well as the websites, apps or emails of the candidates or campaigns (1%) and of issue-based groups (2%).

As a platform, television and the Web – and even radio to a lesser degree – strongly appeal to certain parts of the public, while print sits squarely at the bottom. As many people name late night comedy shows as most helpful as do a print newspaper.

Age, education level and political party account for some of the differences here. Cable television’s overall popularity is pronounced among those who are 65 and older and also among Republicans, while social media is the clear favorite among the youngest age group, 18- to 29-year-olds.

About four-in-ten (43%) of those 65 or older who learned about the election in the past week say cable television news is most helpful, 26 percentage points higher than any other source type and much higher than any other age cohort. In fact, only 12% of 18- to 29-year-olds who learned about the election say that cable news is the most helpful.

Instead, about a third (35%) of 18- to 29-year-olds name a social networking site as their most helpful source type for learning about the presidential election in the past week. This is about twice that of the next nearest type – news websites and apps (18%), another digital stream of information. Social media drops off sharply for older age groups, with 15% of 30 to 49-year-olds, 5% of 50 to 64-year-olds, and just 1% of those 65 years and older saying the same. This is consistent with our previous research, which has shown that social media is the most prominent way that Millennials get political news, more so than any other generation.

The data also reveal the weight network television news and local TV news still carry among those 50 or older. Radio, though, shows consistent appeal across most age groups. Between 11% and 13% of those ages 18-29, 30-49 and 50-64 name radio as most helpful (a figure that falls to 5% among those 65+).

The area of difference that stands out most prominently along party lines is cable news. Republicans are almost twice as likely to say cable news is the most helpful than are Democrats (34% vs. 19%, and 24% among independents). Democrats are slightly more likely to name local TV news, but the gap is much smaller (18%, compared with 12% for both Republicans and independents).

Finally, those with a college degree are more likely than those with some college and those with a high school diploma or less to name radio, national papers in print, and news websites or apps as the most helpful type of source. Those who do not have a college degree are tied more closely to a preference for cable and local TV news.

Beyond what is most helpful, the majority of the public learns about the election from several types of sources

Even as U.S. adults find one type of source most helpful, the majority still get election news in a given week from multiple different source types. Indeed, of those who learned about the presidential election in the past week, just 9% learned from just one stream of information. In fact, almost half (45%) learned from five or more information streams.

Television sources again rise to the top. About three-quarters of U.S. adults (78%) learned about the election from at least one of the four TV-based source types asked about. Local TV and cable news reach the greatest percentages overall (57% and 54% respectively).

This was followed not by another traditional platform, but instead by digital. About two-thirds (65%) of U.S. adults learned about the 2016 election in the past week from digital source types, which includes social networking sites and news websites, as well as digital communication from issue-based groups and the candidates.

Coming in last: print versions of newspapers. Only about one-in-three (36%) U.S. adults learned about the campaign in the past week from either a local or national newspaper in print. The survey specifically asked about the print version of the paper and does not include the representation of newspapers in the digital space (48% of Americans got election news and information from news websites or apps in past week). This is an important distinction, as newspaper properties make up three of the top 10 digital news entities, according to comScore data compiled for our annual State of the News Media report. But it does speak to the precipitous decline of print as a mode of news – even as print-only consumers remain a key part of newspapers’ audiences.

In fact, more Americans cite radio as a source of election information in the past week (44%) than cite a print newspaper. And U.S. adults are roughly as likely to learn about the presidential election from an issue-based group’s website, app, or email (23%) or from late night comedy shows (25%) as from a national print newspaper (23%). And they are only slightly more likely to learn from their local print paper (29%).

While few Americans say issue-based groups or the campaigns themselves are most helpful, their presence as a direct source of information in the digital space comes through in these findings. At least two-in-ten U.S. adults learn about the presidential election directly from the websites, apps or emails of campaign and issue-based groups.

Level of usage differed notably by political party identification for late night comedy shows. They are a source for three-in-ten Democrats, but only 16% of Republicans and a quarter of independents. About a third of those ages 18-29 (34%) learned about the campaigns and candidates from late night comedy shows, higher than any other age group.

Another way to understand the dynamics of these different types of sources is by examining the portion of adults who learn from a type of source who also find that source most helpful. While local and cable TV news are cited at roughly the same rates overall, for example, cable news is far more likely to be named as the most helpful source. About four-in-ten (41%) U.S. adults who say they learned about the election from cable TV news in the past week name it as the most helpful type of source, while this is true of only 22% of those who got news about the presidential election from local TV. Local TV news, then, may be a common, but not crucial source for viewers. (This mirrors past findings that local TV news is the single most common source of political information in the U.S.)

Sharing about the election on social networking sites is much less common than getting news there

As we have seen in the past, getting news from social media is far more common than sharing news on social media. About half (51%) of social networking users learned about the presidential election from these sites. But only about one-in-five social networking users (18%) actually share election-related information on social media, whether by posting about it or by replying to or commenting on a post. That amounts to 15% of U.S. adults overall.

Those who learn from more source types are also more likely to share news and information, as are those for whom social media was most helpful for learning about the election. Almost three-in-ten of social media users who learn from 5 or more source types share something related to the presidential election on social media (29%), compared with no more than 12% of those who learned from fewer source types. And a third of those who name social media as their most helpful source (33%) share news and information about the election on these sites. Comparatively, this is true of only 20% of those who name cable news as their most helpful source type and a mere 8% who name local TV news.

Finally, while those with higher incomes are more likely to use social networking sites in general, it is lower income users who are more likely to share election-related content: About 20% of social networking users with household incomes under $75,000, compared with 14% of those with incomes of $75,000 or more.

Though it is common to learn about the election on at least one social networking site, Facebook is far and away the site where that is most likely to happen. This is not surprising, given that Facebook is the social networking site used by the most Americans, and is an increasingly common news destination, especially for Millennials. As we have seen before, there is also evidence that getting news from multiple social networking platforms is common: 41% of those who learn about the election on social media get election information from more than one social networking site.

Likely primary voters tend to have wider mix of source types

There are a number of ways that the election news habits of Americans who are most likely to participate in the upcoming presidential primaries and caucuses stand apart from those who are less likely to participate.

Overall, those who say they are very likely to participate in their state’s primary or caucus are more likely to learn about the election from multiple source types. Half of those who said they are very likely to participate learned from five or more source types, compared with 40% of those who are less likely to participate.

Within this mix of information streams, there are also differences between the two groups in the source types deemed most helpful. While cable ranks first among both groups, those who are very likely to participate show somewhat greater tendency to name both cable (27% vs. 22%) and radio (12% vs. 9%) as most helpful. Conversely, they have a lower tendency to name local TV news (10% vs. 17%) and social media (11% vs. 16%) as most helpful than those who are less likely to participate in their state’s primary or caucus.

Even though those who say they are very likely to participate in their state’s primary or caucus are less likely to name social media as their most helpful source type, they seem to be more engaged in that space: 21% share information about the election on social media, through original posts or replies to content posted by others, compared with 15% of those less likely to participate.

Obama and Kerry Kickbacks from Iran exposed!

                       ARE WE THE PEOPLE SO DUMB ??
                         ARE THE MEDIA SO CORRUPT
          IS THE CONGRESS SO CASTRATED AND INEPT ?
                  HAS OUR COUNTRY BEEN CO_OPTED ??

                         THE ANSWER IS YES!

CAN WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?? YES..!!
START BY GETTING DONALD TRUMP ELECTED.
HE IS A FIREWALL AT BEST!


Here is Another brick in the wall...
Obama is Stonewalling on Details of the $1.7 Billion in Iransom Payoffs. I KNOW WHY.. I THINK YOU KNOW WHY! BUT THE LEFTY PRESS AND THE FOOLS IN CONGRESS PRETENDS THEY DO NOT KNOW WHY!!
LET ME EXPOSE IT ONCE AND FOR ALL.. THE WORK IS "KICK BACKS!" THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS IN ARAB COUNTRIES!
The structured transfers of $1.3 billion from a Treasury slush fund remain shrouded in mystery.
Confidentiality”? MY ASS!! BUT Yes, that’s the State Department’s story on why the Obama administration is stonewalling the American people regarding the president’s illegal and increasingly suspicious Iransom payoff. 

The administration refuses to divulge any further information about the $1.7 billion the president acknowledges paying the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. 

Grilled on Wednesday about how Obama managed to pay the final $1.3 billion installment — particularly given the president’s claim that it is not possible to send Tehran a check or wire-transfer — State Department spokesman Mark Toner decreed that the administration would continue “withholding this information” in order “to protect confidentiality.” Whose confidentiality? The mullahs’? That of the intermediaries the president used? Whose privacy takes precedence over our right to know how Obama funneled our money to our enemies? The closest thing to an answer we have to the latest round of questions comes courtesy of the perseverance of the investigative journalist Claudia Rosett. (You weren’t expecting the Republican Congress to be minding the purse, were you?) Recall that we have been asking about the $1.3 billion payment since the first revelations about this sordid affair. After all, if, as Obama and his toadies maintain, the payment is totally on the up and up — just a routine legal settlement involving Iran’s own money — then why won’t they answer basic questions about it? Why are such matters as the administration’s process in tapping a congressionally appropriated funding source for the settlement — a settlement Congress did not approve and seems to be in the dark about paying for — being treated as if they were state secrets so sensitive you’d need have a Clinton.mail account (or be a Russian hacker of a Clinton.mail account) to see them? 

Generally speaking, the State, Treasury, and Justice Departments cannot issue press releases fast enough to salute themselves over legal settlements that supposedly benefit taxpayers by billions of dollars — at least according to the same math that brought you all those Obamacare savings. How is it that, in what is purportedly a completely above-board legal case, we are not permitted to know how our own money was transferred to the jihadist plaintiff? With the administration taking the Fifth, it was left to Claudia to crawl through Leviathan’s catacombs. In her New York Sun report on Monday, we learned that she hit pay dirt: stumbling upon a bizarre string of 13 identical money transfers of $99,999,999.99 each — yes, all of them one cent less than $100 million — paid out of an obscure Treasury Department stash known as the “Judgment Fund.” The transfers were made — to whom, it is not said — on January 19, just two days after the administration announced it had reached the $1.7 billion settlement with Iran. They aggregate to just 13 cents shy of $1.3 billion, the same amount the State Department claims Iran was owed in “interest” from the $400 million that our government had been holding since the shah deposited it in a failed arms deal just prior to the Khomeini revolution. So, stacked atop of the pallets of $400 million in foreign cash that Obama arranged to shuttle from Geneva to Tehran as ransom (or, as the administration prefers, “leverage”) for the release of American hostages — via an unmarked cargo plane belonging to Iran Air, a terrorist arm of the mullahs’ terrorist coordinator, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps — we now have a second whopping money transfer that (a) violates federal criminal laws against providing things of value to Iran and (b) looks like it was conceived by Nicky Barnes. 

While “the most transparent administration in history” continues to insist that this transaction is completely legit, Claudia could not find the 13 transfers of $99,999,999.99 by searching for “Iran” listings in the judgment fund. Acknowledgment of payments to Iran is nowhere to be found. Instead, she happened upon this $1.3 billion (minus the 13 cents) by locating cases in which the State Department was a party. And with that, another intriguing wrinkle emerged: a 14th unexplained transfer by Treasury, on State’s behalf, in the amount of $10 million — bringing the total to $1.31 billion. How is it that, in what is purportedly a completely aboveboard legal case, we are not permitted to know how our own money was transferred to the jihadist plaintiff? 

Is that extra $10 million a sweetener for someone in this deal? Who knows . . . the administration won’t tell us. ;-) Ofcourse they wont.. WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK ITS FOR ?? OBAMA KERRY AND THE UNDERLINGS!! 

It won’t even confirm that the string of transfers was for Iran, though that appears undeniable: Not only does the amount fit; the administration has grudgingly conceded in response to inquiries from Representatives Ed Royce (R., Calif.) and Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) that it got the money to pay Iran from the judgment fund. You might think that members of Congress, the branch of government that is supposed to approve all spending by the federal government, would not have to ask where the executive branch got money to pay a government obligation. But in Obama’s eccentric interpretation of the Constitution, there are apparently special Iran clauses. So in this instance, lawmakers have to ask because this is not a bill they ever agreed to pay; and Obama had to try to sneak it by them because he knows that, had he asked for more piles of money — in addition to the tens of billions in sanctions relief — to bestow on an incorrigible jihadist enemy of the United States, Congress would have said “No.”
That’s where the judgment fund comes in. It would be better labeled the “slush fund.” As Claudia reports, Treasury portrays this fund as a “permanent, indefinite appropriation” available to pay legal judgments against federal agencies “where funds are not legally available to pay the award from the agency’s own appropriations.” Really? There is only one reason why funds would not be “legally available to pay . . . from an agency’s own appropriations”: namely, that Congress has not made an appropriation that gives the agency permission to pay the funds in question. In case you’re scoring, that is supposed to mean the agency does not pay. 

Could Congress appropriate a finite fund with respect to which it vests the executive branch with discretion to pay court judgments up to a certain amount without seeking legislative authorization? Sure it could. But a “permanent, indefinite appropriation”? No way. It is one thing to say a judgment fund should be “permanent” in the sense that litigation goes on every year and the government is bound to be on the losing end of some cases, so Congress should make an annual appropriation — just as it does for, say, FEMA, despite the absence of foreknowledge of what emergencies will arise. And it is one thing to say that particular pay-outs from this judgment fund are “indefinite” in the sense that Congress will not know when it passes the budget what specific judgment amounts will be during the coming year. But a fund cannot constitutionally be “permanent and indefinite” in the sense of being an all-purpose, limitless reservoir of money that empowers the president to pay anything to anyone simply by orchestrating a lawsuit and then “settling” it. 

The Constitution requires definite appropriations. That is a key limitation on executive power without which the Constitution would not have been adopted in the first place. And here, that’s not the half of it. Obama has not just orchestrated a king’s ransom — better, an ayatollah’s ransom — for the benefit of the Death to America regime in the absence of congressional authorization. He refuses to tell us how he transferred it to them. Why not a single transfer? Why structure it with 13 payments just under $100 million? And what is the other $10 million about? Is that related to this deal? 

Lets face it.. Obama and Kerry are crooks and they have got a secret Pay out. They do not want us to know .. Period...CAN WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?? YES..!!
START BY GETTING DONALD TRUMP ELECTED.
HE IS A FIREWALL AT BEST!