Hillary Clinton has been personally implicated in campaign finance law violations-and it’s all over a duck.

According to Sean Hannity:

“James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released its third video in the “Rigging The Election” series, an exposé they’ve described as a “multi-part series which exposes the dark secrets at the highest levels of the DNC and Clinton presidential campaign.”

In this third installment of the series, O’Keefe demonstrates DIRECT COLLUSION between the Clinton campaign and the non-profit organization Americans United For Change(AUFC)–a clear violation of campaign finance rules.

The video includes an admission by Democracy Parners chief Robert Creamer that his organization directly carried out a plan hatched by Hillary Clinton herself.

In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.”

It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.”

It was earlier this year when people wearing Donald Duck costumes started showing up at Donald Trump events all over the country. Brad Woodhouse is the president of Americans United for Change (AUFC) and he worked with Robert Creamer, Scott Foval, and DNC Rapid Response Coordinator Aaron Black to launch their “Donald Ducks” campaign.”

Breaking today, according to reports:

“Thanks to Wikileaks we have proof and a peak inside how and why Clinton’s campaign oversamples and sends info to media pollsters.

At first, the pollsters were wildly oversampling Democrats – however, they got called out in that mercilessly, so now they’ve switched to oversampling women and “degreed people” who tend to favor Hillary.

They do this to get the polling result they need to promote their narrative that Hillary is CRUSHING Trump and it’s HOPELESS for Trump.”

Obama’s Pentagon is a damn DISGRACE! Shameful and disgusting doesn’t even cover half of it…
Via the Los Angeles Times:
“Short of troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan a decade ago, the California National Guard enticed thousands of soldiers with bonuses of $15,000 or more to reenlist and go to war.
Now the Pentagon is demanding the money back.
Nearly 10,000 soldiers, many of whom served multiple combat tours, have been ordered to repay large enlistment bonuses — and slapped with interest charges, wage garnishments and tax liens if they refuse — after audits revealed widespread overpayments by the California Guard at the height of the wars last decade.
Investigations have determined that lack of oversight allowed for widespread fraud and mismanagement by California Guard officials under pressure to meet enlistment targets.
But soldiers say the military is reneging on 10-year-old agreements and imposing severe financial hardship on veterans whose only mistake was to accept bonuses offered when the Pentagon needed to fill the ranks.
“These bonuses were used to keep people in,” said Christopher Van Meter, a 42-year-old former Army captain and Iraq veteran from Manteca, Calif., who says he refinanced his home mortgage to repay $25,000 in reenlistment bonuses and $21,000 in student loan repayments that the Army says he should not have received. “People like me just got screwed.”
In Iraq, Van Meter was thrown from an armored vehicle turret — and later awarded a Purple Heart for his combat injuries — after the vehicle detonated a buried roadside bomb.
Susan Haley, a Los Angeles native and former Army master sergeant who deployed to Afghanistan in 2008, said she sends the Pentagon $650 a month — a quarter of her family’s income — to pay down $20,500 in bonuses that the Guard says were given to her improperly.
“I feel totally betrayed,” said Haley, 47, who served 26 years in the Army along with her husband and oldest son, a medic who lost a leg in combat in Afghanistan.
Haley, who now lives in Kempner, Texas, worries they may have to sell their house to repay the bonuses. “They’ll get their money, but I want those years back,” she said, referring to her six-year reenlistment.”

Lately, we’ve learned liberal radicals will stop at nothing to get their way.

Thanks to James O’Keefe’s hidden cameras, we learned Democrat officials hired protestors at the Trump’s Chicago rally to instigate violence, all in effort to bolster the narrative that Trump’s speeches insight violence and his supporters are every bad thing Hillary Clinton has ever claimed.

It worked, too.

The Chicago rally had to be canceled. Liberals were “shocked” and outraged. A media already hungry for a reason, took the event as a sign that it was time to condemn Trump. Even Republicans criticized the now-nominee’s rhetoric. And Hillary leapt on the opportunity to appear rational by comparison, which we now know was all part of a perfectly orchestrated plan.

It has me wondering which other plans the left has in the works to push their agenda.

What wouldn’t they do to promote their goals?

In particular, what would they be capable of in the name of environmentalism made unpopular by the larger dream for American energy independence? Because North Dakota’s DAPL situation seems to be a fit for the left’s manipulation tactics.

Here’s the story: The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) was approved, permitted, and started, and could be underway… if not for the interruption of illegal blocking of the construction site, and a bogus lawsuit.

Just as construction started, a group of Soros-funded Environmental Trial Lawyers at EarthJustice stepped in with their own perfectly sympathetic agitators: the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

EarthJustice paints a perfect picture of a tribe wronged by a big corporation.

In the lawsuit filed by the radical environmental group EarthJustice on behalf of the SRST claims that, “Neither [Dakota Access] nor the Corps ever consulted with the Tribe…or had invited their participation as the Tribe had repeatedly requested.” The Chairman of SRST, David Archambault, wrote in the New York Times last week that, “permits for the project were approved and construction began without meaningful consultation.”

That would seem very problematic. If it were true.

But it’s not. It’s seemingly nothing more than a play to the media.

The most basic look into the documents provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and state utility boards, as well as filings by the Corps of Engineers and Dakota Access in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia shows the SRST and environmental allies met with regulators multiple times, and filed over a hundred comments throughout state and federal review periods. Filings also show that Dakota Access made seven attempts to meet with the tribe directly but were rejected every time.

But I suppose that’s all a bit hard to fit on a counter-protest sign, so the media has no interest. They won’t print that the pipeline was approved by environmental bureaucracies of four states. They won’t report that it took negotiating with local and federal officials, environmentalists, and the Army Corp of engineers.

They’ll go instead with the simpler story. One that fits a narrative that they’ve already worked with the left to develop for years: corporations are evil, big oil hates the environment. And these poor victims are being wronged.

Just like they did with the violence at Trump’s Chicago rally. An investigation could’ve proved the scene was caused by paid instigators. But no one cared to look.

They fell hook-line-and sinker for the left’s perfect game: Make an accusation. Do everything you can to make the media believe that accusation to be true. Make the public believe it’s true. And you win?

But what about the truth?

Unfortunately with DAPL, it’s more than one rally at stake. This radical upset threatens the future of American energy, not to mention the implied consequences of our legal procedures succumbing to, basically, environmental terrorism.

Hopefully the courts processing the EarthJustice suit are more in touch with reality than the sensationalist media covering this case — and this election.


The Briefing, Vol. IV, Issue 43-

This week:

  • Dems still not showing they can take the House
  • Trump’s grim situation in polling
  • Trump needs a late game-changer. Will he get it?

House 2016

Since last week, Donald Trump’s polling has gotten somewhat worse, yet we still haven’t seen any new indications that Democrats have a reasonable shot at taking the House. A new media-sponsored poll was taken in yet another one of the supposedly competitive House districts that Republicans must defend, only to show the incumbent — Rep. Erik Paulsen, R-Minn., with an 11 point lead and hovering near the 50 percent mark. Note that in the same poll, the presidential ballot was tested, and Trump (in contrast to Paulsen) trails by 14 points, losing among both men and women within the district. This is the same kind of result that appears in many of the marginally competitive races Democrats would have to win in order to take over the House.

Of course, there is a serious dearth of House polling, as often happens in presidential election years. That could make it hard to see what’s happening beneath the surface. But the signs of serious down-ticket drag at the House level don’t seem to be coming together for Democrats just yet.

President 2016

Third Debate: Trump handed in what was arguably his best debate performance of the three — except for one answer he gave that polls quite negatively. Trump will probably accept the outcome of the election when it comes down, whatever it is. But by refusing, when asked, to promise in advance that he will do so, he harmed his own cause in two ways.

First, even if Trump succeeds in creating doubts about “rigged” election processes, this will only depress the vote among those he convinces. Given that those most likely to be convinced are his own base, it’s a self-destructive theme he has adopted within his campaign. Yes, it might provide him with an explanation of a loss after the fact that helps absolve himself of the blame, but if it means fewer of his voters think it worthwhile to turn out, then it clearly isn’t helping him.

Second, American voters very much like to see candidates concede when they lose. It’s part of the system to have the country come together for a brief time, so that everyone can go back to tearing at each other’s throats in a month or two. That’s why Trump’s answer to this question earns him scowls all across the ideological spectrum. Respondents in two different polls expressed 69 and 68 percent disapproval of Trump’s answer about the election results.

Given that Trump trails and needs to win over more undecided voters in order to take a lead over Clinton, this message isn’t going to help him win.

Trump vs. Ryan: Trump’s willingness to stick it to Republican leaders has been one of his selling points from the beginning.

So it wasn’t much of a surprise that when House Speaker Paul Ryan let word out that he would no longer campaign with or defend Trump (after the tape was released of Trump boasting about groping women), Trump turned his fire on Ryan once again. He seems very pleased to do it. Ryan seems content to respond by ignoring him.

Some Republicans argue that by not firing back, Ryan is hurting his chances to run for president in 2020. But of course, that’s a double-edged sword. Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush can probably give some advice about getting into a mud-wrestling match with Trump — you can’t win. It’s also worth noting that the presidency might not be part of Ryan’s plans, and that

Whatever the electoral effect of Trump’s attacks on Ryan for his own cause (we suspect it won’t produce any additional support for Trump), it doesn’t seem to be destabilizing the tense but generally (if tepidly) supportive attitude of conservative House members toward Ryan. As Philip Wegmann finds, public calls by staunch Trump ally Sean Hannity to unseat Ryan are being met within the House Freedom Caucus with blank stares.

This could all change when the new House convenes, but it’s important to note that there is probably no one who wants Ryan’s job right now.

Recall that Ryan took the job in a truly Trump-ish manner, if you go back and look at Trump’s suggestions about how to negotiate in The Art of the Deal. He knew he had leverage, and he used it, agreeing to take the Speaker position only if all of his demands were met. Republicans agreed to this after the resignation of John Boehner precisely because the party’s House caucus had lost its ability to function. For now, the apparently impossible nature of the job probably still guarantees that there won’t be any serious challenge to him in January.

Outlook: After three debate performances that were not really game-changing, and a Trump sex scandal that apparently was, Trump is at this moment headed toward a loss — possibly a very large one — unless nearly all polling, and all of the more reputable pollsters, are completely wrong.

Trump’s supporters often write off all polling as biased, but campaigns that do this are nearly always losing campaigns. In past elections, data has proven a lot more reliable than anecdotes about Democrats changing parties or rally sizes.

That said, it is not impossible for all or nearly all pollsters to misunderstand the election or the likely turnout it will produce. It could be that an entirely different sort of electorate will come out on election day. After all, the polls have missed big in some races — the Kentucky governor’s race last year, for example.

The thing is, pollsters have never been as wrong on a national level as they would have to be for Trump to win. That doesn’t make it impossible, just unlikely.

The published polls are ugly, although not uniformly so. Here are the national polls released since mid-October that show Clinton with a lead:

ABC: Clinton +12
Quinnipiac: Clinton +7
Economist/YouGov: Clinton +4
Fox News: Clinton +6
Bloomberg: Clinton +9
Reuters: Clinton +4
Monmouth: Clinton +12

There are two regular tracking polls showing Trump with a slim lead:

IBD/TIPP: Trump +2
Rasmussen: Trump +2

In the individual states, it doesn’t get any better. For example: The latest polls have Clinton leading in Florida, North Carolina, Arizona, and Colorado. Given her large leads in New Hampshire and Virginia, which Trump’s campaign has abandoned (all denials of this notwithstanding), Clinton wins the presidency if she carries any one of those five states.

To put it another way, Trump would have to carry all of these five states, where he trails, in order to win (or at least throw the election to the House), or else he’d have to make up for some combination of losses among these by taking Pennsylvania, where he also trails.

But it gets worse, because Trump now only leads in Texas and Georgia within the margin or error. Obviously there is no path to victory for him that doesn’t include both of those states.

And then there’s the reason we had to mention the possibility of throwing the election to the House. This is what happens when no candidate gets an Electoral College majority. In a normal year, that means a 269-269 tie between two major candidates. But not this year. Trump is currently losing Utah and its six electoral votes to independent conservative Evan McMullin, a resident of that state and a Mormon. (Clinton is making a feint at the Beehive State, but she still polls in third place.) McMullin is also competing for Idaho, another state with a large Mormon population where he will appear on the ballot. There is no polling yet suggesting McMullin could actually win Idaho, but there also haven’t been any polls that include him on the ballot test. It would be exceedingly difficult for Clinton to win there — the Democratic ceiling is well under 40 percent, and probably hers is lower than the average Democrat’s — but in a four-way race with Gov. Gary Johnson (who polls in double digits) Trump may not be able to take Idaho for granted.

The conclusion is that some massive shoe would have to drop to save Trump from the worst loss Republicans have suffered since 1964. Like the baseball team that trails in the standings and needs other teams to lose in order to make the playoffs, Trump needs something very big to happen in the final two weeks — something that completely changes the race.

Remember: Common-knowledge scandals about Clinton won’t cut it here. These are already priced into the polling numbers. The email scandal, the FBI report’s contents on Clinton, the lies to the public and the FBI, the fortune built from public service, Bill Clinton’s sexual predation, and obviously anything from the 1990s is either already factored into voters’ calculations or won’t have a chance to sink into the public consciousness any deeper than it has already.

So far, nothing from the WikiLeaks hacks has been big enough to change the equation. But we’ll see.

The UK Daily Mail and Washington Post are reporting that Lon Johnson literally dressed up as the Easter Bunny for President Obama.

Lon Johnson is very close to Obama because his wife, Julianna Smoot, was Deputy Campaign Manager for Obama in the 2008 campaign.  Johnson previously served as Chairman of the Michigan Democrat Party and has a long history as a professional party operative.

It isn’t surprising that Johnson would support Obama’s policies on Obamacare and Gun Control given his loyalty to the President.  If you are willing to dress up as the Easter Bunny, you are probably capable of doing pretty much anything for him, right?

Obamacare has been a difficult issue throughout the country but especially in Michigan where it has been reported that 400,000 people are losing their policies and premiums are increasing 20%.

“I am proud of Obamacare and what its done,” said Lon Johnson.

Johnson has also shown support for the President by supporting stronger gun control policies.  In an interview with the Detroit NAACP he strongly supported Obama’s gun control measures and called for electing more people with similar views to help Obama pass stricter gun laws.

Johnson said “we need to support” Obama’s gun control initiatives.


The tolerant left is at it again.

This time, a pro-Trump gay couple was attacked in a series of brutal online comments, with some even calling for them to be beaten with bricks…

According to reports:

“A gay couple whose interview at a Donald Trump rally went viral now say they are facing death threats for their support of the Republican candidate.

Violent threats can be found in the comment section of a Facebook post where Wall Street Journal reporter Jason Bellini shared his video of the interview with Dewey Lainhart and Cody Moore.

“Two bricks directly into their faces,” one commenter wrote. “Scumbags.”

In a video update, Bellini reports that the couple says they don’t regret doing the interview, even if the threats — including people reportedly telling them to drink bleach — have put a damper on their recent engagement.

The couple told Bellini they received death threats warning them not to leave their house, or attend gay events. “It doesn’t concern me,” Lainhart said. “I look over my back and I do carry [a gun]…because I love the Second Amendment.”

WikiLeaks has proven what we already knew: when it comes to the “gender pay gap,” Hillary Clinton is a fraud, paying women thousands of dollars less than men.

According to reports:

Email documents released in the latest WikiLeaks dump portray a pay gap between men and women employed at the Clinton Foundation, Abby Huntsman reported on Fox & Friends.

A hacked email released by WikiLeaks describes a payroll schedule in which male employees at the foundation averaged about $68,000 per year in salary, while women were paid about $64,000.

According to LifeZette, the 2011 email was sent by an employee to the foundation’s chairman, Bruce Lindsey, as well as Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta.”

Breaking this afternoon, according to reports:

“The daily IBD/TIPP tracking poll, updated Sunday, shows Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump leading challenger Hillary Clinton 43 percent to 41 percent in a race that also includes third-party candidates.
In a head-to-head matchup, Trump leads Clinton 43.2 percent to 42.3 percent, with 10 percent unsure.

Men back Trump over Clinton 48 percent to 34 percent, with women supporting Clinton 46 percent to 38 percent.

Whites back Trump over Clinton, 50 percent to 33 percent. White men back Trump, 55 percent to 27 percent and a majority of white women also support Trump over Clinton, 46 percent to 39 percent.

Fifteen percent of blacks and Hispanics back Trump over Clinton, while she earns 65 percent of those blocs’ support. Broken down, 11 percent of blacks support Trump, and 22 percent of Hispanics support him.”

Imagine if a Trump supporter said this?

According to reports:

“Madonna is pledging to perform oral sex on voters who cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton.

The pop queen, known for her shocking antics, made the remark Tuesday while opening for comedian Amy Schumer in New York.

“If you vote for Hillary Clinton,” Madonna told the crowd at Madison Square Garden, “I will give you a blow job.”

“And I’m good,” the 58-year-old “Like a Virgin” singer, an outspoken supporter of the Democratic presidential nominee, said to cheers from the audience.”