Elections Archives - Truth News Network

“Obstruction of Justice”

June 14, 2019

Boy, have we heard that phrase “Obstruction of Justice” a few times in the last few years? I’m sick and tired of it. No matter, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) opened his hearings purported to be “to clarify the findings of the Mueller Report” with the lengthy testimony of John Dean. Dean served as an attorney for then-President Richard Nixon. And Dean knows a lot about “Obstruction of Justice.” He was charged with that, plead guilty to stay out of jail in the Watergate Affair. Archibald Cox was the appointed Special Prosecutor in the Watergate investigation. Here’s a summary of Dean’s involvement:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19—John W. Dean III, the former counsel to President Nixon, pleaded guilty today to plotting to cover up the truth about the Watergate break‐in. He made his plea as part of a bargain with the special Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox, under which Dean agreed to be a prosecution witness in future proceedings against alleged participants in the cover‐up — including, potentially, against President Nixon.

Mr. Cox allowed Dean to plead guilty in Federal District Court here to a single felony count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and defraud the United States, punishable by a maximum five‐year prison term and a $10,000 fine, with sentencing deferred until the bargain is kept. Mr. Cox also promised not to prosecute Dean for any other Watergate‐related crime, reserving only the right to prosecute the lawyer for perjury.

We at TNT have so far stayed away from what is being called the “Nadler Mueller Redo Circus” until today. If you didn’t look-in on that hearing on Monday, June 9, 2019, you missed a true circus. John Dean testified and answered questions for hours. Republicans, as you can imagine, fried Mr. Dean. Several questions and responses are worthy of repeating. Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) grilled Dean unmercifully:

That was just the beginning.

The Nadler Circus

Democrats in the wake of the release of the Mueller Report which recommended no legal actions against the President are standing in line to attack President Trump: STILL. They’re universal talking point: “No president is above the law.”

Committee chairman Jerry Nadler said his panel has an obligation to investigate “who stood to benefit from the attack” on the U.S. election system “and the extent to which the Trump campaign welcomed it.”

He added that “the committee has a responsibility to do this work, to follow the facts where they lead…and to craft legislation to make certain no president, Democrat or Republican can ever act in this way ever again.” Nadler also noted the political divide the Russia probe has since created in Washington, saying that both parties should at least proceed with a common understanding that the U.S. was attacked.”

“We were attacked by a foreign adversary. President Trump’s campaign took full advantage of the attack when it came. The descriptions of obstruction of justice in Volume II go to the heart of our legal system. If we can agree on this common set of facts as our starting place, and agree to follow the facts and the law where they take us, I believe we can make a great deal of progress in this hearing today,” he said.

John Dean

Who is John Dean really? One thing is for certain: he doesn’t like Donald Trump! How do we know? First, because he has tweeted continuously during the Trump presidency. “That’s not uncommon,” you say. But of his tweets, 970 have been negative. I think that would for certain move the “Like” or “Dislike” checkmark way over to the “Dislike” box.

John Dean (born October 14, 1938) is a former attorney who served as White House Counsel for United States President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973. Dean is known for his role in the cover-up of the Watergate scandal and his subsequent testimony to Congress as a witness. His guilty plea to a single felony in exchange for becoming a key witness for the prosecution ultimately resulted in a reduced sentence, which he served at Fort Holabird outside Baltimore, Maryland. After his plea, he was disbarred as an attorney.

Shortly after the Watergate hearings, Dean wrote about his experiences in a series of books and toured the United States to lecture. He later became a commentator on contemporary politics, a book author, and a columnist for FindLaw’s Writ.

Dean had originally been a proponent of Goldwater conservatism, but he later became a critic of the Republican Party. Dean was particularly critical of the party’s support of Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump, and of neoconservatism, strong executive power, mass surveillance, and the Iraq War.

I forgot to mention one thing: John Dean’s guilty plea of a 1-count felony: do you know what he plead guilty to? Obstruction of Justice. Of course, according to Nadler, his doing so made him an obvious “expert” on obstruction of justice and qualified him to “clear the air” on the Mueller Report.

When asked if he had read the report, Dean’s reply was “No.” When asked if he knew anything about the Mueller Report that members of Congress or even those in the general public did not know. Dean’s answer was “No.”

So what was Dean’s qualification as an expert to appear before one of the most powerful and most important House Committee? He had pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in the Watergate case!

One more important fact about John Dean when serving under Richard Nixon. When it was uncovered that President Nixon had secretly recorded all meetings in the Oval Office, the famous psychologist and memory researcher Ulric Neisser analyzed Dean’s recollections of the meetings, as espoused in his testimony, in comparison to the meetings’ actual recordings. Neisser, a sharp critic of studying memory in a laboratory setting, saw “a valuable data trove” in Dean’s recall. Neisser found that, despite Dean’s confidence, the tapes proved that his memory was anything but a tape recorder. Dean failed to remember any conversations verbatim and often failed to recall the gist of conversations correctly. Yet, Neisser did not explain the difference as one of deception; rather, he thought that the evidence supported the theory that memory is not akin to a tape recorder and, instead, should be thought of as reconstructions of information that are greatly affected by rehearsal, or attempts at a replay. Neisser further concluded that Dean’s memory, and likely everyone’s, merely retains common characteristics of a whole series of events.

In other words, Dean was pretty much a regular guy with a regular memory and that those “memories” of Watergate events about which he testified were probably recreated (or created for the first time) to make him appear in a good light. Honestly, if Nixon had not erased those tapes, Dean would almost certainly have served MORE time than he did and would have been convicted for far more than the 1 felony to which he plead.

Here’s what is hard to believe: Nadler has put the entire nation on notice of a serious investigation that carries with it HIS serious allegations that though lost by Robert Mueller and his 19 Democrat staff attorneys in their 2.5-year investigation, Nadler and other Democrats swear are backed with evidence. This hearing was supposed to bring that evidence forward to — as Nadler promised the World — “show that no one in the United States is above the law.”

We’ve seen no evidence, no credible witnesses, and instead of REAL facts in evidence, we watched a felon guilty years ago of obstruction of justice who has become nothing more than a “professional trial witness.”

“Once a famous witness, he’s made a life of being a witness,” Stephen Hess, a White House aide to Nixon and official under three other presidents, told Newsmax, “I feel sorry for John. It’s not the way I would like to spend my life.”

Hess said that Nadler’s calling on Dean to testify “seems to want to suggest a parallel between Nixon and Watergate and ‘Trumpgate.’ But political scientists don’t see the parallel at all.” He recalled how then-White House staffer Pat Buchanan was a highly impressive witness defending Nixon before the same committee as Dean.

“I say if you’re going to invite John Dean to testify, then give equal time to Pat Buchanan,” Hess told us.

We’ve been told that Buchanan was invited to speak but declined. I would too to keep from embarrassment in front of a national television audience.

Summary

For such committee hearings that are so important, Congress is always certain to release the hearings schedule including who will testify and the subjects of their testimony. But Representative Nadler’s hearing schedule was released in the following manner:

The House Judiciary Committee is planning a series of hearings on Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, starting with an appearance by Nixon White House Counsel John Dean on June 10.

“Russia attacked our elections to help President Trump win, Trump and his campaign welcomed this help and the president then tried to obstruct the investigation into the attack,” committee chairman Jerrold Nadler of New York said in a statement. “Mueller confirmed these revelations and has now left Congress to pick up where he left off.”

The committee also plans to consider in these hearings “targeted legislative, oversight and constitutional remedies designed to respond to these matters,” according to a committee statement released Monday.

You know what the insanity of this debacle really is: Democrats led by Nadler think Americans are too dumb to see through this sham investigation. Americans watched phase one of this sham develop over 2.5 years! Let’s face it: Mueller was much smarter at hiding specifics of his investigation while passing out just enough data tidbits to keep the voracious media hounds satisfied! Nadler is not that crafty.

If Americans are to believe that members of the Trump Campaign were guilty of obstruction of justice and/or collusion with Russians during the campaign, then Americans must believe that previous presidential candidates and even presidents got away with the same crimes they are accusing Trump of? Hillary Clinton did it. Barack Obama did it. AND ROBERT MUELLER ASSISTED IN IT!

Hillary Clinton’s campaign funded the Russian Christopher Steele dossier! And besides that, her campaign press secretary even volunteered to go to Russia to get dirt on Donald Trump if necessary:
Brian Fallon, the press secretary for Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2016 campaign, once said he would have been willing to travel to Europe to confirm dirt about then-candidate Trump. “Opposition research happens on every campaign, and here you had probably the most shadowy guy ever running for president, and the FBI certainly has seen fit to look into it,” Fallon told The Washington Post in October 2017. “I probably would have volunteered to go to Europe myself to try and verify if it would have helped get more of this out there before the election.”
Remember during his re-election campaign when Barack Obama was caught on an open microphone telling then Russian President Medvedev? It is unclear what was the subject of Obama’s comments when he told Medvedev to pass this along to Putin: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” More flexibility for what? Was Obama discussing “colluding” with Russia?
Robert Mueller when serving as Obama’s FBI Director personally flew a sample of U.S. Uranium to Moscow for the Russians to examine while negotiations were underway for the purchase of Uranium One. Mueller certainly was not there on behalf of the American people. What would the FBI Director be doing taking a U.S. uranium sample to Russia other than to somehow impact an ongoing deal with somebody or some people and Russia?

In closing, remember this: if every candidate for president is required to have NO contact with any foreigner during their campaigns, very few who run for President would be able to meet that requirement. Why? Most are business people who often have international business. Others are U.S. political leaders at the federal and/or state levels and certainly interact with foreign business and government leaders on behalf of their states and the U.S.

Why is all this happening? SO DEMOCRATS CAN KEEP A FAWNING SEGMENT OF LEFTIST MINIONS SATISFIED ENOUGH TO CONTINUE TO MAKE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND TO PULL THAT BLUE LEVER IN 2020.

This all has nothing to do with the Truth. It has to do with one thing only: Get rid of Donald Trump either today or in November of next year.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

For The Greater Good?

May 12, 2019

It is common knowledge that the Left in America feel the country is in a downward spin socially, economically, environmentally, in healthcare, immigration, and foreign policy in the Trump Administration. It is also common knowledge that the Left in America is beyond absolute certainty that “They” have all the answers for any and all of the absurd policies thrust on Americans by the Trump Administration.

But who is to determine if The Trump Administration is correct or is the Left?

Great news: IT’S US!

As of this moment, we have not seen any solution from the Left to right the great ship America which, by their definition, is sinking with Donald Trump at the helm. And the Left demands a new captain. Right now there are 20 Leftists who each feel they are the best “hire” to replace the guy now in charge. But, as of today, not one of the 20 has offered any tangible package of proposed solutions to “fix” all those horrible Trump policies. But they claim their’s —whatever they are — will make America the great ship she once was and they think should be once more. AND, they each claim they are the best qualified to bring to Americans all the “things” that are “For The Greater Good.”

So, Let’s look closer.

Economically: Tax Cuts

According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, two-thirds of all Americans received a tax cut under TCJA, averaging approximately $2,200. Tax rates are lower at every single income level, especially those at low-to-middle income levels, with 80.4 percent earners receiving a tax cut––including 91.3 percent of the middle class–– while only 4.8 percent of the population saw their taxes go up, most of which are higher-income earners living in high-tax states.

In addition to the analysis from the Tax Policy Center, H&R Block recently reported that the average taxpayer saved roughly 25 percent on their tax bill and that refunds are up 1.4 percent compared to last year. These savings happened because the TCJA let families keep more of their money through a doubled child tax credit, doubled the standard deduction, and lower rates across the board. Those changes combined with bold pro-growth cuts to the corporate tax rate, estate tax or “death tax”, alternative minimum tax, and creation of a new 20% small business deduction have increased take-home pay for families and improved the economy.

BUT….Take what then-House Minority Leader now Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi predicted about TCJA when she said passage would mean “Armageddon” for America and that the bill “is probably one of the worst bills in the history of the United States of America.” Or when New York Times columnist Paul Krugman guaranteed a “global recession, with no end in sight.” The unrepentant gaslighting that has taken place over tax reform is rooted in dividing Americans for political gain or more clicks, rather than reporting facts.

Presidential candidates Kamala Harris and former VP Joe Biden want to dump the Trump tax cuts. In fact, Kamala Harris said she would repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act “on day one.”

Harris said: “On day one, we gonna repeal that tax bill that benefited the top one percent and the biggest corporations in this country. Get rid of the whole thing,” Harris said.

Economically: “It’s the Economy, Stupid!”

Remember James Carville making the above statement during Bill Clinton’s campaign for his second term? He was asked if the Clinton impeachment would be THE reason voters rejected Mr. Clinton. In response, he made his famous statement above. And Clinton won re-election.

Those 20 Dem candidates are wanting to replace the Trump Economic Agenda. Hmm…..

As of 4/30/2019, The U.S. has:

lowest African American unemployment in history.
The lowest unemployment among Women.
The overall US unemployment rate fell to 3.6 percent in April 2019 from 3.8 percent in the previous month, below market expectations of 3.8 percent. It was the lowest jobless rate since December 1969.
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates declined in April for adult men (3.4 percent), adult women (3.1 percent), Whites (3.1 percent), Asians (2.2 percent), and Hispanics (4.2 percent). The jobless rates for teenagers (13.0 percent) and Blacks (6.7 percent) showed little or no change. Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs declined by 186,000 over the month to 2.7 million.
Hourly wages increased 3.2 percent over April of 2018.
Gross Domestic Product in the first quarter of 2019 blew the doors off expectations: 3.2% was well ahead of the consensus 2.3% estimated, which itself had been cranked up from the sub-1% expectations many analysts had been expecting prior to Q1 earnings season. 2019’s First Quarter GDP was the strongest Q1 read since the 3.3% we saw in 2015.

Healthcare: “Medicare For All”

The President in the 2017 Congress backed the repeal and replacement of Obamacare — the current healthcare FINANCE plan that has cripple American healthcare. One last-minute vote by former Arizona Senator John McCain prevented the House-passed version to go the Senate floor for debate. The House bill (and the President’s promise to voters during the 2016 campaign) was dead at the hands of a few Republicans. However, as the cost to Americans of Obamacare continue to skyrocket, a conservative healthcare plan is set to be rolled out after the 2020 election if not sooner. In the meantime, 2020 candidates are pushing hard for the largest and many say the most egregious legislative item in U.S. History: Medicare for All. The cost of Senator Bernie Sanders’ (D-VT) bill? $32 Trillion over 10 years. (Sanders proposed the plan years before did Alexandria Ocasio Cortez)

First, the plan. Just a few bullet point mentions of what we KNOW Medicare for All would do:

Rationed Healthcare for All. An immediate shortage of physicians would occur because of the massive reductions in payments for services by doctors, who would run for the exit to new careers. Just like as in the U.K and Canada, patients would find themselves waiting for months for a heart procedure, knee replacement, or eye surgeries. Though U.S. Leftists rail against claims of a “Death Panel” that might be installed in such a plan, that would probably occur. There would be (because of healthcare finance reductions) unelected bureaucrats — not patients with their doctors as is the practice today — determining which patients should receive certain procedures, including some life-and-death procedures.
Costs. The unbelievable costs for such a plan would be astronomical. All Americans would be covered with medical costs being paid by the government. Where does the government get that money? Higher taxes. Tax revenue in our government would have to be more than doubled to pay for healthcare costs. That means the average American taxpayer would see their federal income tax bill increase by approximately 150%. That’s above the astronomical premium increases under Obamacare — sometimes doubled — when Obama promised the average premium cost per U.S. family would be reduced by $2500 per year.

There is no doubt there needs to be financial changes in our healthcare system — but not at the expense of destroying American healthcare.

Immigration

”We HAVE a crisis at the southern border.” President Trump

We are on track to the apprehension of more than 1 million illegals this year crossing our southern border. Add that to whatever the number of those who Border Patrol agents do NOT apprehend that get in! Imagine what that number is. But……

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro doubts there’s a crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border so much he’s calling it “B.S.” When asked about the growing situation of immigrants trying to enter to the U.S. illegally and the president mulling closing the southern border temporarily, Castro tossed it aside.

“I don’t believe their narrative,” he said. “I don’t believe the B.S. that women and children who are fleeing dangerous circumstances present a national security threat to this country.”

Who knows for certain how many illegals are in the U.S. today? Estimates range from 10 to 60 million. Either number would be a travesty. Regardless of what you hear, the drain on the entire U.S. national infrastructure is happening at a far too rapid pace just because of massively increased numbers drawing from those resources. Public schools, criminal justice, subsidized food, healthcare, and housing, cost the U.S. today billions of dollars. Our social system is stretched to the max.

But then there’s the obvious thought: “Aren’t those who cross into our country illegal breaking the law?”

Environment

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez stated factually that the World as we know would be over in 12 years unless we immediately initiated plans to do away with all fossil fuels, make every building in the U.S. green efficient, do away with cars, airplanes, and jets, and find ways to stop cows from farting. 19 of the Democrat candidates for President have signed-on to that deal. AOC’s Green New Deal is being touted as the only solution to emissions problems for the U.S. and that they’re fatal.

Then there’s this: the U.S. per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are at their lowest levels since 1950. 2017 U.S. per capita CO2 emissions were 15.8 metric tons per person, their lowest levels in 67 years. Overall U.S. carbon emissions are at their lowest levels since 1992 and have declined 13 percent since 2005.

But according to the Green New Deal’s author, we are all to become extinct in 12 years without the deal. It’s cost? $72 Trillion.

Where do the candidates stand?

Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted “I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal proposal. We must address the existential crisis of planetary climate change.”
Sen. Cory Booker likened the GND to fighting Nazis and going to the Moon.
Sen. Kamala Harris, via C-SPAN: “We have to have goals. It’s a resolution that requires us to have goals and think about what we can achieve and put metrics on it.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted that she is “excited” to back the GND after initially saying she backed the general “idea” of it.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar: “I see it as aspirational, I see it as a jump-start. So I would vote yes, but I would also if it got down to the nitty-gritty of actual legislation as opposed to, ‘Oh, here are some goals we have,’ that would be different for me.”
Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand: “It’s got this aspirational goal of net zero carbon emissions in ten years.”

Foreign Policy

Trump’s shortlist of Foreign Policy achievements:

Leaving or announcing intention to leave globalist agreements, including the UN Population Fund, Global Compact on Migration, Paris climate agreement, and UNESCO.
Reducing U.S. contributions to the UN and challenging other NATO states to increase their contributions.
Reversing the Obama Administration’s lenient Cuba policy.
Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Leaving or announcing intention to leave the United Nations Human Rights Council, Global Compact for Refugees, Iran nuclear deal, and the Universal Postal Union, and taking a tough stance against the International Criminal Court.
Giving another strong pro-sovereignty speech at the UN General Assembly.
Taking steps to reduce foreign aid when not in U.S. interests, such as to Pakistan and the PLO.
Moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Taking an increasingly tough stance on China, criticizing South Africa’s leftist land policy, and promoting ties with Latin America’s conservative leaders.
Created a coalition which has all but eliminated ISIS.

For The Greater Good?

Tax Cuts. Do they really want to repeal those tax cuts that have put more money back in the pockets of Americans and increased wages 3.2%? Yes, they do.

Employment. Do they really want to do away with the Trump policies that have dropped unemployment to historical lows and put more Americans in the workforce than ever before in history? Yes, they do.

Immigration. Do they really want to abolish ICE, do away with border patrol, and allow the continued massive increases in illegals coming into the U.S. costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year? Do they really want open borders which effectively is no borders? Yes, they do.

Healthcare. Do they really want Medicare for All which will result in certain rationed care, long waits for things as simple as X-rays and heart caths, sometimes as long as 1 year and cost $32 Trillion? Yes, they do.

Environment. Do they really want the Green New Deal at the price of $72 Trillion that will take away all cars and airplanes, all fossil fuels, mandate 100% clean energy-efficient buildings throughout the U.S. and create massive tax increases on all Americans? Yes, they do.

Foreign Policy. Do they really want the amazing foreign relationships Trump has rebuilt with the numerous American allies that under Obama had been destroyed to be eliminated to be replaced by the Obama “American Apology Policy” with no trust in the U.S.? Yes, they do.

Summary

Each of the Left’s announced candidates promises to (if elected) overturn each of the policies implemented in the Trump presidency. Why? Doing so — according to each of them — would be better for every American than those in place today.

“For The Greater Good” is a phrase that Gellert Grindelwald used to justify his horrific actions in the 1940s global wizarding war and it was engraved over the entrance of Nurmengard, the prison he constructed to house those who opposed him. The Leftist candidates claim that doing away with each of those Trump policies would be “For the Greater Good.”

It sounds like Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, Former Vice President Joe Biden, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton, California Rep. Eric Swalwell, Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, former Gov. John Hickenlooper, Gov. Jay Inslee, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Cory Booker, Sen. Kamala Harris, ex-San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, former Rep. John Delaney, Miramar, Fla., Mayor Wayne Messam, author Marianne Williamson, and former tech executive Andrew Yang, might all be taking a page from Gellert Grindelwald’s playbook.

In the hearts and minds of most Americans, making such a change would NOT be “For The Greater Good.”

What do I say? In Louisiana we have a special way of responding to that: we say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Liberals Outnumber Conservatives in Only 6 States, Down From 9

May 10, 2019

Do you ever wonder — based on all you hear from your friends, business associates and even family members — why you never hear anything from the media that could possibly be construed as “complementary” about the current conditions of anything and everything in the U.S. as it pertains to government actions?

Today, I heard Democrat FOX News contributor Juan Williams say, “Republicans have pinned their hopes on the re-election of Donald Trump in 2020. Those hopes are unrealistic in light of the fact that “most” Americans HATE Donald Trump!” You know what the reality is? As of today — May 10, 2019 — 50% of all American adults approve of President Trump’s presidency. In comparison, Barack Obama on the same day of his first term in the White House had an approval rating of 48%. (both are from Gallup) Does that mean “most Americans HATED Barack Obama?”

But it gets even better. Everyone knows that the “left” coast is really “Left” — politically, as it the upper East Coast. And according to political national newsprint and broadcast organizations, American turned “Blue” in 2018’s midterm election. Granted, Democrats won control of the U.S. House of Representatives. But votes counted in Congressional races are NOT national votes: they’re state-by-state. Of course, California and New York contain 60 million Americans or more than 20% of the U.S. population. So it should not be surprising to know that almost all of the national political news emanates from California and New York, with Illinois and Massachusettes jumping in classified as Blue states.

Just because the news reports it doesn’t mean it’s true! And, Mr. Williams, it should come as no surprise that America is really turning Red.

Take for instance these latest numbers by State from 2018:

The number of states where liberals outnumber conservatives has dropped more than 30 percent, with just six now in that category: Massachusetts, Hawaii, Vermont, Washington, New York, and New Hampshire.
According to the latest Gallup survey, in every other state but California, where conservatives and liberals split 29 percent to 29 percent, conservatives lead.
Nationally, those who identify themselves conservative hold a nine-point lead.

Hmm….we may be onto some “new” news here.

If you’re interested in a state-by-state analysis, take a look at the map below. (Please note the map’s explanation of the colors)

Here’s a state breakdown by percentages identifying (state-by-state) Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, and Conservative Advantage:

Summary

The bottom line is this: there are far more Conservatives in the U.S. than the U.S. media lead us to believe.

“So why did so many Democrats get elected to the House of Representatives in 2018?” you ask. That’s simple: Congressional races are NOT national elections and not even “State” elections. They’re Congressional District elections. For instance: no one in Texas could vote for or against Nancy Pelosi who ran in her San Francisco district. That fact deeply impacts the mix by ideology in EVERY Congressional race every two years.

The daily travesty in all this is — just as did Juan Williams — Leftist members of media skew their reporting demonstrably toward anti-conservative news and news results: especially poll numbers.

The REAL problem in all this is that conservatives, (in spite of the Leftist characterization of all conservatives as stupid and mind-numbed) are more knowledgeable about current important political issues than are Democrat and other left-leaning Americans. And those media partisans know that and take advantage of it.

There’s much more going on regarding this issue that needs to be fleshed out. To that end, we are over the next few days publishing the answers to some heretofore unanswered questions asked regarding exactly what the Left is specifically complaining about in America today and their plans for the replacement of after the 2020 elections. You will be shocked while at the same time being enlightened with what you see.

Stay Close!

“Left”

April 25, 2019

Hmmm…I’m sure our title made you ask a few questions about today’s story. We could mean “Left, as in Democrats and those politically left of Democrats.” Or we could mean “Left, as in ‘Left Behind.'” (That’s a Christian movie that depicts how people here respond after the Rapture happens. The Rapture is the Biblical event when Christ reappears to take Christians who are alive to Heaven) But our story today doesn’t reference either. Today we are looking at “Left,” as in “What is remaining.” It may have been more appropriate to title today’s offering as “What is Remaining.”

It is pretty simple for every American to know what has not been left in current American governing: “Investigate.” We have just completed 2+ years of a federal Special Counsel investigation of the President and his 2016 campaign for the purposes of establishing the validity of claims that he or his campaign staff members or both worked with Russia to impact the 2016 presidential election results in his favor. Special Counsel Mueller left NOTHING to question in his 488-page report detailing their findings. Mueller made it abundantly clear that through that intense investigation in which 37 indictments were issued, none of which were for the President or those in his campaign for working with the Russians or even having ties to the Russians regarding his campaign.

During the investigation, Democrats along with several Establishment Republicans feared that President Trump would somehow either fire Mueller or interfere with his investigation. There were serious discussions on Capitol Hill about passing legislation to prevent the President from doing so. No such legislation was passed. And it certainly came as a surprise to those Democrat and Republican worriers that the President nor anyone in his administration made any attempt to fire Mueller, interfere with the investigation in any way, or even to use a declaration of Executive Privilege to shield from the public any of the Mueller findings that directly impacted the investigation of the President. You probably know this: the President had every legal right to fire Mueller and/or to exert Executive Privilege, both of which he declined to use.

But even with the exhaustive Mueller report, Democrats 2+ years of fawning over “their guy” Mueller and how he was the only person in D.C. with any legal credibility, and that he certainly would find any dirt on the President who they all knew had worked with Putin to change the election results, Democrats en masse refuse to accept Mueller’s results. Instead, they have another plan: “INVESTIGATE!” And it has already turned into a three-ring circus. Who is surprised?

Everyday Americans find themselves staring into a quagmire of government today that they depend on for protection, for governing, and for assurance that everything is O.K. Yet those Americans see their elected officials abandon THOSE necessary and committed to accomplishing tasks. In their abandonment, they are simply today doing one thing and one thing only in their governing responsibilities: INVESTIGATE President Trump.

They are doing so in spite of the fact that their proverbial “Good Guy” — Robert Mueller — found NOTHING to justify taking any action against President Trump. Yet Democrat leaders are totally committed to forcing Trump out of office. In doing so, if they are successful, they will accomplish one thing and one thing only: the subversion of the results of a legal presidential election. In doing so, if successful they will negate the votes of over 60 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump.

To that end, today we are bringing to the forefront a question that few are yet asking and even fewer are concentrating on: What things in D.C. are NOT getting done — “Left” undone — that our lawmakers could and should be doing? We at TruthNewsNetwork have done the “deep-dive” for you, and the results are below. They will certainly shock you. But more than shock, they will anger you — as well they should. Take a ride with us on today’s “Deep-Dive.”

What’s “Left?”

Before we look at what’s “Left” that is undone in Congress, would you like to see just how busy Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives is this week? After all, their promise was that if voters gave Democrats back the House, they would push through all the legislation that Republicans failed to implement that are critical to the U.S. and its citizens. They won the House. And, Boy, they are really busy! Here is the full agenda of the House of Representatives for the last 3 days: April 22,23, and 24 of 2019. (This story is being written Wednesday, April 24, 2019, to be published Thursday, April 25)

Monday, 4/22

Mondays are usually really busy when the House is in session. That’s the day that lawmakers file most of the bills to be considered during that week. This past Monday, they loaded up their agenda for legislation for the entire week:

1. H.R.2348 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) To require automatic sealing of certain criminal records, and for other purposes.

2. H.R.2349 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) Climate Change Education Act

3. H.R.2350 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) To award a Congressional Gold Medal to the 23d Headquarters, Special Troops, and the 3133rd Signal Service Company, in recognition of their unique and highly distinguished service as a “Ghost Army” that conducted deception operations in Europe during World War II.

4. H.R.2351 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) Protecting Airport Communities from Particle Emissions Act

5. H.R.2352 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) To improve the ability of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Coast Guard, and coastal States to sustain healthy ocean and coastal ecosystems by maintaining and sustaining their capabilities relating to oil spill preparedness, prevention, and response, and for other purposes.

6. H.Con.Res.35 — 116th Congress (2019-2020) Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States is committed to ensuring a safe and healthy climate for future generations, and to create solutions for restoring the climate.

Whoo-Who! They worked their butts off, didn’t they? Gotta’ seal those criminal records; plan to educate today’s tender youth to the vast truths about climate change; award those mighty men who served as a “Ghost Army” in WWII (definitely a worthy cause); Particle emission police desperately needed for Airport communities; Earth would disappear without NOAA’s exhaustive preparations for that next oil spill; and that resolution to tell the World that Congress is committed to Climate Change!

Wednesday, 4/24

The House had no floor action on Wednesday and had one committee meeting:

Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Investment and Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity joint field hearing entitled Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Ensuring the Success of our Student Veterans

But wait: you forgot about Tuesday!

They were so worn out from Monday’s massive workload, they decided to take care of ZERO legislation on Tuesday of this week.

But one thing is certain: there were dozens and dozens of House meetings — many were one-on-one — to discuss the latest plethora of intricate plans to initiate the most important legislation of this century: IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP!

Let’s Get to “What’s Left”

This is not really a hard one. We’ve all known for the 2 years since the 2016 election and even the 2 years before what the most important issues in American’s lives are. But just in case you forgot, we’ll mention them here:

Immigration To Americans, (depending on what’s happening on any one day in the U.S.) fixing the immigration system is the #1 issue, or at least always in the top 3. The promises to totally repair our broken legal immigration system, stop ALL illegal immigration, and to first build a wall on our southern border was the #1 reason Americans voted Donald Trump into office. The President put several bills in front of Democrats in his first 2 years. One of them even included the Holy Grail of immigration for Democrats: a path to citizenship for DACA recipients! Democrats have screamed for that for years. But Democrats obviously turned down that offer and every other immigration reform offer from the President. Why do you think that is? Simple: they refuse to do ANYTHING in legislation that any American will consider something initiated by President Trump. They simply don’t want to give him a win on anything. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of illegals flock to our southern border every week and are — because of judicial political partisanship — crushing our financial, educational, and medical systems by pushing the usages of those processes beyond their capabilities. And let’s not even think about the hundreds of thousands of felonies committed by many of these illegals that not only have filled our prisons but have raped, murdered, robbed, and invaded homes of thousands of Americans while the immigration system looks exactly like Barack Obama left it: broken, wide-open, and dangerous. (No House Immigration legislation being considered this week)
Healthcare is another big reason why Donald Trump was elected President. The American Healthcare System does NOT need to be fixed: it’s in great shape and is one of the best in the World. Healthcare “finance” is broken and needs a drastic change. Don’t confuse the two. ObamaCare was and is a nightmare for Americans. You all know the horrors of its financial structure and the lies told by everyone at the top of the Obama Administration (including Obama himself) to shove it down the throats of a willing American populace. Candidate Trump and almost every GOP member of Congress ran for election and re-election on the promise of “We’ll repeal and replace Obamacare if elected!” They were elected — and, thanks to the late Senator John McCain (R-AZ), could not even bring it to the floor of the Senate to debate alternatives after the House sent over a bill passed to repeal ObamaCare. Healthcare finance’s traumatic condition is about to tear our nation’s healthcare system apart. Democrats promised — if they won the House — to fix healthcare finance. (No House Healthcare Finance legislation being considered this week)
Infrastructure America’s highways, including interstate routes, are in almost universal disrepair. This was the one American political issue most thought could easily get done. Donald Trump while campaigning made a promise for legislation he would get Republicans to offer and pass in a Trump administration. In his first year as president, he sent an infrastructure bill to Congress that was a behemoth. It’s framework including massive spending made possible by federal, state, and private entities working together to underwrite and implement the greatest U.S. infrastructure rebuilding program in history. It did not even get to first base! Democrats, however, promised to (with a win in the House in 2018) make Infrastructure their priority. They won the House, but no Infrastructure bill has shown up. (No House Infrastructure legislation being considered this week)
Middle-Class Tax Cuts Many in America laughed at President Trump’s campaign promises to reduce federal income taxes on the Middle Class if he was elected. And he did just that. 95% of all Americans saw their 2018 personal income taxes reduced. Democrats, however, clung to a lie for the entire year of 2018, telling Americans that those tax cuts benefited only America’s wealthy. When “Tax Time” for 2018 tax filing began, surprise, surprise: the Middle-Class tax cuts were confirmed! Democrats promised that with a win of the House, THEY would give the Middle Class a well-deserved tax cut. (No House Middle-Class legislation being considered this week)
Foreign Policy Democrats have always fashioned their party to be the only group to have legitimacy with citizens and leaders of foreign nations. Americans watched during the 8-year Obama presidency as American credibility overseas dwindled dramatically. Foreign leaders did not feel comfortable that they could trust the U.S. to fulfill its promises and its obligations to their countries. Democrats spent the first 2 years of Trump’s term deriding his attempts to bridge gaps that had become so rampant and obvious between the U.S. and other countries. But, lo and behold, respect for America zoomed back to the world stage with President Trump. Democrats promised with their control of the House they would reclaim the once stellar foreign policy reputation with government counterparts around the world. Speaker Pelosi even made a world tour to Europe during the Christmas/New Years holiday to assure our foreign allies that Democrats would now control foreign policy legislation and that SHE has the same power as the U.S. President. By all accounts, Pelosi was virtually laughed out of Europe! (By the way: No House Foreign Policy legislation being considered this week)

Summary

We could go on and on, but we won’t. Americans on the most part see and recognize that President Trump — even with 95% negative slant of all media stories about him, those in his administration, his policies, his haircut, and even members of his family, this President has accomplished almost all of the things on which he campaigned. And those he has failed on were due to the unwillingness of Congress to pass his proposed legislation. No other President in my lifetime has achieved nearly as much in their first 2 years as Donald Trump.

AND MOST AMERICANS DON’T EVEN KNOW THE MAJORITY OF HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS. WHY? THE MEDIA DO NOT REPORT THEM!

Do you know what Democrats are doing instead of conducting the business of America, which is supposed to be legislating? They ONLY look ahead to the next election. All of their activities are to assure their existing power in that election while hopefully adding the Senate AND the White House to their “power-stash.”

So what’s their plan? What’s their platform? What are they going to do for Americans if they get that additional significant power?

ANSWER: Whatever they want to do. And certainly with little or NO regard for the desires of the American electorate.

Don’t be shocked; don’t be angry at TruthNewsNetwork for telling you that. You’re all plenty capable to grasp what’s going on. In case you missed it, here in brief bullet point format to close today is exactly what Democrats are doing now and plan to do through the 2020 election.

Now they are doing this:

Investigating Donald Trump

What else are they going to do until the 2020 election?

Investigate Donald Trump

What is the Democrat Party Platform for 2020?

Investigate Donald Trump

” C’est tout!” (French for, “That’s All, Folks!)

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Russian Hacking: It’s True Part 2

April 22, 2019

In Part I of this revelation, we proved to our readers/listeners that there actually WAS Russian hacking attempts that in some cases were successful during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. There really is “there-there.” Today as promised we go into “who” and “how” it happened.

This is really important information — stuff Americans need to understand. Read and listen closely! And make certain you look-in to our Summary at the completion of this story.

Leaks and Counterfeit Profiles

Russia has been quite open about playing its hacking card. At a conference in Moscow, a top cyberintelligence adviser to President Vladimir Putin hinted that Russia was about to unleash a devastating information attack on the United States.

“We are living in 1948,” said the adviser, Andrey Krutskikh, referring to the eve of the first Soviet atomic bomb test, in a speech reported by The Washington Post. “I’m warning you: We are at the verge of having something in the information arena that will allow to us to talk to the Americans as equals.”

Mr. Putin’s denials of Russian meddling have been tongue-in-cheek. He allowed that “free-spirited” hackers might have awakened in a good mood one day and spontaneously decided to contribute to “the fight against those who say bad things about Russia.” Speaking to NBC News, he rejected the idea that evidence pointed to Russia — while showing a striking familiarity with how cyberattackers might cover their tracks.

“IP addresses can be simply made up,” Mr. Putin said, referring to Internet protocol addresses, which can identify particular computers. “There are such IT specialists in the world today, and they can arrange anything and then blame it on whomever. This is no proof.”

Mr. Putin had a point. Especially in the social media realm, attributing fake accounts — to Russia or to any other source — is always challenging. The Central Intelligence Security Agency concluded“with high confidence” that Mr. Putin had ordered an influence operation to damage Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and eventually aid Donald J. Trump’s. Facebook published a public report on information operations using fake accounts. It shied away from naming Russia as the culprit until when the company said it had removed 470 “inauthentic” accounts and pages that were “likely operated out of Russia.” Facebook officials fingered a St. Petersburg company with Kremlin ties called the Internet Research Agency.

Russia deliberately hides its role in influence operations, American intelligence officials say. Even skilled investigators often cannot be sure if a particular Facebook post or Twitter bot came from Russian intelligence employees, paid “trolls” in Eastern Europe or hackers from Russia’s vast criminal underground. A Russian site called buyaccs.com(“Buy Bulk Accounts at Best Prices”) offers for sale a huge array of pre-existing social media accounts, including on Facebook and Twitter; like wine, the older accounts cost more, because their history makes hacking harder to spot.

The trail that leads from the Russian operation to the bogus Melvin Redick, however, is fairly clear. United States intelligence concluded that DCLeaks.com was created in June 2016 by the Russian military intelligence agency G.R.U. The site began publishing a collection of hacked emails, notably from George Soros, the financier and Democratic donor, as well as a former NATO commander and some Democratic and Republican staffers. Some of the website’s language — calling Mrs. Clinton “President of the Democratic Party” and referring to her “electional staff” — seemed to contradict its pose as a forum run by American activists.

DCLeaks would soon be followed by a blog called Guccifer 2.0, which would leave even more clues of its Russian origin. Those sites’ posts, however, would then be dwarfed by those from WikiLeaks, which American officials believe got thousands of Democratic emails from Russian intelligence hackers. At each stage, a Large group of Facebook and Twitter accounts — alongside many legitimate ones — would applaud the leaks.

During its first weeks online, DCLeaks saw no media attention. But The Times found that some Facebook users somehow discovered the new site quickly and began promoting it on June 8, 2016. One was the Redick account, which posted about DCLeaks to the Facebook groups “World News Headlines” and “Breaking News — World.”

Melvin Redick’s Facebook Profile

Inconsistencies in the contents of Mr. Redick’s Facebook profile suggest that the identity was fake.

Neither Central High School nor Indiana University of Pennsylvania has any record of Mr. Redick attending.
According to his profile, Mr. Redick was born and raised in Pennsylvania, but one image shows him seated in a restaurant in Brazil, and another shows a Brazilian-style electrical outlet in his daughter’s bedroom.
Mr. Redick’s posts were never of a personal nature. He shared only news articles reflecting a pro-Russian worldview.

The same morning, “Katherine Fulton” also began promoting DCLeaks in the same awkward English Mr. Redick used. “Hey truth seekers!” she wrote. “Who can tell me who are #DCLeaks? Some kind of Wikileaks? You should visit their website, it contains confidential information about our leaders such as Hillary Clinton, and others http://dcleaks.com/.”

So did “Alice Donovan,” who pointed to documents from Mr. Soros’s Open Society Foundations that she said showed its pro-American tilt and — in rather formal language for Facebook — “describe eventual means and plans of supporting opposition movements, groups or individuals in various countries.”

Might Mr. Redick, Ms. Fulton, Ms. Donovan and others be real Americans who just happened to notice DCLeaks the same day? No. The Times asked Facebook about these and a half-dozen other accounts that appeared to be Russian creations. The company carried out its standard challenge procedure by asking the users to establish their bona fides. All the suspect accounts failed and were removed from Facebook.

On Twitter, meanwhile, hundreds of accounts were busy posting anti-Clinton messages and promoting the leaked material obtained by Russian hackers. Investigators for FireEye spent months reviewing Twitter accounts associated with certain online personas, posing as activists, that seemed to show the Russian hand: DCLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, Anonymous Poland and several others. FireEye concluded that they were associated with one another and with Russian hacking groups, including APT28 or Fancy Bear, which American intelligence blames for the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails.

Lee Foster, who leads the FireEye team examining information operations, said some of the warlist Twitter accounts had previously been used for illicit marketing, suggesting that they may have been purchased on the black market. Some were genuine accounts that had been hijacked. Rachel Usedom, a young American engineer in California, tweeted mostly about her sorority before losing interest in 2014. In November 2016, her account was taken over, renamed #ClintonCurruption, and used to promote the Russian leaks.

Rachel Usedom’s Twitter account was taken over and used to post political leaks.

Ms. Usedom had no idea that her account had been commandeered by anti-Clinton people who used her account to spread propaganda . “I was shocked and slightly confused when I found out,” she said.

Notably, the warlist tweets often included the Twitter handles of users whose attention the senders wanted to catch — news organizations, journalists, government agencies and politicians, including @realDonaldTrump. By targeting such opinion-shapers, Mr. Foster said, the creators of the warlists clearly wanted to stir up conversation about the leaked material.

J. M. Berger, a researcher in Cambridge, Mass., helped build a public web “dashboard” for the Washington-based Alliance for Securing Democracy to track hundreds of Twitter accounts that were suspected of links to Russia or that spread Russian propaganda. During the campaign, he said, he often saw the accounts post replies to Mr. Trump’s tweets.

Mr. Trump “received more direct replies than anyone else,” Mr. Berger said. “Clearly this was an effort to influence Donald Trump. They know he reads tweets.”

Only a small fraction of all the suspect social media accounts active during the election have been studied by investigators. But there is ample reason to suspect that the Russian meddling may have been far more widespread.

Several activists who ran Facebook pages for Bernie Sanders, for instance, noticed a suspicious flood of hostile comments about Mrs. Clinton after Mr. Sanders had already ended his campaign and endorsed her.

John Mattes, who ran the “San Diego for Bernie Sanders” page, said he saw a shift from familiar local commenters to newcomers, some with Eastern European names — including four different accounts using the name “Oliver Mitov.”

“Those who voted for Bernie, will not vote for corrupt Hillary!” one of the Mitovs wrote on Oct. 7. “The Revolution must continue! #NeverHillary”

While he was concerned about being seen as a “crazy cold warrior,” Mr. Mattes said he came to believe that Russia was the likely source of the anti-Clinton comments. “The magnitude and viciousness of it — I would suggest that their fingerprints were on it and no one else had that agenda,” he said.

Both on the left and the pro-Trump right, though, some skeptics complain that Moscow has become the automatic boogeyman, accused of misdeeds with little proof. Even those who track Russian online activity admit that in the election it was not always easy to sort out who was who.

“Yes, the Russians were involved. Yes, there was a lot of organic support for Trump,” said Andrew Weisburd, an Illinois online researcher who has written frequently about Russian influence on social media. “Trying to disaggregate the two was difficult, to put it mildly.”

Mr. Weisburd said he had labeled some Twitter accounts “Kremlin trolls” based simply on their pro-Russia tweets and with no proof of Russian government ties. The Times contacted several such users, who insisted that they had come by their anti-American, pro-Russian views honestly, without payment or instructions from Moscow.

“Hillary’s a warmonger,” said Marilyn Justice, 66, who lives in Nova Scotia and tweets as @mkj1951. Of Mr. Putin, she said in an interview, “I think he’s very patient in the face of provocations.”

Another of the so-called Kremlin trolls, Marcel Sardo, 48, a web producer in Zurich, describes himself bluntly on his Twitter bio as a “Pro-Russia Media-Sniper.” He said he shared notes daily via Skype and Twitter with online acquaintances, including Ms. Justice, on disputes between Russia and the West over who shot down the Malaysian airliner hit by a missile over Ukraine and who used sarin gas in Syria.

“It’s a battle of information, and I and my peers have decided to take sides,” said Mr. Sardo, who constantly cites Russian sources and bashed Mrs. Clinton daily during the campaign. But he denied he had any links to the Russian government.

But if Russian officials are happy at their success, in 2016’s election and beyond, they rarely let the mask slip. In an interview with Bloomberg before the election, Mr. Putin suggested that reporters were worrying too much about who exactly stole the material.

“Listen, does it even matter who hacked this data?” he said, in a point that Mr. Trump has sometimes echoed. “The important thing is the content that was given to the public.”

Summary

In the wake of the nonstop claims from absolutely everyone on the Left about Russian meddling in 2016 and even some Republicans, it’s good to finally have verification that it really happened. Even though the world knew the Russians were proficient and committed to diligently working to thwart the wills of voters not only in the U.S. but in other countries, it has been extremely puzzling to locate, identify, and confirm factual occurrences of their election tampering attempts. It’s even more difficult in the case of the 2016 U.S. election to find factual confirmation of any of their efforts having any substantial impact yet alone that they changed or affected actual vote counts.

But what it most certainly has done is alert Americans — ALL Americans — to the fact that several countries have been and are trying to interfere with our elections. I’m certain part of their hopes in doing so is to distract Americans and the government from foreign policies that impact their countries directly. Let’s be honest: the U.S. has consistently and diligently worked hard to do the same things in the elections of our foreign foes.

Intelligence spying capabilities throughout the world have far exceeded the capabilities that in the 1970s were seen and heard only in James Bond movies that we all thought were impossible and would never be achieved. Yes, in part we conduct such activities to keep Americans safe and our country free from outside interference from other countries. But let’s be clear about this: we are at a tipping point in how we not only listen-in and watch through spying and electronic surveillance the activities of our foreign enemies, we found out daily just how much our government is using these tactics in the name of the Law to monitor every aspect of AMERICANS’ lives. No matter what the leaders of the “Spook” agencies tell us, that capability with very little accountability to Americans is deadly. The scary stories contained in Orwells 1984 are actually reality today and have been for much longer than we even thought was possible.

What about Russia? No doubt they’re our #1 enemy. Even with our weakened economy for 8 years from Obama Administration financial starvation, we still have the #1 military on Earth. With the rebuilding of the military and our intelligence infrastructure being cleaned of those who have perpetrated these frauds on our public, we’re well on our way to putting significant space between us and Russia. But we better be smart. Unearthing their attempts to tamper with our elections is a big victory for us, but only if we take demonstrative actions.

Let their secrecy from those in the Obama Administration going unseen by our CIA, NSA, and FBI during the 2016 election cycle a warning. Unless we take care of our own country using every opening available to ferret out their foreign intelligence ploys, they will be here in great force very soon. Vladimir’s greatest desire is to instigate processes through KGB leftover ideas that dismantle the intelligence structure of the U.S., thereby forcing us to our knees. Say what you will about Donald Trump, but he promised to rebuild and re-establish the American military might and he’s started that process with a vengeance.

We close with this: did Russia change by their actions any votes from Hillary to Trump in 2016? We probably will never know. But what we DO know is they could have and almost certainly will going forward unless we take demonstrative steps to prevent those.

I know secrecy is critical regarding many elements of these efforts by our intelligence community. But certainly there are ways of communication they can use to make Americans feel comfortable that these agencies are really working for us. And instead of Congress chasing cameras all day every day to talk about Russia collusion, obstruction of justice, and impeachment, how about they instead pass meaningful legislation to make and keep America safe?

And they might start with stopping the aliens from storming our southern border. Those aliens are actually breaking the law!

Russian Hacking: It’s Real, Part I

April 21, 2019

I as well as millions of other Americans tired long ago about the reports we saw and heard over and over that “experts” continued to harass us with claiming “We know factually that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election in coordinated efforts to denigrate Hillary Clinton and to assist Donald Trump’s win of the White House.”

”Factually” is the word that perked me up: at TruthNewsNetwork we research, always digging for facts. I’m sure you will understand that when we are told by “experts” that something politically is “factual,” our stomachs turn and our heads ache because the belief that what political “experts” tell us today are “facts,” we are pretty certain they are NOT facts.

But in our patience and continued research, we have unearthed some facts about 2016 that support those Russian interference claims in 2016 with apparent attempts to discredit Clinton. We had significant help from other news sources in putting this together. (See credits at the end of this report) But saying this has been a difficult task and that there has been little cooperation from our normal sources is a gross understatement.

This report will be our ONLY such report going forward, so it is lengthy and detailed. We will present it in two parts to make it easier to digest. And we’ll hold our Summary until the end of Part II that you’ll see tomorrow.

Read carefully! There’s much “meat” in this. And it explains much and answers many questions you may have. But it will also initiate new questions for you. Let’s go!

The Fake Americans Russia Created to Influence the Election

I knew that the Russians had attempted on numerous occasions to impact the elections of foreign countries. So do the Chinese, and, for that matter, so does the United States! We’ve reported on those in previous reports here at TruthNewsNetwork. That being said, my assumption has always been that the NSA and the CIA as the two foremost U.S. intelligence agencies on the frontlines of defense of the nation’s IT infrastructure stopped every threat. Surely their protections extended into our election system. Because of the cloak of secrecy that covers both agencies, I assumed it was for that secrecy that none of their methods were known to the public.

I was shocked to learn that those “experts” probably were right. What was a bigger surprise was the way the Russians had sneaked into our IT infrastructure.

It’s not surprising the Russians use spies. They always do. We do, China does, and every other country on Earth does too. But apparently, the Russians in 2016 didn’t (at least on the most part) use actual Russian spies. They created “fake” Americans to be their spies.

Russian Spies in America

Melvin Redick of Harrisburg, PA, a friendly-looking American with a backward baseball cap and a young daughter, posted on Facebook a link to a brand-new website.

“These guys show hidden truth about Hillary Clinton, George Soros and other leaders of the US,” he wrote on June 8, 2016. “Visit #DCLeaks website. It’s really interesting!”

Mr. Redick turned out to be a remarkably elusive character. No Melvin Redick appears in Pennsylvania records, and his photos seem to be borrowed from an unsuspecting Brazilian. But this fictional concoction has earned a small spot in history: The Redick posts that morning were among the first public signs of an unprecedented foreign intervention in American democracy.

The DCLeaks site had gone live a few days earlier, posting the first samples of material, stolen from prominent Americans by Russian hackers, that would reverberate through the presidential election campaign and into the Trump presidency. The site’s phony promoters were in a cyber army of counterfeit Facebook and Twitter accounts, a legion of Russian-controlled impostors whose operations are still being unraveled.

The Russian information attack on the election did not stop with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails or the onslaught of stories, true, false and in between, that battered Mrs. Clinton on Russian outlets like RT and Sputnik. Far more difficult to trace was Russia’s experimentation on Facebook and Twitter, the American companies that essentially invented the tools of social media and, in this case, did not stop them from being turned into the sources of deception and propaganda.

An investigation by The New York Times and new research from the cybersecurity firm FireEye reveals some of the mechanisms by which suspected Russian operators used Twitter and Facebook to spread anti-Clinton messages and promote the hacked material they had leaked. Recently, Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election campaign.

On Twitter, as on Facebook, Russian fingerprints are on hundreds or thousands of fake accounts that regularly posted anti-Clinton messages. Many were automated Twitter accounts, called bots, that sometimes fired off identical messages seconds apart — and in the exact alphabetical order of their made-up names, according to the FireEye researchers. On Election Day, for instance, they found that one group of Twitter bots sent out the hashtag #WarAgainstDemocrats more than 1,700 times.

The Russian efforts were sometimes crude, with a trial-and-error feel, and many of the suspect posts were not widely shared. The fakery may have added only modestly to the din of genuine American voices in the pre-election melee, but it helped fuel a fire of anger and suspicion in a polarized country.

A Times investigation reveals missed signals, slow responses and a continuing underestimation of the seriousness of a campaign to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.

Given the powerful role of social media in political contests, understanding the Russian efforts will be crucial in preventing similar, or more sophisticated, attacks in the 2020 congressional races and the presidential election. Multiple government agencies have investigated the Russian attack, though it remains unclear whether any agency is focused specifically on tracking foreign intervention in social media. Both Facebook and Twitter say they are studying the 2016 experience and how to defend against such meddling.

“We know we have to stay vigilant to keep ahead of people who try to misuse our platform,” Alex Stamos, Facebook’s chief security officer, wrote in a post about the Russia-linked fake accounts and ads. “We believe in protecting the integrity of civic discourse.”

Critics say that because shareholders judge the companies partly based on a crucial data point — “monthly active users” — they are reluctant to police their sites too aggressively for fear of reducing that number. Remember: Facebook and Twitter are free to users. Advertising pays the bills AND investors their stock dividends. The more accounts, the more ads get sold and at higher prices.

The companies use technical tools and teams of analysts to detect bogus accounts, but the scale of the sites — 328 million users on Twitter, nearly two billion on Facebook — means they often remove impostors only in response to complaints.

Though both companies have been slow to grapple with the problem of manipulation, they have stepped up efforts to purge fake accounts. Facebook says it takes down a million accounts a day — including some that were related to the most recent French election and upcoming German voting — but struggles to keep up with the illicit activity. Still, the company says the abuse affects only a small fraction of the social network; Facebook officials estimated that of all the “civic content” posted on the site in connection with the United States election, less than one-tenth of one percent resulted from “information operations” like the Russian campaign.

Twitter, unlike Facebook, does not require the use of a real name and does not prohibit automated accounts, arguing that it seeks to be a forum for open debate. But it constantly updates a “trends” list of most-discussed topics or hashtags, and it says it tries to foil attempts to use bots to create fake trends. However, FireEye found that the suspected Russian bots sometimes managed to do just that, in one case causing the hashtag #HillaryDown to be listed as a trend.

Clinton Watts, a former F.B.I. agent who has closely tracked Russian activity online said that Facebook and Twitter suffered from a “bot cancer eroding trust on their platforms.” But he added that while Facebook “has begun cutting out the tumors by deleting false accounts and fighting fake news,” Twitter has done little and as a result, “bots have only spread since the election.”

Asked to comment, Twitter referred to a blog post in June in which it said it was “doubling down” on efforts to prevent manipulation but could not reveal details for fear of tipping off those trying to evade the company’s measures. But it declared that Twitter’s “open and real-time nature is a powerful antidote” to falsehoods.

“This is important because we cannot distinguish whether every single Tweet from every person is truthful or not,” the statement said. “We, as a company, should not be the arbiter of truth.”

Part I Wrapup

During an interview with the Daily Show’s Trevor Noah, Barack Obama denounced the conspiracy theory that Russians tampered with the American voting process. “We were frankly more concerned in the run-up to the election to the possibilities of vote tampering, which we did not see evidence of,” he admitted. “And we’re confident that we can guard against.”

Then Breitbart.com reported that: Obama downplayed the hack of a private email account of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, defending his administration for revealing in October that the Russian government was connected.

“None of this should be a big surprise,” Obama said, “Russia trying to influence our elections dates back to the Soviet Union.” Obama dismissed the hack and the leaked emails as “not very interesting” and lacking “explosive” revelations. He puzzled as to why it was an “obsession” by the news media despite the knowledge that the Russians were responsible.

He also criticized President-elect Donald Trump for calling on the Russian government to hack Hillary’s emails to reveal the contents of the deleted emails from her private server, and reminded the audience that Trump had campaign officials connected to Russia.

“What’s happened to our political system where some emails that were hacked and released ended up being the overwhelming story, and the constant source of coverage – breathless coverage – that was depicted as somehow damning in all sorts of ways when the truth of the matter was it was fairly routine stuff?” he said.

Watch (and Listen) closely to exactly what Obama said to Trevor Noah about Russian hacking in 2016:

What I find interesting is how the former President of the United States, who had just completed 8 years in office, downplayed in this interview just after the election of Donald Trump the seriousness of the role the Russians played in the 2016 election and apparently in previous elections — perhaps even his own in 2008 and 2012! The book is still out on that.

In Part 2, we will look further into what actually happened with the Russians in 2016 and how it happened. We discuss the impact it made on vote totals and what has happened regarding Russian election hacking in our elections since 2016. You don’t want to miss it! Catch it first thing tomorrow at www.TruthNewsNet.org!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

“The Polls! The Polls! The Polls!”

April 17, 2019

It’s hard to fathom that we have already begun campaigning for 2020. It seems like November of 2016 was yesterday! But it wasn’t. The presidential campaign cycle begins earlier and earlier every 4 years. And maybe that’s a good thing. After all, being that lengthy usually means more and more candidates jump into the race just to see if America likes them enough to give them a shot at the White House. Then, just as quickly as they jump in, they begin to jump out of the race one at a time. The race for 2020 already has about 20 in the race with several heavy hitters undeclared.

In that race for candidates to start swimming the “election river” are all the polling entities. Nowadays it seems that everyone has a poll. And it seems they will take a poll on ANYTHING! It’s really comical to watch. And as you’d bet, the polls have already begin in earnest to tell Americans who every other American likes, who is the best presidential candidate in the race, who has the best shot of winning the most vote and who has the best shot to win the electoral college, and the list of poll types goes on and on.

And you can bet the polls themselves will go on and on, too!

Polling History: Not So Good

90% of the polling entities that were active during the 2016 election period were wrong in their predictions: 90%. In fact, there was only one poll that accurately predicted Donald Trump would take the oath of office. You would think polling companies would simply throw in the towel because of their dismal results and how wrong they were. But, no: “They’re BAACK!”

I’ve seen already about 50 polls regarding 2020. And they change from day-to-day and during each day during day-parts. We’re not going to dig into what and how polls are done and what impacts their results. Let it suffice to say this: polling methodology can be tweaked in about 50 ways to sway the results of each poll for the benefit or detriment of any candidate however the polling entity wishes to do. Facts do NOT matter when it comes to polling. Because of that, pollsters have become very important, very expensive, and an absolute necessity.

The recent polls to no one’s surprise have been all over the place, too. I saw one yesterday that showed Bernie Sanders “if the presidential election was held today” would beat Donald Trump with a double-digit margin of victory! When I saw it, I just shrugged it off, because I know “it’s a long time before we’ll know who’s going home to the White House in January 2021.

Yet there are people who simply live and die by the presidential polls they see. To that end, and to illustrate to all just how unreliable and off the mark pollsters are almost all the time, TruthNewsNetwork today is cutting our story short and giving you an in-depth synopsis of how and what the pollsters did — along with political pundits with their predictions — regarding who the 2016 presidential race winner would be. This video is in detail, it covers a broad spectrum of pundits, news broadcasters, talk show hosts, U.S. Senators and members of the House, former presidential candidates, and even President Obama. Watch it in detail and relish every minute:

We hope you enjoyed it!

In spite of what polls say today, tomorrow, next year, and even the morning of November 3, 2020 — election day — NO POLL, NO POLLSTER, NO NEWS PERSON, POLITICAL CANDIDATE, FORMER PRESIDENT, AND NOT EVEN ANY AMERICAN VOTERS WILL KNOW WHO’S GOING TO WIN!

What’s fun will be that even with the video you just watched above that exposes their misses, vitriol, crazy ideas and predictions, the same people on the same shows and networks, the same writers and talk show hosts will take “the poll of the day” and make the same stupid mistakes again!

By the way, the “elephant” in the room will be the same guy that lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue right now. Elephants are pretty hard to move unless and until they want to. It’s going to be tough to get this elephant to move until 2025!

Attorney General Barr: “SpyGate Crucifixion”

April 16, 2019

The Department of Justice released news that the redacted version of the Mueller Report will be made available to Congress and the American public Thursday morning, April 18, 2019. That will be a memorable day in American history that most on both sides of the political spectrum have been salivating over while waiting. And based on the “summary” sent to Congress shortly after Mueller announced he had finished and sent his final report to the DOJ, both sides will probably find red meat in the full version. We need to discuss that. But before we do, “if” you read Attorney General Barr’s summary letter, you’ve probably forgotten most of it. We’ll talk about specifics he included. But before we do, here’s a link to his summary. Please read it again.

Attorney General Summary of Mueller Report

Our Thoughts

While reading Attorney General Barr’s letter, several things became obvious to us:

The AG included Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in the process of digesting Mueller’s near 400-page report, dissecting its parts, and determining the reasoning for Mueller’s findings, and the included evidence in the report that supports his not taking any further actions via indictments;
The investigation was exhaustive. Mueller employed 19 attorneys who had help from 40 FBI agents, “intelligence analysts, forensic accountants….”
Mueller issued more than 2800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, more than 230 “orders for communication records,” 50 more orders authorizing the use of “pen registers,” 13 requests of foreign governments for evidence, and 500 witnesses were interviewed; (A pen register, or dialed number recorder (DNR), is an electronic device that records all numbers called from a particular telephone line)
While Mueller referred several other matters to various legal offices for further investigation, Mueller did not recommend any further indictments;
Also, Mueller did not obtain any sealed indictments of which details are still unknown and if existing, might lead to further legal actions.

Regarding the two areas that the Special Counsel and his team investigated in this matter — collusion by members of the Trump Campaign or the President with Russia and possible obstruction of justice by the President — Mueller concluded there was NO collusion with Russia committed. Secondly, there was not sufficient evidence of obstruction of justice to prove that “beyond a reasonable doubt” any such obstruction occurred. (IMPORTANT: we will go into detail on “Alleged Obstruction” below)

The Investigation DID conclude that the Russians DID attempt to impact the 2016 presidential election. “The first involved attempts by a Russian organization to conduct disinformation and social media operation in the U.S. designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election.”

The second element involved the Russian government’s “efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks.”

According to this summary, there is NO doubt that the Russians were definitely working hard to influence our election. But it is important to remember that they have been doing that for years, and not just to the U.S. For that matter, the United States has on numerous occasions attempted in numerous ways to impact the national elections of other foreign countries! In fact, TruthNewsNetwork has detailed the specifics of several of those. To be honest, the Chinese, the French, British, and even modern-day Germany is known for doing so.

The U.S. also attempted to sway Russian elections! In 1996, with the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and the Russian economy flailing, President Clinton endorsed a $10.2-billion loan from the International Monetary Fund linked to privatization, trade liberalization and other measures that would move Russia toward a capitalist economy. Yeltsin used the loan to bolster his popular support, telling voters that only he had the reformist credentials to secure such loans, according to media reports at the time. He used the money, in part, for social spending before the election, including payment of back wages and pensions. (See our story with complete details published here February 18th of 2018)

Special Counsel Mueller’s Methodology is Suspicious

Do you like me wonder why Mueller would with so many investigative resources at his disposal — subpoenas, grand juries, witness questioning, and testimony, cutting deals with people — using 19 of the most well-known investigative attorneys in U.S. history, spending a reported $25 million over 2 years would NOT give a conclusion in his report regarding both Russia collusion AND Obstruction of Justice? Conventional wisdom says “where there’s smoke there’s fire,” which means to most “if there is proof/evidence of any obstruction of justice indictments should be made.”

Why did Mueller — if there was an obstruction on the part of the President — not take the evidence to a grand jury to get an indictment? And if there was NO evidence of obstruction, why did he NOT say so in his report? (No, the report is not out yet, but Barr’s summary plainly states that Mueller instigated no indictments of the President) There are two reasons or excuses:

Those on the Left immediately upon reading Barr’s letter stated the reason Mueller did not indict Trump for obstruction was because most believe a sitting president CANNOT be indicted for obstruction of justice, and that Mueller was afraid that a huge federal court battle would be initiated if he had pushed for an indictment of the President that would keep the furor going for another two years or so to the chagrin of Americans.
Our conclusion is the second: that Mueller’s team could not (at least by a majority of those 19 attorneys with Mueller added) unite on an obstruction decision. It appears that one or several of those Mueller attorneys — almost all of which are Democrats and are not fond of President Trump — thought that not recommending indicting this president would initiate even more investigations by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives and even by the federal Southern District of New York. In that scenario, the rage, anger, and vitriol from the Left would continue and certainly even heighten in intensity while those additional investigations go on. And their feeling is certain that all of the unknowns and continuous allegations and questions without answers would guarantee the President’s credibility and integrity would be attacked by the attack dog media all the way through the 2020 elections.

The Mueller Investigation is the first one in U.S. history that occurred at the federal level in which NO conclusion was reached! THAT’S why the Mueller report left the question unanswered, “Did Donald Trump commit Obstruction of Justice?”

Summary

I would love to say that Mueller’s report will bring to an end to what the President has continually called “A Witch Hunt.” But it will not. Think about it: Democrats are desperate. Yes, they won the House of Representatives in the midterm elections. Yes, the Democrats have a choke-hold on the media who breathlessly and continuously perpetrate whatever the Democrat talking point “of the day” is each and every day.

But there are more “matters” that few are talking about. As of last week, there are more than 82,000 sealed federal indictments, some issued by federal courts in each one of the federal courts in all 50 states, all issued and sealed since November of 2017. Some expected some of those would be “Mueller indictments.” But according to his report, he obtained no indictments that were or are sealed. And no one is certain for whom those name, how many, or who initiated them. But it’s a serious matter. In U.S. history, no more than 3000 have been issued in a 12-month period. Something is up there.

And there’s one more thing: Attorney General Barr lit the media world up when he responded to a Senator’s questions in the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing when he testifed before that committee. Listen/watch closely to his responses:

Attorney General Barr made it clear that the DOJ is looking into spying during the 2016 campaign against the Trump Campaign. Immediately after the hearing, the media went into a frenzy about his statements. Several stated “He has no evidence. If he had proof he would have given it during the hearing,” and “AG Barr showed he’s nothing more than a mouthpiece and conspiracy theorist for President Trump.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you listen to his responses in the video and audio given above, you hear him respond to the Senator’s question about any evidence NOT by saying he has no evidence, but by saying this, “I am not going to discuss the evidence NOW. I’m going to wait for details to be finalized and I’ll come back with my report.”

There’s a BIG difference between what he said and that he HAS NO EVIDENCE.

So what can we expect when the report is released? More chaos, more vitriol, more media and political attacks against Attorney General Barr and, of course, President Trump. And what good can possibly come from it all? The Democrats will get exactly what they want and need: more negativity about President Trump and his Administration. They’ll scream louder and blame more, and in doing so, keep the anti-Trump rhetoric alive with absolutely no proof of any of the allegations!

Remember this: The Democrat Party has NO unity right now, NO real leadership, NO party platform for 2020. The only thing they have to use against the President is THE MUELLER REPORT! And since there’s “no there-there,” they MUST manufacture their own brand of truth.

But don’t think the other side will sit idly by. You can bet the President will amp up his twitter account, his campaign rally derision of Democrats and each 2020 candidate.

It’s not going to be fun very long. I promise Americans will (if they haven’t already) get tired of the constant back and forth between camps. I just hope Americans can stand solid for facts, not get distracted by more allegations without truth, and certainly do not lose sight of the massive swing to all things Left by every one of the Democrat 2020 presidential candidates.

Socialism has never and is not now working for ANY country in the World.

If that’s the only reason to re-elect Donald Trump that can be found, it certainly will be good enough!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Electoral College: Who Decides?

April 13, 2019

No other part of our election system is as important as the Electoral College. No other part of our election system has come under fire through the years since its establishment than the Electoral College. The furor over its existence ebbs and flows through cycles. But in recent presidential elections that were decided by the voting results of the Electoral College which totals were different than the results of the American popular vote have put discussions about ending the Electoral College front and center again.

It IS controversial. And that controversy in large part is the result of American voters not understanding its structure, its purpose, and its controversy. Those Americans that are confused pretty much all subscribe to the thinking “Why even have it at all, especially when in 2000 the Bush 43 election and then in the 2016 Trump election its results (and ultimately the presidency and vice presidency) were decided by other than popular vote totals of ALL Americans?”

So in all the confusion and misunderstanding, we thought it best to delve into ALL the details of the Electoral College so everyone can participate in educated discourse about its value, its history, and its impact on the country going forward.

Let’s take a look, after which in our Summary we will share OUR conclusions.

The Electoral College

The Electoral College members for each state are voted on by the state’s residents on voting day. In some states, the electors’ names are printed on the ballots directly under the presidential candidates’ names or grouped by party somewhere else on the ballot. In other states, the names of electoral college nominees are not even listed on the ballot.

When you vote for a presidential and vice-presidential candidate on the ballot, you are really voting for the electors of the political party (or unaffiliated candidate) by which they were nominated. Take the North Carolina General Statute § 163-209, for example: “A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors.”

This is the case for 48 states. It’s known as the winner-take-all system, where all electors go with the candidate who wins the popular vote regardless of how close the vote is. So if the Democratic candidate narrowly wins the popular vote in Texas, for instance, 38 Democratic electors (38 being the total number of electoral votes in the state) will represent Texas as a voting block.

The other system, known as the congressional district method, is observed in Maine and Nebraska. In these states, the vote is split between the electoral vote which goes to the winner of the statewide popular vote and the congressional district vote. The state is divided into congressional districts, each with one electoral vote. The winner of the popular vote in each district is awarded an electoral vote. Potentially, this could result in a divided electoral vote but so far it has not happened in either state.

Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in the state he or she represents, or for the candidate affiliated with his or her political party. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people’s decision. When electors cast their vote without following the popular vote or their party vote, they are known as faithless electors.

In response to faithless electors’ actions, at least two dozen states have created laws to enforce an elector’s pledge to his or her party vote or the popular vote. Some states even assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine. For example, the state of North Carolina fines faithless electors $10,000. However, a number of scholars believe such state-level laws would not survive constitutional challenge; of the 158 faithless electors, none have ever been punished.

In most presidential elections, the candidate who wins the popular vote will also receive the majority of the electoral votes, but this is not always the case. Some electors abstain from voting, while others vote differently than they pledged to vote. Despite 11th hour changes within the Electoral College, only five candidates in U.S. history have won an election by losing the popular vote and winning (or deadlocking) the electoral vote:

1824: John Quincy Adams, the son of former President John Adams, received some 38,000 fewer votes than Andrew Jackson, but neither candidate won a majority of the Electoral College. Adams was awarded the presidency when the election was thrown to the House of Representatives.
1876: Nearly unanimous support from small states gave Rutherford B. Hayes a one-vote margin in the Electoral College, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden by 264,000 votes. Hayes carried five out of the six smallest states (excluding Delaware). These five states plus Colorado gave Hayes 22 electoral votes with only 109,000 popular votes. At the time, Colorado had just been admitted to the Union and decided to appoint electors instead of holding elections. So, Hayes won Colorado’s three electoral votes with zero popular votes. It was the only time in U.S. history that small state support has decided an election.
1888: Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland, but won the electoral vote by 65. In this instance, some say the Electoral College worked the way it is designed to work by preventing a candidate from winning an election based on support from one region of the country. The South overwhelmingly supported Cleveland, and he won by more than 425,000 votes in six southern states. However, in the rest of the country, he lost by more than 300,000 votes [source: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration].
In 2000, Al Gore received 50,992,335 votes nationwide and George W. Bush received 50,455,156 votes. The race was so close in Florida that ineffectively punched ballots (known as “hanging chads”) required a manual recount because the voter intent couldn’t be deciphered by machine. Eventually, Bush was awarded the state of Florida by the U.S. Supreme Court and had a total of 271 electoral votes, which beat Gore’s 266 electoral votes.
2016: Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million over Donald Trump, the largest margin by a presidential loser in U.S. history. But Trump won 306 electoral votes to Clinton’s 232. He won all the Great Lakes states that traditionally vote Democrat, plus four big battleground states (including Florida and Michigan) by less than 1 percentage point. Clinton had bigger leads in fewer, but more populous states, like California.

Today, a candidate must receive 270 of the 538 votes to win the election. In cases where no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the decision is thrown to the House of Representatives by virtue of the 12th Amendment. The House then selects the president by majority vote with each state delegation receiving one vote to cast for the three candidates who received the most electoral votes.

When there’s an impasse in the Electoral College, the decision goes to the House of Representatives which has happened twice. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, both Democrat-Republicans, received the same number of electoral votes, even though Burr was running as a vice presidential candidate. After 36 successive votes in the House, Jefferson was finally elected president. In 1825, Andrew Jackson received the popular vote over John Quincy Adams, but neither man received the electoral vote majority to claim the presidency. Adams won the House vote on the first ballot.

The Electoral College Debate

Proponents of the Electoral College say the system serves its purpose, despite the fact that the candidate who wins the popular vote doesn’t always win the election. The Electoral College is a block, or weighed, a voting system designed to give more power to the states with more votes, but allows for small states to swing an election, as happened in 1876. Under this system, each state is assigned a specific number of votes proportional to its population, so that each state’s power is representative of its population. So, while winning the popular vote may not ensure a candidate’s victory, a candidate must gain popular support of a particular state to win the votes in that state. The goal of any candidate is to put together the right combination of states to earn 270 electoral votes.

As the 2000 election approached, some observers thought that Bush, the son of a former president, could win the popular vote, but that his opponent, Gore, could win the Electoral College vote because Gore was leading in certain big states, such as California, New York, and Pennsylvania. In the end, Gore secured the popular vote, but Bush won by securing the majority of votes in the Electoral College.

Since then, a push to reform the Electoral College has been gaining steam. As of December 2016, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that mandates electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. In addition, 12 other states have passed a reform bill through one house. Still, more states are introducing an Electoral College reform bill or discussing it in committee. “This National Popular Vote law” would take effect only when it’s been passed by enough states to have a total number of electoral votes of 270.

To many, aligning the electoral vote with the popular vote seems like a valid solution. Others believe there must be a better way to select a president than by popular vote alone. Otherwise, small states or states with sparse populations won’t be equally represented. While the future of the Electoral College may be uncertain, one thing isn’t up for grabs: It’s likely to be a controversial subject well into the future.

Summary

Let’s get real: the above details the purpose, construction of, the reasons for support and the reasons for change that many in the U.S. hold. But it all boils down to 1 thing and 1 thing only:

Why was it established way back then? Let’s face it: our forefathers were pretty sharp. Most of them (or their parents) escaped oppressive governments in Europe. Most of those European governments were dominated by the political processes from large cities, like London, Paris, Barcelona, Rome, and Berlin. Our early settlers had lived in and through a political process with similarities to ours today: domination on the most part by residents (and voters) who live in big cities, many are coastal. Our forefathers and their families fought the overwhelming political control of folks who lived in those large metropolitan areas that in many ways could not even relate to residents and voters who lived in rural parts of those European countries — called “Fly-over America” in today’s United States. It wasn’t fair in Europe and our forefathers knew it wouldn’t be fair in the U.S. The Electoral College was the best solution they could surmise to implement and maintain election fairness for non-metropolitan citizens: those in the 18th Century’s rural America and today’s America’s “Fly-over” citizens.

Of course, those same forefathers included a way for us to change or even cancel the Electoral College: with a Constitutional Amendment to do so. Of course, doing that is difficult and takes a long time — and purposely does. They knew that using the Constitution as the “foundation” of our legal structure and requiring its amending to be intricate would prevent politicians from simply making changes at the whim of political cries. There are two ways to amend it:

Method 1: Congress Proposes an Amendment

An amendment to the Constitution may be proposed by any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate and will be considered under the standard legislative process in the form of a joint resolution. In addition, as ensured by the First Amendment, all American citizens are free to petition Congress or their state legislatures to amend the Constitution. To be approved, the amending resolution must be passed by a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House and the Senate. Given no official role in the amendment process by Article V, the President of the United States is not required to sign or otherwise approve the amending resolution. Presidents, however, typically express their opinion of proposed amendments and may attempt to persuade Congress to vote for or against them.

The governor submits the amendment to the state legislature for its consideration; or
The governor convenes a state ratifying convention.

If the amendment is ratified by three-fourths (currently 38) of the state legislatures or ratifying conventions, it becomes part of the Constitution.

Method 2: The States Demand a Constitutional Convention

Under the second method of amending the Constitution prescribed by Article V, if two-thirds (currently 34) of the state legislatures vote to demand it, Congress is required to convene a full constitutional convention. Just as in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates from every state would attend this so-called “Article V Convention” for the purpose of proposing one or more amendments.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Illegal Voting in our Nation

April 9, 2019

It is becoming more and more obvious that Democrats are dead-set on finding ways to allow illegals to vote in U.S. elections. Their reasons are many, but all rely on one basic premise that is being confirmed again and again as being true: rank and file Democrats who have voted for their party’s candidates are falling to the wayside. More and more are becoming true independents while many are deciding they are conservatives. This is due in part by the dramatic slide to the left in Democrat Party policies. As an example, economically comparing 1960 J.F.K.’s tax policies to those of this Democrat Party would define President Kennedy as an outright hard right conservative!

Each American understands the dangers in our two-party political system. We will not go into the details of its structure nor the good or evil each possess in their methods, but it IS important for all to understand this one thing: membership in the Democrat Party in America is NOT growing. In fact, their membership is sliding away. Americans can no longer ignore the #Walkaway campaign formed in 2016 that has embraced Democrat Party voters who have become disenfranchised with Democrat policies and candidates and have moved “across the aisle.” This swift yet steady decline in party membership has sent Democrat leaders into a frenzy: “We MUST find Democrat voters!”

That’s the fundamental reason — no, the ONLY reason — Democrats in Congress refuse to honestly and sincerely address the Nation’s unimaginable illegal alien problem: VOTES!

But admitting that is what the Democrats really want, can they get away with somehow allowing non-citizens to vote in United States federal elections? There is evidence of at least 800,000 non-citizens’ votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 actually happening. (see the proof of that in our 3/20/2019 story “Illegal Voters ARE Changing Our Elections”) Democrats certainly “want” that to happen, have already “allowed” it to happen in certain cases, but without changing Constitutional law cannot “allow” illegals to vote in federal elections legally.

But that has NOT stopped them from trying. Like here:

“Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2018, only 49 House Democrats voted “Yes” on a resolution ( H. Res. 1071) expressing disapproval of non-citizen illegal aliens voting in U.S. elections, which is a criminal act. 71 Democrats outright voted “No”; 69 Democrats took the cowardly way out by answering “Present”; 4 Democrats refused to take a stance by not voting. In effect, 144 Democrats refused to agree with the resolution that it is wrong for illegal aliens to vote in U.S. elections.
House Resolution 1071, sponsored by Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), states the following:
Recognizing that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.
Whereas voting is fundamental to a functioning democracy;
Whereas the Constitution prohibits discrimination in voting based on race, sex, poll taxes, and age;
Whereas it is of paramount importance that the United States maintains the legitimacy of its elections and protects them from interference, including interference from foreign threats and illegal voting;
Whereas the city of San Francisco, California, is allowing non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to register to vote in school board elections; and
Whereas Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in elections for Federal office: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.
H. Res. 1071, which is not a bill and has no legal power, was passed on Sept. 26, 2018. The roll call vote was 279 Yeas; 72 Nays, 69 Present:
* Republicans: 230 Yeas, 1 Nay, 4 Not Voting
* Democrats: 49 Yeas, 71 Nays, 69 Answered “Present”, 4 Not Voting
The Republican who voted “No” is Justin Amash (Michigan).

But it gets even worse! Fast-forward to March of 2019 and the House now with a Democrat Majority. One California television station reported this:

“The House passage of the For The People Act (H.R.1), a bill designed to improve election integrity by focusing on voting and election laws, campaign finance, and ethics. The bill also defends localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections.
‘It sounds like I’m making it up. What kind of government would cancel the vote of its own citizens, and replace it with noncitizens?’ said Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Texas Republican.
Supporters say the For The People Act expands early voting while simplifying absentee voting. It enhances federal support for voting system security. It expands disclosure requirements for donations and campaign transparency while creating a multiple matching system for small campaign donations. Lastly, it will ease the creation of automatic voter registration rolls as well as restoring voting rights to the formerly incarcerated.
The bill now moves to the Senate where it is highly unlikely to pass, let alone be voted on. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said it would not receive any floor time ‘because I get to decide what we vote on.’
San Diego Congressman Scott Peters voted to pass the For the People Act saying, “These groundbreaking reforms will help us rebuild trust in government. Now, we must continue to work together to solve problems most important to San Diegans and all Americans like climate change, gun violence prevention, access to higher education, comprehensive immigration reform, and more,” said Rep. Peters.
Earlier this week, Speaker Pelosi spoke on the importance of passing H.R. 1, ‘So, when we talk about newcomers, we have to recognize the constant reinvigoration of America that they are, that we all have been – our families. And that, unless you’re blessed to be Native American – which is a blessing in itself that we respect – but that constant reinvigoration of hope, determination, optimism, courage, to make the future better for the next generation, those are American traits. And these newcomers make America more American. And we want them, when they come here, to be fully part of our system. And that means not suppressing the vote of our newcomers to America.'”

What The U.S. Constitution Says

Which right appears most often in the Constitution’s text?

It’s “the right to vote.”

In voter ID cases all over the country, courts are considering the proper level of “scrutiny” to apply to “burdens” on the right to cast a ballot. In 2008, the Supreme Court approved an Indiana voter ID law, even conceding that it had a partisan basis because it was not “excessively burdensome” to most voters. (Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, concurred separately to suggest that the proper level of scrutiny was more like “whatever the legislature wants.”)

Courts will defer to the wishes of legislators who wish to protect the election process. There was no evidence of fraud in the Indiana case; there’s none in the Pennsylvania case or the others currently being heard. State officials claimed to be worried that someone somewhere might think there was fraud.

This is deference to bureaucrats that neither courts nor citizens would tolerate where a right considered truly important is at stake. Consider the right to free speech. The majority in Citizens United brushed aside public perceptions of corruption to allow unlimited “independent expenditures,” even though far more citizens are cynical about campaign donations than about “fraudulent” voters. What about freedom of religion? Would we tolerate licensing of churches so atheists won’t worry that “fraudulent” religion is being practiced?

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, “All individuals have the right to vote.” It simply rules out specific limitations on “the right to vote.” A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn’t really a “right” in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say “here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person,” there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Our Constitution is more in the “rights-preserving” than in the “rights-proclaiming business.” The First Amendment doesn’t say “every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion.” In the Second, the right to “keep and bear arms” isn’t defined, but rather shall not be “abridged.” In the Fourth, “the right of the people to be secure … against unreasonable searches and seizures” isn’t defined, but instead “shall not be violated.” In the Seventh, “the right of (civil) trial by jury” — whatever that is — “shall be preserved.” And so on.

In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge “the right to vote at any federal or state election … to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, … except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” The Fifteenth states that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” can’t be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can’t be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote” in federal elections can’t be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects “the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote.”

So if our courts treat the ballot as less than a fundamental right, they aren’t reading that in the Constitution but projecting it onto the Constitution. The projection comes from a longstanding belief that the vote is not a “right,” but a “privilege” — something granted by the powerful to the deserving.

But the fundamental inferred and stated that CITIZENS are those in the U.S. whose rights to vote “shall not be abridged.” CITIZENS are the only people who can legally vote in federal elections.

Summary: “The Democrat Party Illegal Voting Plan”

Before we summarize and discuss the objective of the Democrat Party as a whole regarding illegal voting, here’s what Independent Bernie Sanders who caucuses with the Democrat Party said about criminals’ right to vote WHILE THEY ARE BEHIND BARS:

“I think that is absolutely the direction we should go. In my state, what we do is separate. You’re paying a price, you committed a crime, you’re in jail. That’s bad,” Sanders explained. “But you’re still living in American society and you have a right to vote. I believe in that, yes, I do.”

The average American voter cannot understand why Democrats are so resistant to stopping illegal immigration at all costs. In spite of the hundreds of thousands of criminal acts committed by illegals against American citizens, Democrats refuse to take whatever legal measures are necessary to stop this criminality! And those Americans want Democrats to work with Republicans to do just that: STOP IT!

Voters continue to view illegal immigration as a serious problem but don’t think Democrats want to stop it. Cutting foreign aid is one tool voters are willing to consider. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 67% of all Likely U.S. Voters think illegal immigration is a serious problem in America today, with 47% who say it’s a Very Serious one. Thirty-two percent (32%) say it’s not a serious problem, but that includes only eight percent (8%) who rate it as Not At All Serious.

One would think Democrats — who will say and do anything to pave the way to seize total control of Congress AND the White House in 2020 — would examine these polls and assist conservatives in creating and implementing immigration legislation to streamline the existing legal immigration laws, shorten the process for immigrants to become U.S. citizens, while ferreting out the gang members, human traffickers, and cartel drug traffickers who are by all accounts flooding across our southern border. Democrats unwillingness to enter this process that MUST begin by demanding enforcement of ALL immigration laws prove their objective can be one and only one thing: get enough illegals into the U.S. and find ways to surreptitiously insert them in the election system to vote in the 2020 federal election. There can be NO other explanation for Dems resistance.

Oh, they couch it with fake stories about caring for the abused and poor who inhabit Central American countries that wish only to find a “better life” for their family members. How can we say their charitable feelings are fake? If they REALLY care for those people with legitimate issues mentioned above, they would DEMAND immediate repair to the U.S. immigration system so as to pave the way for the American Dream these immigrants supposedly desire — and many do.

What price is being paid for Democrats open-border policies? Forget about the hundreds of billions of dollars. Just look back at our stories about illegal immigration from March of this year to get statistics that validate the hundreds of thousands of criminal acts perpetrated by illegals against American citizens. They range from purse-snatching to auto theft, assault and battery, all the way to child sex trafficking, rape, and murder. AMERICANS ARE PAYING THE PRICE DEMOCRATS FORCE US TO PAY FOR THEIR QUEST TO GET NEW DEMOCRAT VOTERS! And the price is often the losses of our sons and daughters.

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer: how many more must die, be trafficked, robbed, assaulted, or raped before you think enough is enough and that Americans should NOT have to beg you to stop the criminality at the southern border?

I close with this: Isn’t it a travesty that Americans even have the need to have a conversation because our elected officials want ICE and U.S. Customs to simply turn their backs on illegals flooding across our southern border? Democrats are hoping that “Mob Rule” will cause our resistance to illegals to crumble and that Americans will just say, “OK. We give up. Let’s just give them all blanket amnesty and citizenship.”

Members of Congress: Are you going to continue to allow that to happen?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

The Nadler Circus

John Dean

Summary

Economically: Tax Cuts

Economically: “It’s the Economy, Stupid!”

Healthcare: “Medicare For All”

Immigration

Environment

Foreign Policy

For The Greater Good?

Summary

Summary

What’s “Left?”

Let’s Get to “What’s Left”

Summary

” C’est tout!” (French for, “That’s All, Folks!)

Leaks and Counterfeit Profiles

Summary

The Fake Americans Russia Created to Influence the Election

Russian Spies in America

Part I Wrapup

Polling History: Not So Good

Our Thoughts

Special Counsel Mueller’s Methodology is Suspicious

Summary

The Electoral College

Who Decides an Impasse?

The Electoral College Debate

Summary

Method 1: Congress Proposes an Amendment

Method 2: The States Demand a Constitutional Convention

What The U.S. Constitution Says

Summary: “The Democrat Party Illegal Voting Plan”