Project Veritas Action: Rigging the Election – Robert Creamer Confirms Hillary Clinton Was Personally Involved, Video III
The corruption is real America, can you handle the truth? If you are so inclined to question the videos and the source, then explain why Scott Foval and Robert Creamer lost their jobs after these videos were published. What you are watching below is a crime folks.
Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. “In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.” It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.” The first video explained the dark secrets and the hidden connections and organizations the Clinton campaign uses to incite violence at Trump rallies. The second video exposed a diabolical step-by-step voter fraud strategy discussed by top Democratic operatives and showed one key operative admitting that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years. This latest video takes this investigation even further.
Daily Commentary – Thursday, October 27, 2016 – 97% Of Department of Justice Employees Have Donated to the Hillary Clinton Campaign
For those of you who don’t think that it is a corrupt, rigged and bias system … Hmm, wonder why she was not indicted?
- Only 3% have donated to Donald Trump.
Wikileaks Show New Podesta Email Exposes the Democrat Playbook For Rigging Polls Through “Oversamples”
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO STILL DENY DEMOCRAT MANIPULATION OF POLLING DATA AND OVER-SAMPLING COMES THE FOLLOWING …
From Zero Hedege comes the following report on more information coming from Podesta’s emails. This time it is the Democrat play book on how they rig polls by purposely over-sampling to get the outcome they they want. Imagine that? Just recently an ABC/WAPO poll has Clinton up by 12 points over Trump. Really, who honestly believes any candidate would have a 12 point lead? It happens when you skew polling data and over sample by 9 points. So what is this farce intended to do, depress the voting turnout of course and have people believe that Hillary is so far out ahead, there is no reason to vote.
Shameful, simply, corrupt and shameful.
“METHODOLOGY – This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22, 2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 36-27-31 percent, Democrats – Republicans – Independents.”
More from the emails of Podesta and the rigging of polling results:
Now, for all of you out there who still aren’t convinced that the polls are “adjusted”, we present to you the following Podesta email, leaked earlier today, that conveniently spells out, in detail, exactly how to “manufacture” the desired data. The email starts out with a request for recommendations on “oversamples for polling” in order to “maximize what we get out of our media polling.”
I also want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling.
The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations. In Arizona, over sampling of Hispanics and Native Americans is highly recommended:
Research, microtargeting & polling projects
- Over-sample Hispanics
- Use Spanish language interviewing. (Monolingual Spanish-speaking voters are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets)
- Over-sample the Native American population
For Florida, the report recommends “consistently monitoring” samples to makes sure they’re “not too old” and “has enough African American and Hispanic voters.” Meanwhile, “independent” voters in Tampa and Orlando are apparently more dem friendly so the report suggests filling up independent quotas in those cities first.
- Consistently monitor the sample to ensure it is not too old, and that it has enough African American and Hispanic voters to reflect the state.
- On Independents: Tampa and Orlando are better persuasion targets than north or south Florida (check your polls before concluding this). If there are budget questions or oversamples, make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first.
Meanwhile, it’s suggested that national polls over sample “key districts / regions” and “ethnic” groups “as needed.”
- General election benchmark, 800 sample, with potential over samples in key districts/regions
- Benchmark polling in targeted races, with ethnic over samples as needed
- Targeting tracking polls in key races, with ethnic over samples as needed
OH MY … DONNA BRAZILE GETS DESTROYED BY MEGYN KELLY!!!
Megyn Kelly was confronted with Wilileaks emails where Donna Brazile was given a debate question. Brazile could not answer the question and was more concerned that her email was stolen than answering the question. game, set match!!! DONNA BRAZILE LOOKED TERRIBLE AND SOUNDED WORSE. Former head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was fired for the exact same thing. How does Donna Brazile still have a job?
A new email obtained by POLITICO is shedding more light on the mystery of whether and how interim DNC chair Donna Brazile might have obtained the text of a proposed question from a town hall between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in advance, and possibly shared it with the Clinton campaign.
And now CNN, which co-hosted the town hall with cable network TV One, is pointing the finger at its media partner for what appears to be a breach of the traditional secrecy surrounding the questions for such events.
The email obtained by POLITICO was written by town hall co-moderator Roland Martin on the day of the town hall to CNN producers. But it shows him using word for word the language of a question that Brazile appeared to have sent to the Clinton campaign a day earlier.
QUID PRO QUO … Hillary Clinton’s Email Problems Just Got Real … Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy asked the FBI to Change Classification Decisions in exchange for Favors
ARE YOU KIDDING ME … THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF A QUID PRO QUO AND ITS EVEN REFERENCED IN THE FRIGGIN EMAIL!!!
From the WAPO, State Department contacted the FBI to change the classification of emails from classified to unclassified and offered a quid pro quo in exchange. Just how corrupt is the Obama administration and to what lengths will they go to cover up for Hillary Clinton? How does Patrick Kennedy have a job? Is there anything that was legal and done properly with these emails? But these are the lengths that every one is willing to go to protect a corrupt individual like Hillary Clinton.
AMERICA … WAKE THE HELL UP AND PUT AN END TO THIS GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION!!! DO NOT REWARD THE MOST CORRUPT POLITICIAN OF OUR TIMES WITH THE PRESIDENCY.
For the past few months, Hillary Clinton’s decision to exclusively use a private email server while at the State Department has receded as a campaign issue as Donald Trump’s comments about women have come to dominate the daily chatter about the 2016 race.
On Monday, however, the various issues associated with Clinton’s email setup came roaring back. According to emails released by the FBI, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy asked the FBI to ease up on classification decisions in exchange for allowing more FBI agents in countries where they were not permitted to go. The words “quid pro quo” were used to describe the proposed exchange by the FBI official. (The State Department insists it was no such thing; “This allegation is inaccurate and does not align with the facts,” said State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner in a statement. “To be clear: the State Department did upgrade the document at the request of the FBI when we released it back in May 2015.”)