FEC Complaint Filed Against Clinton Money Laundering Campaign

Clinton Cash

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Steven Spielberg and Calvin Klein named in money laundering scheme complaint that exposes Hillary Clinton corruption

Lance D Johnson
May 02, 2018

Current campaign finance laws prohibit individuals from contributing more than $2,700 to a single candidate or political action committee during an election. These laws, sustained by the Supreme Court, are meant to preserve fairness, curb corruption, and prevent the richest from controlling and influencing an election.

These federal campaign laws did not stop over one thousand Democrat donors from contributing nearly $400,000 each to Hillary Rodham Clinton during the 2016 election. Big name donors including Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, filmmaker Steven Spielberg, and designer Calvin Klein are implicated in a money laundering scheme that deceptively funneled more than $84 million to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

A formal complaint was filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in December 2017. It is based on data readily available to the public and draws from FEC reports filed by Democrats, memos authored by Clinton’s campaign manager, and public statements from DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile and other Democrat state and national party officials.

The money laundering scheme was carried out covertly by the cunning operatives who ran the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF). This group found a way to subvert the law by dubbing itself a “joint fundraising committee” that supported the DNC and 32 state party committees. Under this guise, the HVF coordinated extravagant fundraisers that solicited up to $356,100 each from wealthy donors.

Under the HVF, wealthy Democrat donors contributed over 130 times the legal contribution limit allowed by federal law. These staunch Clinton supporters were able to make larger donations to the HVF because the funds were supposedly raised to support multiple Democratic candidates across the board. However, most of the money collected by the HVF through these networks was quickly sent to the Hillary Clinton campaign. The HVF allowed the wealthiest democratic donors a way to maximize their permissible contribution through this money laundering scheme.

After the money was transferred back and forth between different committees, it eventually found its way back to its intended target: the Clinton campaign.

Read More: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-05-02-facebook-coo-sheryl-sandberg-steven-spielberg-and-calvin-klein-named-in-money-laundering-scheme-complaint-hillary-clinton.html

NBC: Hillary Clinton Shut Down Pedophile Investigation at State Department (2013)

You’re with her?

…Hillary protected pedophiles in government from investigation while running the State Department.

2013 Report:

According to internal State Department memos the agency might have called off or intervened into investigations into possibly illegal, inappropriate behavior within it’s ranks allegedly to protect jobs and avoid scandals.

This concerns a time when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

“There is an old saying in Washington that the cover-up is worse than the crime. But in this case both parts of it are disturbing.”

Allegations of prostitution and pedophilia, and allegations that those crimes were somehow covered up or not looked into. So the State Department this morning is having to respond to those claims, and those investigations involve misconduct by State Department officials, including an Ambassador and security agents attached to then secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.

The allegations are that these investigations were whitewashed, quashed altogether, and that those orders came from high up.

NBC has obtained documents relating to ongoing investigations into some disturbing allegations involving State Department personnel and at least one ambassador. A State Department memo says, quote, “the Ambassador routinely ditched his protective security detail in order to solicit sexual favors from both prostitutes and minor children.

The memo also says a top State Department official directed State Department investigators to “cease the investigation” into the ambassador’s conduct.” It’s just one of what another document describes as “several examples of undue influence” from top State Department officials.

Research Shows Google’s Search Manipulations Tried To Rig Election For Hillary

google manipulated the 2016 election

Hillary Clinton may have lost by a substantially larger margin had Google not manipulated the search results in her favor. Even trending negative searches about the corrupt democrat were suppressed. According to an exclusive by Breitbart, the conclusions are based on 16 months of experiments conducted with a total of 1,800 people from all 50 U.S. states. Participants in the study came from diverse ideological backgrounds, including liberal, conservative, and moderate. In order to control prior biases, participants were asked to judge political candidates that they were unfamiliar with.

The research showed that the manipulation of results pages in search engines can shift the voting preferences of undecideds by anywhere between 20 and 80 percent, depending on the demographic –meaning Google was attempting to rig the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton.

The voting preferences of participants who saw no search suggestions shifted toward the favored candidate by 37.1%. The voting preferences of participants in the search suggestion groups who saw only positive search suggestions shifted similarly (35.6%). However, the voting preferences of participants who saw three positive search suggestions and one negative search suggestion barely shifted (1.8%); this occurred because the negative search suggestion attracted more than 40% of the clicks (negativity bias). In other words, a single negative search suggestion can impact opinions dramatically. Participants who were shown four negative suggestions (and no positives) shifted away from the candidate shown in the search bar (-43.4%). -Epstein, Mohr, & Martinez, The Search Suggestion Effect, 2018

Led by Dr. Robert Epstein, the researchers concluded that by using this method of manipulation, search engines can shift a “50/50 split among people who are undecided on an issue to a 90/10 split without people’s awareness and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to follow.” Meaning the real collusion during the 2016 election was not between Trump and the Russians, but was between tech giants and their propaganda scheme and the Hillary Clinton campaign. 

It is no longer a conspiracy theory that Google is manipulating people.  Just look at the heavy amount of manipulation in Google’s “suggested” searches in comparison to those of Bing and Yahoo. The researchers suggested that the search suggestion manipulation made against Google during the 2016 election when the tech giant appeared to be suppressing negative search suggestions for Hillary Clinton while allowing negative suggestions for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders to remain.

read more: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/research-shows-googles-search-manipulations-tried-to-rig-election-for-hillary_04252018

American Warfare’s Giant Open Secret

US Freedom

All of the wars waged by the United States in the last 70 years have had one thing in common.

On September 1, 1970, soon after President Nixon expanded the Vietnam War by invading neighboring Cambodia, Democratic Senator George McGovern, a decorated World War II veteran and future presidential candidate, took to the floor of the Senate and said,

“Every Senator [here] is partly responsible for sending 50,000 young Americans to an early grave.… This chamber reeks of blood.… It does not take any courage at all for a congressman or a senator or a president to wrap himself in the flag and say we are staying in Vietnam, because it is not our blood that is being shed.”

More than six years had passed since Congress all but rubber-stamped President Lyndon Johnson’s notoriously vague Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which provided what little legal framework there was for military escalation in Vietnam. Doubts remained as to the veracity of the supposed North Vietnamese naval attacks on ships in the Tonkin Gulf that had officially triggered the resolution, or whether the Navy even had cause to venture so close to a sovereign nation’s coastline. No matter. Congress gave the president what he wanted: essentially a blank check to bomb, batter, and occupy South Vietnam. From there it was but a few short steps to nine more years of war, illegal secret bombings of Laos and Cambodia, ground invasions of both those countries, and eventually 58,000 American and upwards of 3 million Vietnamese deaths.

Leaving aside the rest of this country’s sad chapter in Indochina, let’s just focus for a moment on the role of Congress in that era’s war making. In retrospect, Vietnam emerges as just one more chapter in 70 years of ineptitude and apathy on the part of the Senate and House of Representatives when it comes to their constitutionally granted war powers. Time and again in those years, the legislative branch shirked its historic—and legal—responsibility under the Constitution to declare (or refuse to declare) war.

And yet, never in those seven decades has the duty of Congress to assert itself in matters of war and peace been quite so vital as it is today, with American troops engaged—and still dying, even if now in small numbers—in one undeclared war after another in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and now Niger… and who even knows where else.

Fast forward 53 years from the Tonkin Gulf crisis to Senator Rand Paul’s desperate attempt this September to force something as simple as a congressional discussion of the legal basis for America’s forever wars, which garnered just 36 votes. It was scuttled by a bipartisan coalition of war hawks. And who even noticed—other than obsessive viewers of C-SPAN who were treated to Paul’s four-hour-long cri de coeur denouncing Congress’s agreement to “unlimited war, anywhere, anytime, anyplace upon the globe”?

The Kentucky senator sought something that should have seemed modest indeed: to end the reliance of one administration after another on the long-outdated post-9/11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) for all of America’s multifaceted and widespread conflicts. He wanted to compel Congress to debate and legally sanction (or not) any future military operations anywhere on Earth. While that may sound reasonable enough, more than 60 senators, Democratic and Republican alike, stymied the effort. In the process, they sanctioned (yet again) their abdication of any role in America’s perpetual state of war—other than, of course, funding it munificently.

 

Read More: https://www.thenation.com/article/american-warfares-giant-open-secret/

Epidemic of medical boots: Now it’s Rep. Jackie Walorski #itishappening

It’s an epidemic!

Of politicos wearing a medical or orthopedic boot.

First, it was Hillary Clinton, first seen on October 15, 2017 with a medical boot, ostensibly because she broke her right toe “while running downstairs wearing heels and falling back”. Two months later, on Dec. 14, she’s still wearing an orthopedic boot, although of a different color — navy blue instead of grey.

Then, it’s RINO Sen. John McCain, first seen on November 6, 2017, with “the boot” on his right leg, ostensibly because of a “minor tear” in his right Achilles’ tendon. 17 days later, he switched the boot from his supposedly injured right foot to his healthy left leg. McCain nonsensically explained he did so in order to give the left leg “a break” because it “was doing extra work to compensate for the boot” on his right leg.

Next, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) was seen wearing “the boot” on her left leg:

Then, it’s Hillary close aide Huma Abedin, spotted on December 29, 2017 wearing pants with an interesting rectangular-shaped wrinkle on her right pant leg:

The latest discovery: Congresswoman Jackie Walorski (R-Indiana), 54, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. On November 2, 2017, Walorski was photographed by AP’s Pablo Martinez Monsivais, leaving the White House with a group of other House Representatives after a meeting with President Donald Trump. (Source: Boston Herald; h/t REBRN)

I cropped and enlarged the image of Walorski, and painted the yellow arrow pointing to her boot:

First elected to the House in 2012 with the support of the TEA Party, Walorski turned out to be somewhat of a disappointment:

  • Voting with the Republican Party most of the time, Ballotpedia calls her a “centrist” or “moderate” Republican.
  • Madison Project gave her a score of only 59% on conservative issues.
  • Freedom Works gives her a lifetime score of 69% on issues that promote less government, lower taxes and more economic freedom.

Reportedly, the number of sealed indictments since last October has reached over 8,000.

H/t Kelleigh

~Eowyn

Read More: https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2018/01/05/epidemic-of-medical-boots-now-its-rep-jackie-walorski/

“They Went After The Women Who Came Forward” – Former Obama HHS Secretary Exposes The Clintons

Clinton Body Count

In the “post Weinstein” world we now find ourselves in we have seen dozens and dozens of prominent figures in Hollywood, politics, and the media be accused of a wide range of sexual attacks on women.

From groping all the way to rape, powerful establishment figures are being outed as sexual predators across the country, with the mainstream media declaring that all accusers must, at least initially, be believed.

 

Amazingly, at the same time, mainstream media talking heads have either specifically ignored the numerous allegations against Bill Clinton or actually claimed that his accusers are discredited and cannot be believed. (Keep in mind all other accusers are automatically assumed to be telling the truth.)

With that being said, it was only a matter of time before that dam broke as well and now, with a series of explosive comments by an Obama and Clinton ally, one can hope that Bill Clinton may finally be brought to justice with Hillary forever shamed for her role in attacking the women who came forward.

In an interview conducted on a CNN podcast by former Obama chief adviser David Axelrod, former Obama Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius opened up about the cover-up and subsequent attacks on the women who accused then President Clinton in the 1990’s.

“Not only did people look the other way, but they went after the women who came forward and accused him,” Sebelius stunningly detailed. Keep in mind this is a fact that the alternative media has reported on literally hundreds and hundreds of times while being attacked as right-wing conspiracy theorists for doing so.

“And so it doubled down on not only bad behavior but abusive behavior. And then people attacked the victims,” Sebelius continued.

Sebelius made clear that her criticism extends directly to Hillary Clinton herself who was widely known to be the driving force behind the attacks on her husbands accusers.

An article written about the podcast by CNN couldn’t hide from the fact that this is absolutely Hillary’s problem as well.

Sebelius extended her criticism to Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton White House for what she called a strategy of dismissing and besmirching the women who stepped forward – a pattern she said is being repeated today by alleged perpetrators of sexual assault – saying that the criticism of the former first lady and Secretary of State was “absolutely” fair.

Sebelius noted that the Clinton Administration’s response was being imitated, adding that “you can watch that same pattern repeat, It needs to end. It needs to be over.”

The comments came during a conversation with David Axelrod on the latest episode of “The Axe Files,” a podcast produced by the University of Chicago Institute of Politics and CNN.

Of course the notoriously left wing, anti-Trump network couldn’t simply report on Sebelius’s comments without also attacking Republicans who have seemingly done the exact thing that the network has defended the Clinton’s for doing.

One can imagine that like Donna Brazile, Sebelius will be attacked by Clinton’s army of media shills and then eventually attempt to backtrack a few days later when the pressure becomes too much to handle.

Regardless, the cat is out of the bag. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton (as well as the entire machine around them) actively and purposefully attacked the numerous women who accused Bill of everything from groping to rape.

They absolutely did not “stand by them.”

Read More: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/they-went-after-the-women-who-came-forward-former-obama-hhs-secretary-exposes-the-clintons-for-attacking-the-women-who-accused-bill-clinton-of-sexual-assault_11222017

Libyan Black People Being Sold As Slaves In 2017

What Hillary Clinton should have said on CBS?

“We came, we saw, he died…. we established a revived African slave trade.” …?

..P.D.

we came we saw he died LOL

Billy C Carson
11/26/2017

The Libyan War in 2011 was a BIG LIE!!! The Obama administration said it was just trying to protect civilians. Its actions reveal it was looking for regime change. Let’s revisit a few key quotes from the past… From the Defense Department, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen informed David Gregory of Meet the Press, “The goals of this campaign right now again are limited, and it isn’t about seeing him go.” Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates echoed the administration line: “Regime change is a very complicated business. It sometimes takes a long time. Sometimes it can happen very fast, but it was never part of the military mission.” (Emphasis added.) In truth, the Libyan intervention was about regime change from the very start.

The threat posed by the Libyan regime’s military and paramilitary forces to civilian-populated areas was diminished by NATO airstrikes and rebel ground movements within the first 10 days. Obama’s administration continued to attack Lybia led by U.S. backed rebels AKA Al Qaeda!!!!

 

ll the while Obama made millions off of these campaigns. The sickest part of this entire story is that most black people won’t even research it and will continue to support Obama just because they think he’s black which is everything that’s wrong with this world. Black people have been sold down the river with no paddle. This is the reason Obama is banned from visiting most African countries. Banned by black people.

 

Read More: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lybian-black-people-being-sold-as-slaves-in-2017_us_5a1b25b3e4b0bf1467a847a3?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003

Libya’s Slave Auctions And African Genocide: What Hillary Knew

we came we saw he died LOL

A new CNN investigation has uncovered a network of slave markets operating in warehouses in various cities across Libya six years after NATO-led intervention in the country toppled the government of Muammar Gaddafi in support of US and UK backed rebels. And not only did CNN confirm the presence of slave auctions where human beings are being sold for as little as $400 in “liberated” Libyabut CNN’s crew was actually able to film a live auction in progress, while also gathering the testimonies of multiple victims.

Though CNN’s footage and accompanying report is shocking, such practices have been quietly documented for years, and clear warnings were issued starting in early 2011 that Libya’s black as well as migrant population would be the first to fall victim at the hands of the Islamist Libyan rebels that NATO’s war empowered. From the outset critics of Western intervention in Libya loudly sounded the alarm of a genocide against black Libyans in progress committed by the very rebels the US, UK, France, and Gulf allies were arming – a fact so well-known that then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was personally briefed and warned on the matter.


Screenshot of CNN’s investigative video uncovering modern day slave auctions in post-Gaddafi Libya.

The Dangerous Myth of Gaddafi’s “African Mercenaries” 

Among the foremost of these early critics at the time, Maximilian Forte, Associate Professor at Montreal’s Concordia University, published a 2012 book which exhaustively documented racially motivated crimes which came early and often during the armed uprising. His book, Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa, contains essential summary context laying out the role that international media played in 2011 and after, including CNN itself, in fueling the xenophobic campaign to scapegoat Libya’s over one million strong black population as “pro-Gaddafi mercenaries”.

According to Professor Forte:

Racial fear and xenophobia were at the very crux of the first public calls for Western military intervention, and were the basis for the first utterance of the need for a “no-fly zone” … The myth of the “African mercenary” was useful for the Libyan opposition, the NTC [National Transitional Council] and the militias, to insist that this was a war between “Gaddafi and the Libyan people,” as if he had no domestic support at all…

As Patrick Cockburn explained, the insurgents’ “explanation for the large pro-Gaddafi forces was that they were all mercenaries, mostly from black Africa, whose only motive was money.”

Gaddafi’s ‘pan-Africanist’ policies such as aggressive support for the creation of the African Union (in 2002), and a relatively open immigration policy allowing for the influx of sub-Saharan African migrants to work on Gaddafi’s massive building projects, stirred resentment and discontent within broader Arab Libyan society in the decade leading up to the 2011 war. This was the historical background which set the stage for the anti-Gaddafi rebels’ extraordinary claim that sub-Saharan “foreign mercenaries” were being used en masse by Gaddafi to target protesters (later proven false).

And these historic ethnic and racial dynamics were well understood by the US government long before official support to Libyan militant groups began – militants which were not only shown to have al-Qaeda links, but which declared “open season” on all black Libyans and migrant workers during the revolution. As the CIA’s own historical analysis of Libya’s internal dynamics spells out:

QADHAFI in 1998 adopted a decade-long pan-African policy that enabled large numbers of sub-Saharan migrants to enter Libya without visas to work in the construction and agricultural industries. Although sub-Saharan Africans provided a cheap labor source, they were poorly treated and were subjected to periodic mass expulsions. By the mid-2000s, domestic animosity toward African migrants

Similar to later developments in Syria, the media would uncritically echo whatever the “freedom fighting” rebels would feed it, thus this black foreign mercenary trope became an unquestioned reality spread from rebel propagandists to the Western public. Libyan opposition members even began claiming to be victims of wild attacks by roving bands of machete-wielding pro-Gaddafi blacks wearing tell-tale yellow hard hats – a symbol which also falsely began to be associated with “Gaddafi’s savage mercenaries” – resulting in subsequent mass arrests and executions of innocent black migrant construction workers.

CNN Spread the “Black Mercenary” Lie

The end result would of course be the widespread targeting and scapegoating of an entire ethnic population within Libya. This is demonstrated, for example, in the most well-known example of Tawergha, an entire town of 30,000 black and “dark-skinned” Libyans which vanished by August 2011 after its takeover by NATO-backed NTC Misratan brigades.


A widely circulated photo from the Libyan war which shows rebels threatening to shoot a black man.

But it is important to remember that CNN itself at the time regularly promoted the false “black mercenary” narrative which helped fuel and excuse such atrocities, even though it is now much belatedly investigating and decrying Libya’s current migrant slave auctions, while leaving out the essential context which enabled such horrors in the first place. For example, the following February 2011 CNN reporting relied on unnamed opposition sources during the earliest days of the conflict to say:

Residents said hundreds of mercenaries from sub-Saharan Africa had been killed or captured while fighting for Gadhafi, but much of the army appears to have gone over to anti-government forces.

And a separate CNN article from the same month – though acknowledging that no CNN journalists were even inside the country – still uncritically reported:

Clashes broke out between a large crowd of demonstrators and people who appeared to be African mercenaries in the center of the city, according to an activist.

Yet another broadcast segment from February 2011 – the clip of which appears to have since been deleted from CNN’s site (but which is available on YouTube), asks the question: in Libya “just who is doing the dirty work?” – while answering that Gaddafi imported Chadian and Sudanese mercenaries to crack down on civilian protesters.

And those few examples are but a tiny sampling of CNN’s consistent spreading the dangerous myth throughout the early stages of the conflict – to say nothing of how ubiquitous the false rebel claims became among mainstream media generally.

US-backed Rebels and Ethnic Genocide

One of the few international correspondents to actually report the truth in real time while writing from inside Libya was The Independent’s (UK) Patrick Cockburn. In an August 2011 story he wrote as if attempting to warn the world about the future war crimes to come at the hands of the US-backed rebels:

The rotting bodies of 30 men, almost all black and many handcuffed, slaughtered as they lay on stretchers and even in an ambulance in central Tripoli, are an ominous foretaste of what might be Libya’s future. The incoming regime makes pious statements about taking no revenge on pro-Gaddafi forces, but this stops short of protecting those who can be labelled mercenaries. Any Libyan with a black skin accused of fighting for the old regime may have a poor chance of survival.

Subsequent stories of widespread torture and executions of black Libyans included a 2012 report in UK media which involved anti-Gaddafi “revolutionaries” filming themselves torturing black prisoners, making them eat the former Libyan national flag.

If reporters like Cockburn and even prominent human rights organizations (see Human Rights Watch, September 2011, Libya: Stop Arbitrary Arrests of Black Africans) understood what was happening months prior to height of NATO’s military campaign in support of the rebels, which ended in the brutal torture and field execution of Gaddafi, then what did one of the prime US architects of the war, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton know and when did she know it?


Then Secretary of State Clinton posing with Libyan rebel commanders.

What Hillary Knew

The answer lies in a March 27, 2011, intelligence brief on Libya published by WikiLeaks. The brief, which was made public in 2015 as part of a large batch of Hillary emails released by the State Department, was sent by long time close adviser to the Clinton family and Hillary’s personal intelligence gatherer, Sidney Blumenthal, and contains clear reference to rebels summarily executing “all foreign mercenaries” – which had already become the common euphemism for black Libyans then being targeted by the US-supported rebels.

Citing a rebel commander source “speaking in strict confidence” Blumenthal reports to Hillary:

Under attack from allied Air and Naval forces, the Libyan Army troops have begun to desert to the rebel side in increasing numbers. The rebels are making an effort to greet these troops as fellow Libyans, in an effort to encourage additional defections.

 

Source Comment: Speaking in strict confidence, one rebel commander stated that his troops continue to summarily execute all foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting…

Hillary Emails Reveal True Motive for Libya Intervention | Foreign Policy Journal

Newly disclosed emails show that Libya’s plan to create a gold-backed currency to compete with the euro and dollar was a motive for NATO’s intervention.

Hillary Emails show UK, French, Egyptian special forces were secretly in Libya providing arms to “protestors” http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/ 

And further interesting is that the line immediately following the acknowledgement of war crimes against “foreign mercenaries” indicates that a long time CIA supported Libyan exile was then taking command of the very militants committing those summary executions.

The email continues:

At the same time Colonel Khalifa Haftar has reportedly joined the rebel command structure, in an effort to help organization the rebel forces.

Khalifa Haftar has since 2011 become a mainstay in Libya’s post-Gaddafi chaos, heading up one of the three to four governments (at any given time) claiming authority in the war-torn country. Haftar has been widely acknowledged as the “CIA’s man” during his two decade long exile in the US, as a BBC profile explained: “His proximity to the CIA’s headquarters in Langley hinted at a close relationship with US intelligence services, who gave their backing to several attempts to assassinate Gaddafi.”

CIA’s Khalifa Haftar and Mass Executions

Meanwhile, Haftar is currently being eyed by international prosecutors for continuing to commit war crimes in Libya. One month ago The Guardian reported, “Ex-CIA asset Khalifa Haftar, due to meet Italian officials in Rome, ordered soldiers to kill prisoners, according to legal experts.” The Guardian cites video evidence which proves he continues to be “complicit in calling for extrajudicial killings.”

And yesterday Al Jazeera reported that a formal suit has been filed against Haftar at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for “carrying out mass executions and torture.” Another recent Guardian report which details torture and rape being carried out against prisoners held under Haftar’s militia alliance, includes the following eyewitness account of the torture of African migrant detainees“There was a black man, a migrant. In the evening, they threw him into one of our cells: ‘You rape this guy, otherwise, you’re dead!’”

Then Secretary of State Clinton understood in early 2011 what was happening concerning the rebel genocidal targeting of black Libyans and African migrants, yet pushed to arm the rebels and overthrow Gaddafi anyway. She was given the intelligence brief which gave evidence this was happening on March 27, 2011. But even without such a classified intelligence report personally delivered to her, such war crimes were so well known that a full month prior on February 28, 2011, Al Jazeera could publish the following story entitled, African Migrants Targetted in Libya:

As nations evacuate their citizens from the violence gripping Libya, many African migrant workers are targeted because they are suspected of being mercenaries hired by Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader.
Dozens of workers from sub-Saharan Africa are feared killed, and hundreds are in hiding, as angry mobs of anti-government protesters hunt down “black African mercenaries,” according to witnesses.

“No Regrets”

But even years later, as such race-based war crimes have now been exhaustively documented, Hillary has consistently indicated that she has no regrets. Though her beloved Libyan rebels, legitimized and empowered through broad support from the West, were literally killing people based on the color of their skin, not a single one has ever been convicted in a court of law or punished for their crimes.

Moreover, Hillary has never so much as hinted at the problem, though her public stature would allow her a world-wide platform to speak against atrocities at any time, possibly preventing further crimes. Instead, she has simply chosen to conclude her role in the tragic story of Libya with her crazed and gleeful declaration of “we came, we saw, he died.”

“A Shocking Truth”: Donna Brazile Accuses Clinton Campaign Of “Rigging” Primary

Donna Brazille was complicit in rigging the DNC primaries for Hillary, now watch her sing like a bird to avoid jail…

Authored by Donna Brazille, former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, originally published in Politico.

* * *

When I was asked to run the Democratic Party after the Russians hacked our emails, I stumbled onto a shocking truth about the Clinton campaign.

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call.

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.

By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.

***

The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

“What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”

That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.

“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”

“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

“What’s the burn rate, Gary?” I asked. “How much money do we need every month to fund the party?”

The burn rate was $3.5 million to $4 million a month, he said.

I gasped. I had a pretty good sense of the DNC’s operations after having served as interim chair five years earlier. Back then the monthly expenses were half that. What had happened? The party chair usually shrinks the staff between presidential election campaigns, but Debbie had chosen not to do that. She had stuck lots of consultants on the DNC payroll, and Obama’s consultants were being financed by the DNC, too.

When we hung up, I was livid. Not at Gary, but at this mess I had inherited. I knew that Debbie had outsourced a lot of the management of the party and had not been the greatest at fundraising. I would not be that kind of chair, even if I was only an interim chair. Did they think I would just be a surrogate for them, get on the road and rouse up the crowds? I was going to manage this party the best I could and try to make it better, even if Brooklyn did not like this. It would be weeks before I would fully understand the financial shenanigans that were keeping the party on life support.

***

Right around the time of the convention the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild “the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen.”

Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.

I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.

***

I had to keep my promise to Bernie. I was in agony as I dialed him. Keeping this secret was against everything that I stood for, all that I valued as a woman and as a public servant.

“Hello, senator. I’ve completed my review of the DNC and I did find the cancer,” I said. “But I will not kill the patient.”

I discussed the fundraising agreement that each of the candidates had signed. Bernie was familiar with it, but he and his staff ignored it. They had their own way of raising money through small donations. I described how Hillary’s campaign had taken it another step.

I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election.

Bernie took this stoically. He did not yell or express outrage. Instead he asked me what I thought Hillary’s chances were. The polls were unanimous in her winning but what, he wanted to know, was my own assessment?

I had to be frank with him. I did not trust the polls, I said. I told him I had visited states around the country and I found a lack of enthusiasm for her everywhere. I was concerned about the Obama coalition and about millennials.

I urged Bernie to work as hard as he could to bring his supporters into the fold with Hillary, and to campaign with all the heart and hope he could muster. He might find some of her positions too centrist, and her coziness with the financial elites distasteful, but he knew and I knew that the alternative was a person who would put the very future of the country in peril. I knew he heard me. I knew he agreed with me, but I never in my life had felt so tiny and powerless as I did making that call.

When I hung up the call to Bernie, I started to cry, not out of guilt, but out of anger. We would go forward. We had to.