mariomike said:July 29, 2016
Q. Who protects DNC in PHL from VBIEDs?
A: Police? B: FBI? C: Secret Service?
A: D: The DOT
Leftist Filmmaker Uploads Video Showing His Shock At Just How Empty The DNC Is
Screencap: YoutubeScreencap: Youtube
BY: CHASE STEPHENS JULY 27, 2016
If you're watching the big news networks, you'd think the Democratic National Convention is a standing-room-only smashing success with zero controversy, angry protests, and tons of American flags.
Film director, Josh Fox, best known for his Oscar-nominated anti-fracking documentary Gasland, uploaded a video (below) to his Facebook page live from inside the Wells Fargo Center, where he was utterly shocked at the amount of empty seats.
VIDEO: CLINTON SECURES DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION: AP
Current Time 0:12
Duration Time 0:50
Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:12
Fox tells the camera, "This is amazing, this place is empty. There is nobody left in here. I mean this whole stadium, look at this," as he pans his cellphone to show the lack of cheering Dems.
He continues in disbelief, adding, "This is not voter enthusiasm.... I can't believe my eyes. I've never seen anything like this. This is the primetime of the Democratic National Convention right after the nomination of Hillary Clinton and this place is emptied out like crazy. I'm stunned."
"This is insane. The whole California delegation is pretty much gone," he adds. "I mean this has got to be something very worrisome for the Democrats. Voter enthusiasm wins elections."
Fox then re-tweeted that 1900 delegates had walked out:
The director goes on to explain that the states that Hillary won got seating up close to the stage and the Bernie state delegates were sent up to the cheap seats.
#DemExit is starting to pick up speed with more and more people reporting what the mainstream media won't show:
On ABC this morning, Trump responded to Khan’s speech. I don’t know what I expected from Trump. Maybe he would show some gentleness. Maybe he would show some empathy. Maybe he would refuse to comment. Maybe he would attack Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s foreign policy leadership. All of those responses would have been fine.
Trump’s actual response, though, wasn’t fine.
"If you look at his wife, she was standing there," he said, on national television. "She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me."
This wasn’t a slip of the tongue. In an interview with Maureen Dowd, Trump took the same tack. "I’d like to hear his wife say something," he said.
Let’s be very clear about what Trump is doing here: as ABC wrote, he’s suggesting "Khan’s wife didn’t speak because she was forbidden to as a Muslim." This is bullshit. It is flatly, verifiably, false. But that’s almost beside the point.
Trump listened to a speech by the bereaved father of a fallen Muslim soldier and used it to slander the fallen soldier’s family. That was his response. That is his character.
You know what this convention really needed? An angry Muslim with a thick accent like Fareed Zacaria.
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) July 29, 2016
ETA: Of *course* Ann Coulter had to go even more over-the-top, with this gem:
Election Justice USA finds that Bernie Sanders lost an estimated 184 delegates to Election Fraud
July 27, 2016 usapoliticsnow admin 1 Comment Bernie Sanders, Delegates, Democrats, DNC, Election Fraud, elections 2016, presidential
Well, 184 is only the upper estimate considering election fraud. Not even counting in the immense MSM bias, lack of debates, DNC bias/shenenigans outside of fraud, Hillarys huge funding thanks to corruption… It should have been a landslide for Bernie!
See the full report here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6J1ecILnk3UUy1KZ2FUT29iQ1E/view?pref=2&pli=1
The following is from the last page of the entire report:
We have aimed to provide an overview of the evidence for various types of fraud and targeted voter suppression impacting the outcomes of the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. After covering the legal background and the history of Election Justice USA’s legal actions, our best efforts to combat election fraud and voter suppression, we gave a thorough treatment of:
1) Targeted voter suppression
2) Registration tampering
3) Illegal voter purges
4) Exit polling discrepancies
5) Evidence for voting machine tampering
6) The security (or lack thereof) of various voting machine types
Finally, we gave a date-by-date, state-by-state overview of each of these fraud or suppression types at work throughout the course of the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. Based on this work, Election Justice USA has established an upper estimate of 184 pledged delegates lost by Senator Bernie Sanders as a consequence of specific irregularities and instances of fraud. Adding these delegates to Senator Sanders’ pledged delegate total and subtracting the same number from Hillary Clinton’s total would more than erase the 359 pledged delegate gap between the two candidates. EJUSA established the upper estimate through exit polling data, statistical analysis by precinct size, and attention to the details of Democratic proportional awarding of national delegates. Even small changes in vote shares in critical states like Massachusetts and New York could have substantially changed the media narrative surrounding the primaries in ways that would likely have had far reaching consequences for Senator Sanders’ campaign.
We conclude by calling for decertification of the 2016 Democratic primary results in every state in which we have established a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the vote tally. Finally, we wish to bring the reader’s attention to three simple reforms that would eliminate the mere possibility of the vast majority of fraud types demonstrated or evidenced in this report:
1) Exclusive use of hand-counted paper ballots in all future US elections.
2) Automatic voter registration, with same-day party affiliation switching as a mandatory condition for all elections that are publicly funded.
3) Restoration of voting rights legislation which would ensure adequate access to polling sites.
Election Justice USA maintains that these recommendations for future elections, contrary to common claims, save taxpayer money. While beyond the scope of the present report, we aim to present a convincing case for this as part of subsequent publications
Is Johnson-Weld a Libertarian Ticket?
By ILYA SHAPER SHARE
Plenty of libertarians were wary of seeing former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld as the Libertarian Party’s nominee for vice president. Even those of us who haven’t had anything to do with the LP would like to see the party represented by, you know, libertarians. Weld, who seems like a nice man and was apparently a decent governor, is the living expositor of the difference between a libertarian and someone who’s “socially liberal and fiscally conservative.”
Case in point: this week’s ReasonTV interview, where Weld praises Justice Stephen Breyer and Judge Merrick Garland, who are the jurists most deferential to the government on everything, whether environmental regulation or civil liberties. Later in the same interview, he similarly compliments Republican senators like Mark Kirk and Susan Collins, who are among the least libertarian of the GOP caucus in terms of the size and scope of government and its imposition on the private sector and civil society.
My point isn’t to criticize the Weld selection as a matter of political strategy. Indeed, he seems to have brought a certain respectability to a party that is rarely taken seriously. And if that moves the national political debate in a more libertarian direction, bully.
But then look at the most recent news made by the man at the top of the LP ticket. Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, in an interview with (my friend) Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner, calls religious freedom “a black hole” and endorses a federal role in preventing “discrimination” in all its guises. More specifically, he’s okay with fining a wedding photographer for not working a gay wedding – a case from New Mexico where Cato and every libertarian I know supported the photgrapher – and forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for contraceptives (where again Cato and libertarians supported religious liberty). He also bizarrely compare Mormonism to religiously motivated shootings.
In other words, Johnson doesn’t just come off as anti-religion, but completely misses the distinction between public (meaning government) and private action that is at the heart of (classical) liberal or libertarian legal theory. That’s a shame: it makes him no different than progressives in that regard – or social conservatives, who miss the distinction in the other direction, restricting individual rights in addition to government powers.
And so, what we’re left with is a Libertarian Party ticket that’s positioning itself as “moderate” more than anything else. Again, that may well be a clever political ploy – though it makes the dubious bet that there are more #NeverHillary Democrats than #NeverTrump Republicans – but it’s not very encouraging for libertarians who want to “vote [their] conscience.”
Exclusive: Clinton campaign also hacked in attacks on Democrats
WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO | BY MARK HOSENBALL, JOSEPH MENN AND JOHN WALCOTT
A computer network used by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign was hacked as part of a broad cyber attack on Democratic political organizations, people familiar with the matter told Reuters.
The latest attack, which was disclosed to Reuters on Friday, follows two other hacks on the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, and the party’s fundraising committee for candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives.
A Clinton campaign spokesman said in a statement late on Friday that an analytics data program maintained by the DNC and used by the campaign and a number of other entities "was accessed as part of the DNC hack."
"Our campaign computer system has been under review by outside cyber security experts. To date, they have found no evidence that our internal systems have been compromised," said Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill.
Later, a campaign official said hackers had access to the analytics program's server for approximately five days. The analytics data program is one of many systems the campaign accesses to conduct voter analysis, and does not include social security numbers or credit card numbers, the official said.
The U.S. Department of Justice national security division is investigating whether cyber attacks on Democratic political organizations threatened U.S. security, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.
The involvement of the Justice Department’s national security division is a sign that the Obama administration has concluded that the hacking was sponsored by a state, people with knowledge of the investigation said.
While it is unclear exactly what material the hackers may have gained access to, the third such attack on sensitive Democratic targets disclosed in the last six weeks has caused alarm in the party and beyond, just over three months before the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election.
Hackers, whom U.S. intelligence officials have concluded were Russian, gained access to the entire network of the fundraising Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or DCCC, said people familiar with the matter, detailing the extent of the breach to Reuters for the first time.
Cyber security experts and U.S. officials said earlier this week they had concluded, based on analysis of malware and other aspects of the DNC hack, that Russia engineered the release of hacked Democratic Party emails to influence the U.S. presidential election.
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation said on Friday it was "aware of media reporting on cyber intrusions involving multiple political entities, and is working to determine the accuracy, nature and scope of these matters."
"The FBI takes seriously any allegations of intrusions, and we will continue to hold accountable those who pose a threat in cyberspace," the agency said in an emailed statement.
The hack did not involve the private email system Clinton used while she was secretary of state.
Yahoo News reported on Thursday night that the FBI had warned the Clinton campaign last March that it was a target of a cyber attack involving spearphishing and had asked the campaign to turn over sensitive data to help in its investigation, but that campaign lawyers rejected this request as too intrusive. A source familiar with the matter confirmed this account to Reuters.
The new disclosure to Reuters that hackers gained access to the full DCCC network means they would have had access to everything on the network from emails to strategy memos and opposition research prepared to support Democratic candidates in campaigns for the House.
The hack of the DCCC, which is based in Washington, was reported first by Reuters on Thursday, ahead of Clinton’s speech in Philadelphia accepting the Democratic party’s nomination.
Russian officials could not be immediately reached for comment.
Several U.S. officials said the Obama administration has avoided publicly attributing the attacks to Russia as that might undermine Secretary of State John Kerry’s effort to win Russian cooperation in the war on Islamic State in Syria.
The officials said the administration fears Russian President Vladimir Putin might respond to a public move by escalating cyber attacks on U.S. targets, increasing military harassment of U.S. and allied aircraft and warships in the Baltic and Black Seas, and making more aggressive moves in Eastern Europe.
Some officials question the approach, arguing that responding more forcefully to Russia would be more effective than remaining silent.
The Obama administration announced in an April 2015 executive order that it could apply economic sanctions in response to cyber attacks.
TRUMP ON EMAILS
The hack on the DNC, made public in June, led to WikiLeaks publishing more than 19,000 emails last weekend, some of them showing favoritism within the DNC for Clinton over U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned on Sunday as a result, creating a rocky start for the party's convention in Philadelphia this week.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Wednesday invited Russia to dig up thousands of "missing" emails from Clinton's time at the State Department, prompting Democrats to accuse him of urging foreigners to spy on Americans.
On Thursday, Trump said his remarks were meant as sarcasm.
Earlier in the week, Clinton campaign senior policy adviser Jake Sullivan had criticized Trump and called the hacking "a national security issue."
Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller said on Friday the reported breach showed cyber security is "a problem wherever Hillary Clinton goes. Hopefully this time there wasn't classified or top secret information that puts American lives at risk."
In Washington, the DCCC said early on Friday it had hired cyber security firm CrowdStrike to investigate. "We have taken and are continuing to take steps to enhance the security of our network," the DCCC said. "We are cooperating with federal law enforcement with respect to their ongoing investigation."
The DCCC had no additional comment late on Friday. Officials at the DNC did not respond to requests for comment.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, told CNN on Friday she had not heard about the hack of the Clinton campaign.
But she said: "It wouldn't surprise me. I think it should be pretty clear that both campaigns should be aware that there's a problem out there. Everybody should be cautious."
(Additional reporting by Dustin Volz, Susan Cornwell and Emily Stephenson in Washington, Grant Smith in New York and Amanda Becker in Hatfield, Pennsylvania; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh, Bill Rigby and Mary Milliken)
recceguy said:A pro democrat article. Full of ad hominem and conjecture. The author speculated, unsuccessfully, to attribute his thoughts as Trump's by putting them in quotation marks. Trump said he'd like to have heard the mother speak and asked if she was allowed to. All speakers at these things are vetted and so are the speeches and the DNC decides who talks and who doesn't. It was a reasonable question. The article is a hack job on Trump.
Baloo said:You're kidding, right?
That entirely shameful, outright disrespectful comment made by a potential Commander-in-Chief and all you have to say is that it is a pro-Democrat article? Take out the author's conjecture, fine. Read a different article by a different news agency and Donald Trump's commentary is absolutely no different.
That American soldier's mother, by the way, spoke to ABC News separately and indicated, all by herself, as to the reason why she didn't talk at the DNC.
How was it a "reasonable" question? Do you seriously believe that? You believe that there was no insinuation of religion or culture as to why she wasn't talking on the stage? Why else would he care if she was allowed to speak? Does he think that it is some form of Democrat cover-up, that she would have sang his praises to everyone and accused Hillary Clinton of murdering her son? That it was innocent and innocuous and 'if only people knew what he really meant'?
This man is reprehensible.
And I wonder how calmly it would be taken if, say Hillary had questioned the lack of statement of the mother of a fallen warrior?tomahawk6 said:All Trump asked was if the wife had something to say.
tomahawk6 said:You are out of line with your attack on recceguy.
All Trump asked was if the wife had something to say.