Editor’s Note – James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas team were in Bigfork, Montana speaking at MG Vallely’s Glacier Forum series, a Stand Up America US project on Thursday, September 10th and brought the house down revealing his latest undercover work released earlier.
Staying at the General’s home, O’Keefe explained how Project Veritas succeeded in exposing what looks to be fraud in the Hillary Clinton campaign in Nevada.
O’Keefe gave an exclusive interview to Breibart today from the Vallely home and confirmed that Christina Gupana is already being investigated by the state of Nevada.
Top election officials in the state of Nevada are investigating the Hillary Clinton campaign official who was snared in the latest James O’Keefe video, Breitbart News has exclusively learned.
Nevada attorney Christina Gupana, who is managing voter-registration efforts for the Clinton campaign in the key state of Nevada, was the unwitting star of O’Keefe’s undercover sting video this week. Gupana was caught on film apparently conspiring to violate election laws. (Read the rest at Breibart)
Jim Wheeler, a Republican Nevada Assemblyman told SUA that “It seems like some people in the Democratic Party will do whatever it takes to win. Even break the law. This should tell you something about their motives.”
Nevada is a crucial State because it is one of the earlier caucus/primary states, with its Closed Democratic Caucus scheduled for February 20, 2016; only 19 days after the Semi-Open Iowa Caucus, and less than two weeks after the New Hampshire Semi- Open Primary.
It is also only a week before the South Carolina Open Primary. 39 Democrat Party delegates are at stake in Nevada.
With the Clinton Campaign fast approaching a must-win situation with poll numbers dropping for Hillary, it seems Assemblyman Wheeler is spot on.
O’Keefe Strikes Again: Undercover Video Purports to Show Hillary Clinton Campaign Violating Election Law
An undercover video published Thursday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas purports to show Nevada-based Hillary Clinton campaign staffers and volunteers ignoring and knowingly violating Nevada’s voter registration laws.
Moreover, the video appears to show that this conduct is being condoned and encouraged by a local attorney who works for the Clinton campaign.
According to the video, it is a felony in the state of Nevada for anyone involved in the voter registration process to “solicit a vote for or against a particular question or candidate; speak to a voter on the subject of marking his or her ballot for or against a particular question or candidate.”
The video appears to show that numerous Hillary Clinton campaign staffers are well aware of the law.
Nevertheless, the video shows them laughing at the law and repeatedly bragging about violating it by promoting Hillary Clinton verbally and with campaign literature as they attempt to register potential voters.
The Project Veritas video further appears to show that the Clinton campaign staff solicits voter registration in close proximity to state offices, which may also violate Nevada law
According to the video, when the attorney in question, identified as Christina Gupana, was told about this alleged lawbreaking, she advised the staffers to, “Do whatever you can. Whatever you can get away with, just do it, until you get kicked out like totally.”
More than one staffer says that the campaign’s motto towards these laws is “Ask for forgiveness, not for permission.”
Editor’s Note – The once seemingly inevitable Democrat Party nominee now appears more like a meteor burning through the atmosphere on the way to an impact of epic proportions if the shoes keep on dropping over her email lies.
People in New Hampshire are sure seeing it as Bernie Sanders has surpassed in her in the polls for the first in the nation primary state. Additionally, it appears America in general is catching on finally as well as another poll, this one nationally, shows that Trump would now beat Clinton by as much as five percentage points as well.
It is encouraging to see that people are taking notice, we just wondered why it took so long. In our opinion, Hillary Clinton should have been indicted long ago and been declared unfit to even run for any office.
He fears he will be indicted for having access to such secret material and likely fears Clinton’s wrath as much as going to prison so he has declared he will not cooperate with the investigation nor Congress and would plead the fifth – very damning indeed!.
Another week of embarrassing shoes dropping for Hillary
Team Hillary keeps insisting there’s nothing to that whole e-mail embarrassment — even as the shoes keep dropping.
Three in just the past week.
First came news that Hillary Clinton’s private e-mails included highly classified information on North Korea’s nuclear-weapons stockpile.
That comes from multiple intelligence sources speaking on the condition of anonymity to The Washington Times. The nuke info apparently came from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, a highly classified satellite and mapping system.
Such info is automatically classified at the very highest level, even when not so labeled — and knowing that rule is part of the secretary of state’s job.
So much for Clinton’s repeated claims that she didn’t know she was putting secrets at risk via her own personal e-mail server.
Also on the faux-innocence front: Clinton aide Bryan Pagliano, who helped set up and maintain the private server, says he won’t cooperate with the FBI, the State Department inspector general’s office or the congressional Benghazi committee that uncovered the private-e-mail issue in the first place — invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.
He has every legal right to do so, but it sure . . . looks . . . bad. After all, Team Hillary keeps insisting it’s eager to cooperate with the investigations.
The cherry on this fetid sundae is the Bloomberg News scoop that the FBI is looking for any signs that hackers breached Clinton’s system — and for clues on whether any hackers were foreign-based.
Oh, there “were no security breaches,” Clinton insisted weeks ago. But how would a woman who jokes about wiping a server “with a cloth” know?
“At the end of the day, I am sorry that this has been confusing to people and has raised a lot of questions, but there are answers to all these questions,” Clinton told Andrea Mitchell on Friday.
Problem is, her answers keep turning out to be incomplete or just plain false.
At this point, almost nothing in Hillary Clinton’s original claims about her use of the private server still stands as even possibly true. Perhaps worse than the lying, though, is her cavalier attitude toward national security — namely, that the rules aren’t for her.
But remember what she said at the UN; “there is no classified material… I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.” Oh, the sheer volume of the moving parts…that thumb drive!
She lied, broke the rules repeatedly, stalled, obfuscated, and the story changes almost daily while the State Department barely meets the court ordered release requirements.
“It says the process is slower because of intense scrutiny by U.S. intelligence agencies to ensure that emails from her private server don’t contain any sensitive or classified government secrets…2,206 pages of emails, roughly 12 percent of the 55,000 pages” were released.
Maybe if they had the electronic version it would be a wee bit faster. Again, a lot of noise, a lot of shiny objects, all piece meal, but definitely at a classified level or it wouldn’t take so long.
However, if we look at this from a 40,000 foot macro perspective, we can clearly see that Clinton should be the subject of an investigation either by the FBI or a Select Committee from Congress at a minimum, and for more than just the email scandal.
Hoping another shiny object would distract us, her campaign released tax records at almost the same moment, timed to do just that and today they released more medical records. With so many moving parts in this saga, it is easy to get lost in the details; look, a squirrel.
So let’s begin with a macro question; at what time is any communication transmitted by the Secretary of State of the United States of America not of interest to foreign powers?
For that matter, what about political adversaries, or even the proverbial hacker in his basement on a joy ride to see what he can get into on the net? The answer of course is never, ask Sydney Blumenthal.
All members of a President’s cabinet are by definition some of the most powerful people in the world; all are targets, all the time. That is why we have rules and laws in place to preserve the safety of the information each deals with 24/7; it is called national security.
When it comes to the Secretary of State, the most important cabinet level position and the number four slot for Presidential succession, it is clear that all communications he or she engages in are de facto important and sensitive in nature, even if it’s just about what she wants to eat that day. When does something actually get classified? Is it not often after the fact anyway as we now see?
When considering whether or not a coded stamp is placed on any transmission designating it to be classified at some level is beside the point, and it is folly to split hairs about whether or not Hillary Clinton knew they were or were not.
All her correspondence is important to some enemy. Any responsible person, especially somebody who once resided in the White House knows this and is required to act accordingly, that is, unless you are a Clinton. Her denials are an insult to our intelligence.
What is worse, and we have to keep repeating this point, at no time ever, did Hillary Clinton have any right of ownership of her email as Secretary of State. None, not even “personal” ones! Each and every transmission she made after swearing an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution were automatically the property of the people – case closed!
The proof in just how important her communications are or were, is in the data dump we received yesterday where large portions of her transmissions were heavily redacted and many were classified after the fact as too sensitive to be released to the public. Not only is it a fact that she did not own them, she also harbored them outside the purview of federal security, a crime. Who cares what was in the headline at the NY Times.
Then there is the case of the personal lawyer and others with whom she gave access to view all of her transmissions, and that pesky thumb drive. When did she become the arbiter of who had clearance to view what is now confirmed to be sensitive intelligence? And, what about all those gaps?
The Clinton camp assures us that her personal attorney holds proper clearance, but he is not a State Department employee and has no right to harbor sensitive material let alone even seeing it, especially in a private setting, ask David Petraeus. And why has no one from the State Department sent security agents to secure that thumb drive from David Kendall?
“This raises very serious questions and concerns if a private citizen is somehow retaining classified information,” Grassley’s said in a letter sent late last week. He asked for more information on Kendall’s clearance and whether the lawyer was authorized to “be the custodian of classified national security information.” The FBI has not yet responded. (Politico)
Then there is the curious case of Huma Abedin, another Grassley letter to State:
“The letter sought the status of an inquiry into whether Abedin had violated conflict-of-interest laws related to her special employment situation, which allowed her to work simultaneously for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation and a private firm with close ties to the Clintons.”
How was it that Abedin was given such status, apparently over paid at that, and once again clearly brings the Clinton Foundation and all its moving parts back into the picture?
Everything the Clintons touch is part of a racket, pure and simple, and a personal ATM. From 40,000 feet it all forms a clear picture – Hillary Clinton is not only a dismal campaigner and speaker, she is as corrupt and untrustworthy as any has ever been.
The Clinton campaign worries about the damage that cannot be “unwound” that the NY Times caused in their opinion, but maybe they should worry more about the law and Judge Sullivan who on Friday turned up the heat a bit more:
A federal judge has ordered the State Department to ask Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to certify under penalty of perjury that she has turned over some of the work-related emails she kept on a private server during the four years she served as secretary of state.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan issued the order Friday in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit the conservative group Judicial Watch filed in 2013 seeking records about the employment status of Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who worked as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff but later transferred to a part-time job as a so-called “special government employee.”
At such a hearing on Friday, Sullivan—a Bill Clinton appointee—told State to seek certifications from Hillary Clinton, Abedin and former Deputy Secretary of State Cheryl Mills that they’ve produced all records related to Abedin’s employment, even if they kept those records outside official State Department systems.
“As related to Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests in this case, the Government is HEREBY ORDERED to: (1) identify any and all servers, accounts, hard drives, or other devices currently in the possession or control of the State Department or otherwise that may contain responsive information; (2) request that the above named individuals confirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have produced all responsive information that was or is in their possession as a result of their employment at the State Department,” Sullivan wrote in an order issued Friday afternoon.
“If all such information has not yet been produced, the Government shall request the above named individuals produce the information forthwith; and (3) request that the above named individuals describe, under penalty of perjury, the extent to which Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills used Mrs. Clinton’s email server to conduct official government business.” (Read the rest here at Politico.)
We should turn up the heat as well, and avoid being sucked into the maelstrom they want us to focus upon instead. Our attention must be maintained and we should read more about the “law and the Secretary of State”:
Wait for it though, rumors of another “bimbo eruption” will be sure to confuse and distract us from what we believe makes Hillary Clinton a criminal and unfit to hold any office in America… other than one in a prison cell.
A reprise of the following is warranted here:
THE CRIMINAL ARROGANCE OF HILLARY CLINTON – Bill Whittle
Editor’s Note – Hillary’s Campaign is using the old tactic – keep telling the same lie and eventually people will believe it. There is proof from many major polls that show Hillary is not believed to be honest, and tells lies to the public – so does her campaign manager, Robby Mook.
We need to use the same tactics to demonstrate again and again her dishonesty and deviousness to those who do not know or are blind to it.
She has been caught lying about Benghazi, then she lied about her emails to cover her tracks on Benghazi, and “Clintonian” ethics continue unabated. They rely on America remaining as clueless as possible – why, because it has always worked for them.
When, if ever, will we hear any truth from Hillary? No we can just call the lies by a new name – “Mooks!”
Clinton Campaign Manager Makes Doozy of a Statement When Asked If Voters Perceive Her as Dishonest
Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, and was asked by host John Dickerson to comment on the perception among voters that Hillary is dishonest and untrustworthy.
Dickerson pointed out to Mook that “polls have shown that voters do not trust her.”
What happened next was unbelievable. No, I mean literally unbelievable.
Editor’s Note – As we here at SUA have witnessed, with more and more evidence coming to light, this administration is working “against” our American values. He has made our allies enemies and our enemies friends. They are not our friends. They hope to take our Nation over.
The Muslim Brotherhood is working to take over the world, under the “Caliphate.” It is looking more and more like Obama is helping them, and it clear that he has aligned America with his Islamic friends.
Smoking-gun document said to prove Obama-Muslim Brotherhood ties
WASHINGTON – The White House isn’t commenting on the exposure of a secret presidential directive, but critics tell WND it confirms what they feared: The Obama administration has an official policy of backing so-called “moderate Islamists,” including the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood.
A source familiar with the document told the Washington Times the “policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood is outlined in a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11.”
The governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates officially consider the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, but the presidential directive reportedly shows the White House considers the group a “moderate” alternative to ISIS and al-Qaida.
Critics blasted that notion.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who has written extensively on the subject, told WND the Muslim Brotherhood “is not moderate” and “there is no such thing as a moderate Islamist.”
The identical response was given to WND by Iran specialist Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy.
“The Muslim Brotherhood is a jihadist organization, from the day of its founding and remains so to this day,” she said.
Whether violent or not, she said, all jihadists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, seek the same two things: “Islamic governance and enforcement of Islamic law, or Shariah.”
Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who tried to launch an inquiry three years ago into Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the federal government, told WND, “It confirms the questions I originally asked of the inspector generals of five agencies.”
“The recent discovery of an Obama administration document evidencing support for the Muslim Brotherhood is unsurprising,” she said. “It merely confirms the consistent position of the White House’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood since Obama’s election.”
Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, and president of the Center for Security Policy, said PSD-11 was part of a series of mistakes that “were the consequences of embracing, legitimating, funding and even arming the Muslim Brotherhood.”
“They will prove to be among President Obama’s worst security policy legacies — and that’s saying something!”
Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan went a step further than saying there are no moderate Islamists; he stated there is not even a moderate Islam.
A tweet from a supporter quoted Farrakhan as saying, “What is moderate Islam? There is no such thing,” during a speech at Shiloh Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., on June 1.
McCarthy is a New York Times bestselling author, Fox News analyst, contributing editor at National Review and a former adviser to the deputy secretary of defense. As chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York, he successfully prosecuted the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing.
In his 2010 bestseller, “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America,” McCarthy described an internal Muslim Brotherhood memorandum that revealed the groups’ grand plan to destroy the West from within by having its component organizations collude with credulous Western governments and how it had found the ideal partner in Obama.
McCarthy told WND, “The Muslim Brotherhood is not moderate — not in its theoretical orientation and, as we’ve seen in Egypt, not in practice when it has a chance to govern.
“And it is simply a fact that many of the world’s most violent and influential jihadists got their start in the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a gateway to violent jihadism — not in all cases, but in many.”
McCarthy has described non-violent jihad as just as great a threat as violent jihad, because they are both means to overthrow Western governments and install strict Islamic law, or Shariah.
He drolly observed: “Obviously, we prefer non-violent Islamists to violent Islamists. We’d also rather have pneumonia than cancer … that doesn’t make pneumonia desirable.”
In a recent article in which he described the government’s “cognitive dissonance in seeking out ‘moderate Islamists,’” McCarthy stressed, “If you want to say that some Islamists are not violent, that is certainly true. But that does not make them moderate.”
McCarthy explained in greater detail to WND how “non-violent” does not mean “moderate” when it comes to Islamists.
“‘Islamist’ is the term we apply to those who believe in Islamic supremacism, which is essentially the imposition of classical Shariah (which recognizes no separation between spiritual and political life).”
He called it “a system that rejects individual liberty and is deeply discriminatory against women, non-Muslims and homosexuals.”
“Consequently, it is not ‘moderate.’ A person with extreme, anti-Western views is not a moderate, regardless of whether he is willing to commit acts of terrorism to impose his views on society.”
Lopez, who honed her analytical acumen during 20 years of service as a CIA field operative, and who served as an instructor for military intelligence and Special Forces students, described the difference between violent and non-violent Islamic extremism as merely a difference in timing and tactics.
“ISIS, al-Qaida and Boko Haram for example, tend to stage violent attacks in an effort to destroy the will to resist among the enemy and also to punish the enemy, or infidel, for refusing to accept or implement or follow Islam faithfully.”
“On the other hand, ” she said, “the Muslim Brotherhood tends to take a longer-term approach that works patiently to infiltrate and subvert a target government, whether infidel or ‘unfaithful Muslim,’ from within.”
Lopez insisted it doesn’t make sense to work with any Islamist groups, “when all are jihadis and all want to destroy our civilization & subjugate us to Shariah.”
Bachmann referred to the Muslim Brotherhood document seized in an FBI raid on suspected terrorists “delineating their plan to destroy the ‘miserable house of the U.S. from within civilization through jihad.’”
McCarthy told WND the Obama administration did not originate the problem of Islamist infiltration of the U.S. government, but it has greatly exacerbated that problem.
“Obama officials have intentionally sought to ally with Islamic supremacists, even those connected to terrorist organizations, on the harebrained theory that these Islamists will promote stability — i.e., they will work with us against jihadist organizations like al-Qaida, even though they share al-Qaida’s Shariah ideology and hostility toward the West.”
Gaffney told WND that “such a policy shift was the predictable consequence of having individuals associated with the Brotherhood holding positions of influence in the Obama administration and/or serving as advisers to several of its senior members, including the President, himself.”
He said examples of such individuals could be found in a course on his center’s website, along with a detailed treatment of the policy repercussions of such penetration.
The problem of increasing Islamist influence in America has been compounded, critics say, by the Obama administration’s policy of admitting tens of thousands of poorly vetted Muslims from countries where Islamism is prevalent.
“All the while,” said Bachmann, “knowing many of the Muslims would prefer living in Muslim societies dominated by Islamic Shariah law, a governance system known for its incompatibility with the U.S. Constitution.”
Making the problem even worse, she said, was how former secretary of state “Hillary Clinton embraced members of the Muslim Brotherhood by issuing visas to enter the U.S. to members of the Muslim Brotherhood and to other terrorist organizations, even though the U.S. Government listed them with terrorist affiliations.”
Bachmann was one of five Republican Congress members who stirred bipartisan controversy in 2012 by raising concern about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the nation’s capital.
She also publicly questioned the role of Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, because of her and her family’s extensive documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
McCarthy told WND that Abdedin’s role in State Department policy still should be explored in light of her considerable Islamist connections.
“Her role should not be overstated — Hillary Clinton, like President Obama, has a record of sympathizing with Islamists, and Ms. Abedin’s influence on U.S. policy is more an effect than a cause of her boss’s predilections.”
“Still,” he added, “the State Department has aggressively pushed Obama’s policy of empowering the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be foolish to assume that the implementation of that policy was unconnected to the installation of pro-Islamists in high-ranking policy positions.”
Gaffney told WND: “It is deeply regrettable that the sorts of serious and legitimate questions about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of key agencies posed by Reps. Bachmann, Franks, Gohmert, Rooney and Westmoreland in June of 2012 were never the subject of investigations — either before or subsequently — by the Inspectors General of the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.”
“Had they been,” he speculated, “we might have averted myriad disasters, including, but not limited to: the debacle in Libya (inter alia the murderous attack on our facilities in Benghazi); the installation of a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt; our arming al Qaida and Islamic State forces in Syria; turning a blind eye to the increasing Islamic supremacism of a putative NATO ally, Turkey; undermining our ally, Israel; abandoning Iraq; releasing five top Taliban commanders in exchange for a deserter, etc.”
How should the U.S. deal with Islamism?
McCarthy told WND the better approach would be “to accept that the challenge we face is Islamic supremacist ideology, which fuels both the terrorist threat and the broader Shariah-based challenge to our liberties, particularly free speech.”
“Our foreign policy should be based strictly on American interests. Foreign policy often involves having to sort out bad actors from worse actors, and any involvement with bad actors ought to be limited to what the protection of our interests requires — it is not our job to remake Islamic societies.”
He suggested, “We should resist alliances with Islamists, deal with them only to the extent our interests require it, ditch the notion that they are an asset rather than a liability in confronting violent jihadists, and — where we can do so usefully — promote pro-Western Muslims who reject Shariah supremacism.”
Lopez indirectly referred to the Obama administration’s refusal to use the words “Islamic extremists” by counseling that the U.S. should “name the enemy” as “all who fight or support jihad to impose Shariah.”
“Declare war against that enemy. Study the enemy. Know the enemy. Then deploy a whole-of-government approach to defeating that enemy utterly.”
Lopez also pointed out the existence of the presidential directive effectively making it the policy of the administration to support “moderate Islamists” was actually made public a year ago by Gulf News, a publication not widely known in the U.S.
The story detailed a wide range of Obama administration contacts and meetings with Muslim Brotherhood members, including the late U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, who was killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi under the murkiest of circumstances.
Gulf News had reported attempts were under way to obtain State Department records documenting its dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood using a Freedom of Information, or FOIA, request.
The Washington Times reported, “Efforts to force the administration to release the directive or portions of it under the Freedom of Information Act have been unsuccessful.”
Jill Farrell, spokeswoman for the watchdog group Judicial Watch, told WND the presidential directive can not be obtained by FOIA.
“The White House itself is not subject to FOIA,” she said, “however, we have been actively making FOIA requests to the State Department and others in the federal alphabet soup that might possibly uncover communications with the White House, as we did with our Benghazi inquiry that blew the lid off with the (Deputy National Security Adviser) Ben Rhodes ‘not a failure of policy’ email.”
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.