Archive for the ‘Clinton lies’ category

Obama Vouches for Ma Clinton

November 4, 2016

Obama Vouches for Ma Clinton, Power LineScott Johnson, November 4, 2016

Barack Obama has emerged as a forceful advocate of Hillary Clinton in the course of the presidential campaign. He is more popular than she is, but they have a lot in common. They both have an equally low opinion of the intelligence of the American voters and they have a lot of evidence to support their opinion. They also share an equally distant relationship with the truth.

Obama’s signature domestic program was built on a torrent of demonstrable lies. Clinton has defended her criminally inappropriate use of a private email server to conduct official State Department business on proposition that have proven false in the fullness of time. They are both unregenerate liars.

Now Obama has stepped forward as a character witness for Hillary Clinton. Despite what you may have concluded on the basis of your own observations, Obama vouches for Clinton as an upstanding public official. In my view, this is akin to John Dillinger serving as a character witness for Creepy Karpis or, perhaps more aptly, Ma Barker. It’s almost funny.

The Media Research Center finds an interesting example of Obama testifying on behalf of Hillary at an Ohio campaign event this past Tuesday (video below). Even speaking briefly, as in this 40-second excerpt, Obama is obnoxious and grating. We are invited by MRC to analyze this somewhat ambiguous assertion: “And when she was challenged, she doesn’t make things up on the spot. She doesn’t double down on lies — that obviously are lies because there’s video.”

(The video is at the link. — DM)

What is he saying? MRC’s Craig Bannister subjects Obama’s assertion to a close reading that probably exceeds what is warranted, asking:

She’ll only tell an obvious lie once, but won’t “double down” on it if challenged?

She won’t keep repeating a lie – if “there’s video”?

She’ll take her time crafting a lie, not make one up “on the spot”?

Bannister concludes: “Regardless of whether Pres. Obama went off-teleprompter and made this up on the spot, or simply read the words of a speechwriter, any literal interpretation of Obama’s characterization of Hillary Clinton is disturbing, to say the least.”

It is indeed disturbing. We have entered the Twilight Zone of postmodern Democratic politics. I think Obama was lying about Clinton’s lying while revealing a little of his own wayward relationship with the truth in the process.

The Stretch Drive (8)

November 3, 2016

The Stretch Drive (8), Power Line, Steven Hayward, November 3, 2016

The ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll today has Hillary moving back into a narrow lead again, but as all of the results right now are within the statistical margin of error, it means the race is essentially tied, and likely to stay that way through next Tuesday. However, most of the new state-by-state polls, which often lag national polls by a few days, show movement in Trump’s direction. Suddenly New Hampshire, Colorado, and Virginia, where Hillary had been comfortably ahead, now show the race close or with Trump in a slight lead (New Hampshire).

At the very least, the many people who said Donald Trump would suffer a McGovern- or Goldwater-level landslide loss have badly misjudged the mood of voters.

Before continuing with election analysis, let’s pause for a moment to take in the feel-good story of the day:

New York Times reports 95.7 percent fall in quarterly profit

The New York Times Co reported a 95.7 fall in quarterly profit, hit by restructuring charges related to headcount reductions.

Net profit attributable to the newspaper publisher fell to $406,000, or break-even per share, in the third quarter, from $9.4 million, or 6 cents per share, a year earlier.

Revenue fell to $363.6 million from $367.4 million.

The company, struggling to transition to digital, said online ad revenues grew 21.5 percent and now account for more than 35 percent of its advertising receipts.

Slim pickings indeed (heh). Coming soon: New York Times headline on the lousy economy.

Scott and Paul have reported on the blockbuster Fox News and Wall Street Journal news stories about the ongoing FBI investigations of the Clintons. What this means is simple: if Hillary wins, she’ll take office under a huge cloud of scandal, a potential indictment, and congressional investigations that may well start up during the lame duck session. If Hillary wins, I expect a new bumper sticker to appear by the following afternoon: “Impeach Clinton: This Time We’ll Do the Job Right!”

This Trump ad is pretty good:

Am I back in Argentina?

November 2, 2016

Am I back in Argentina? Israel National News, Rabbi David L. Algaze, November 1, 2016

I awoke last night from a nightmare dream: I was in my ancestral country of Argentina and I was afraid once again of the dictator named Juan Domingo Peron and his wife Evita. That was scary indeed. The government was dominated by a party that made the laws as they pleased and no one had the power to check them, let alone prosecute their misdeeds. Even the press was muzzled or complicit. Here the wife of the president had a special foundation, Fundacion Eva Peron that accepted donations from wealthy donors and who received special treatment from the government. Anyone who dared to challenge this state of affairs was in trouble and the debate over the propriety of any act was thus ended.

But it was morning now and I relaxed knowing that I was now in a democratic country protected by a Constitution, honest organizations and lack of corruption, where no one is above the law, ordinary citizens are not threatened by any arm of the government and where no special favors are dispensed to high donors or foreign entities. Here the law is equal for all, and we can be sure that no one gets special treatment because they give money to a special foundation. My night was over and with it that awful dream.

Suddenly, though, I saw a high government official who was testifying that she never sent any classified material incorrectly, who lied about keeping a private email server. When the secret was out, she and her staff were busy destroying evidence.  But wait, the government was investigating and we could breathe easily. After months of “investigation” by top enforcers of the law, the government forgave her trespassing. They criticized her for just being “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information but let her off the hook. The FBI did not pursue evidence of any statements that could be false, did not investigate any obstruction of justice and the destruction of evidence.

Even more, the agents gave immunity to people who could have provided evidence of crimes and these people went on to plead the Fifth Amendment refusing to testify before Congress. The entire investigation by the FBI and the Department of Justice reeked of willful negligence or favoritism – that is, until this week when the investigation was reopened because of a new set of emails.

Even more striking, I saw that the Clinton Foundation and the State Department headed by Hillary Clinton were one seamless entity, employing the same people and coordinating schedules. Emails discovered by people outside of government — who had forced their release against State Department wishes, showed that Clinton Foundation staff was questioning some State Department decisions by stating that President Clinton “will be very unhappy if that’s the case.”

Donors to the Foundation expected to receive special treatment such as being invited to State dinners or being given special business opportunities. The scandal of President Clinton in Haiti and his business partners, i.e., donors to the Foundation, and the confluence of extraordinarily high speaking fees at groups that later received profitable business deals and special access to the State Department headed by his wife—are these real or imagined?

Donors to the Foundation expected to receive special treatment such as being invited to State dinners or being given special business opportunities. The scandal of President Clinton in Haiti and his business partners, i.e., donors to the Foundation, and the confluence of extraordinarily high speaking fees at groups that later received profitable business deals and special access to the State Department headed by his wife—are these real or imagined?

Don’t Be Fooled: Hillarygate Probe Is Now a Formal Federal Criminal Investigation

November 1, 2016

Don’t Be Fooled: Hillarygate Probe Is Now a Formal Federal Criminal Investigation, American Thinker, James G. Wiles, November 1, 2016

The NY Times and the Wall Street Journal both reported on Monday morning that an FBI warrant application to a federal judge over the weekend for permission to search Huma Abedin’s emails and laptop had been granted. The application was made on the basis of the Clinton email investigation. Necessarily, that application (as required by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment) would have been supported by FBI affidavits.

This new fact is a development of immense potential significance – both for Mrs. Clinton personally and for us as American citizens. It is also unprecedented in American history.

At a minimum, it enables us to pierce the thick cloud of black ink and disinformation released over the weekend by Team Hillary and which is being widely misreported in the current news cycle.

The FBI agents had to make this warrant application because their existing Fourth Amendment search authority was on the basis of Anthony Weiner’s (unrelated) suspected misconduct with an underage girl. That investigation was already a grand jury matter. However, that grand jury’s authority – which is supervised by a federal judge — did not authorize the Bureau to pursue information which might be pertinent to the inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a personal email server while she was Secretary of State. Making that application, under standard DOJ protocol, required approval from Main Justice. In this case, the assistant attorney in charge of the Criminal Division, if not the attorney general.

Since the application was made, it’s safe to conclude that the Criminal Division at Main Justice authorized the warrant application. Thus, at a minimum, the senior leadership of the Justice Department is not as unanimously condemnatory of FBI director Comey’s letter to Congress on Friday as media reports would lead us to believe.

It also explains why Director Comey issued his letter to Congress. The reporting tells us that the FBI’s decision to make a warrant application to the supervising judge of the Weiner grand jury triggered Mr. Comey’s decision to notify Congress. Having promised Congressional leaders (perhaps unwisely, since he was not required to do so) that, if the Bureau uncovered new evidence relating to Hillarygate which required further inquiry, he would so notify them, he proceeded on Friday to keep his word and do so.

Now he’s being condemned by the Democrats and the MSM for not saying why. We’ll get to the reason why he’s not in a minute. But, first, the granting of the warrant application means several important and new things:

1) A federal judge supervising a grand jury has now made a finding, based on FBI affidavits which present evidence gathered during the preliminary Hillary inquiry (the one which the FBI director stated had been closed back in July), that there’s probable cause to believe that a federal crime was committed in connection with Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server.

We still, however, don’t know what crime(s) are suspected to have been committed. Or by whom.

2) The FBI can use this new grant of grand jury authority to investigate Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for the first time to issues subpoenaes to obtain testimony from witnesses and compel the production of documents and things. The Bureau and DOJ can, furthermore, use the judge’s probable cause finding to support further warrant applications.

This means that, if DOJ authorizes it, a United States attorney now has the ability for the first time to put subpoenaed witnesses before a grand jury. There, without their lawyer in the room, they may be questioned under oath by a federal prosecutor. If the witnesses take the Fifth – and the witness’s lawyer is allowed to sit outside the grand jury room and be consulted by the witness before answering a question, they can be immunized and, if they still refuse to testify, a judge can jail them indefinitely until they change their mind.

Huma Abedin, according to prior reporting, received a grant of immunity during the FBI’s preliminary investigation. During the first Clinton presidency, Clinton allies chose jail over cooperating with the federal grand jury investigating both Clintons.

We may get to see if a new generation of Clinton allies are willing to do the same.

3) The liberal media’s reporting that the Hillarygate email server investigation has not, in fact, been “reopened” is totally false.

Why?

Because, not only is the probe reopened, it has been upgraded and expanded. It has been upgraded from a preliminary inquiry to a formal criminal investigation with grand jury power. That also means that, at least at the level of the federal grand jury itself, assistant U.S. attorneys assigned to that grand jury are now for the first time formally involved.

In other words: the Beast is now fully awake.

4) This weekend’s development potentially escalates the threat to Mrs. Clinton. While several other procedural steps and processes are necessary, it is a federal grand jury, not the FBI,  which issues indictments. The FBI — using the the grand jury to obtain testimony, conduct searches and compel the production of documents and things – investigates crimes. The U.S. Attorneys, acting though the grand jury, charge and prosecute those persons whom the grand jury finds probable cause to believe have committed those crimes.

5) This weekend’s development also means that, for the first time in American history, a candidate for President of the United States is likely now a subject/target of a federal grand jury investigation.

These facts now enable us to analyze and dispel Team Clinton’s attempts to lay down a thick fog of misdirection over the scene.

Here it is: Mrs. Clinton’s demand that the FBI be “transparent” is pure posturing — spinning to the max (which Mrs. Clinton, as the most criminally investigated presidential candidate in U.S. history, well knows). Younger readers, please take note: this is not, to put it mildly, Hillary Clinton’s first rodeo.

Not for the first time, Mrs. Clinton is being totally disingenuous with the voters (and the media). She is also making FBI director Comey into her personal punching bag. And she’s doing it because she knows that the director can’t fight back.

In this, Mrs. Clinton is simply repeating a tactic which she and her catspaw Sidney Blumenthal used to good effect during the Whitewater, Travelgate, and Monica Lewinsky investigations in the 1990s. And that tactic worked.

It’s called grand jury secrecy. Now that Hillarygate is, for the first time, a grand jury investigation, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) prohibits the FBI and prosecutors from saying anything about “matters occurring before the grand jury.” Their lips are sealed.

Team Hillary’s lips, however, are not. They are neither federal prosecutors nor “agents of the grand jury.” So, Mrs. Clinton and her spokesmen — unlike the federal law enforcement officials they’ve been targeting all weekend — are free to tell us everything they know.

Let’s see if they do. A reporter should ask them.

And, in the meantime, let’s not bother to hold our breaths.

If Hillary really wants “transparency,” let her release the FBI’s warrant application for permission to search Huma Abedin and Mr. Weiner’s emails for evidence relating to whether Hillary’s use of a private server violated federal law. Huma’s lawyers likely have it. If not, they can certainly get it.

Huma, of course, is also free to release the emails too.

That’s why Hillary’s demand for “transparency” by the FBI is moonshine. She damn well knows the feds can’t do it.

She also now knows that the threat level against her has just been upgraded to ORANGE.

William Safire and Christopher Hitchens, thou shouldst be living at this hour!

The Clinton Degradation

October 30, 2016

The Clinton Degradation, Power Line, Scott Johnson, October 30, 2016

The prospect of a second Clinton presidency lies before us. I find it almost unbelievable. FBI Director Comey’s announcement of the investigation of newly discovered emails is a timely reminder of what a Clinton presidency holds in store for us simply in terms of lawlessness and scandal, not to mention the horribly destructive public policies she advocates.

In her four-minutes press conference this past Friday evening, Clinton was asked what she would say to a voter who “will be seeing you and hearing what you’re saying, saying I didn’t trust her before. I don’t trust her any more right now….” Clinton responded like a Democratic flack mouthing the obligatory talking point of the moment: “You know, I think people a long time ago made up their minds about the e-mails. I think that’s factored into what people think and now they are choosing a president.’

Yesterday at a rally in Florida, Clinton vowed: “No matter what they throw at us in these last day, we don’t back down.” She’s proud of it! The shamelessness abides.

With just 10 days until Election Day, Hillary’s on the trail in Florida.

Watch live: http://on.msnbc.com/2dY2IkN 

“No matter what they throw at us in these last days, we won’t back down. We won’t be distracted.” —Hillary: http://hrc.io/2fhUgTp 

The presidency of Bill Clinton was a long day’s journey into corruption, perjury, obstruction and national degradation. Thanks to Paula Jones, we even know the shape of the giver.

The revival of the Clinton investigation courtesy of Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin is perfect. Thanks to Weiner himself, we know the shape of the giver as well. And the Weiner/Abedin marriage reflects Bill and Hillary’s arrangement in a funhouse mirror.

Through the first Clinton presidency Hillary Clinton served as Bill Clinton’s faithful enabler and attack dog. We nevertheless remain in her debt. Through her work on HillaryCare she produced the first Republican majority in the House of Representatives in 40 years. Some thought it couldn’t be done.

This is not to mention the rank corruption the Clinton family represents. Jack Engelhard captures an aspect of it in the column “How Hillary and Bill became Bonnie and Clyde.” When it comes to corruption, there is no bottom to the Clintons. We patiently wait “to find out what price/You have to pay to get out of/Going through all these things twice.” Bob Dylan said that.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan spoke of defining deviancy down. With the Clintons we define degradation down.

Clinton Campaign’s First Instinct was to Lie about Comey

October 30, 2016

Clinton Campaign’s First Instinct was to Lie about Comey, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, October 29, 2016

I find it revealing that when the Clinton campaign launched its attack on Comey, it led off with a lie. In her press conference last night, Hillary Clinton accused Comey of partisanship, falsely claiming that he had sent his letter only to Congressional Republicans. In fact, Comey followed the standard protocol, addressing his letter to the chairmen of the relevant committees and sending copies to the ranking minority members of each committee:

Letter-3 by John Hinderaker on Scribd

comeyletter

 

comeyletter2

Hillary corrected her false claim that Comey had only sent the letter to Republicans:

At her press conference, Clinton wrongly said that the FBI director had only sent his letter to Republicans on the Hill. A Clinton campaign official later said she misspoke. That impression, the official said, was based on the first page of the letter, which listed the names of Republican chairs of committees, while the Democratic ranking members’ names weren’t listed until the second page.

Right: Hillary is too dumb to turn the page. And after 30 years as a federal office-holder or hanger-on, she is unaware of the standard manner of addressing correspondence to Congressional committees.

But that’s not all: Hillary’s campaign manager, John Podesta, echoed Hillary’s smear:

“FBI Director Comey should immediately provide the American public more information than is contained in the letter he sent to eight Republican committee chairmen,” Podesta said in a statement.

Note that this was a written statement, not an off the cuff characterization at a press conference. So the campaign’s lie–Comey is a partisan, he only communicated with Republicans!–was deliberate. That being the case, it is hard to take the Democrats’ indignation seriously.

Weekly Update: Clinton Email Crimes?

October 29, 2016

Weekly Update: Clinton Email Crimes? Judicial Watch, October 28, 2016

Clinton State Department IT Official John Bentel Takes the Fifth
U.S. Spends Millions on “Green Bus Corridor” in Mexico, “Bicycle Highway” in Colombia
Judicial Watch Will Monitor Virginia Polls on Election Day
Special Report: Clinton’s Pay to Play Scheme

 

Clinton State Department IT Official John Bentel Takes the Fifth

The bureaucrats Hillary Clinton worked with at State still are withholding what they know about her illicit email practices.

You can see that in the deposition transcript of John Bentel, the State Department’s former Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat, who was ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to respond to our questions. We released the transcript this week.

Mr. Bentel, whose office handles information technology for the Office of the Secretary, answered 87 questions with: “On advice from my legal counsel, I decline to answer the question and I invoke my Fifth Amendment rights.”

We had the same experience with IT political appointee Bryan Pagliano, the Clinton State Department IT official who reportedly provided support for the Clinton email system.

Bentel asserted his Fifth Amendment right in answer to many key questions about issues raised directly by Judge Sullivan. On August 19, 2016, Judge Sullivan granted Judicial Watch’s request to depose Bentel, citing significant discrepancies in Bentel’s previous statements on the Clinton non-state.gov email system:

The Court is persuaded that Mr. Bentel should be deposed because the record in this case appears to contradict his sworn testimony before the [House Select] Benghazi Committee . . .. Specifically, Mr. Bentel testified that he was not aware that Secretary Clinton’s email account was housed on a private server until media reports in 2015 . . .. However, several emails indicate Mr. Bentel knew about the private server as early as 2009.

Bentel asserted his Fifth Amendment rights in response to all questions about what he knew about Hillary Clinton’s email system and its impact on the Freedom of Information Act.

In ordering Bentel’s deposition, Judge Sullivan also cited a May 2016 Inspector General’s report that found that Mr. Bentel told employees in his office that Secretary Clinton’s email arrangement had been approved by the State Department’s legal staff and also instructed his subordinates not to discuss the Secretary’s email again:

In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further . . . . According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.

Bentel asserted his Fifth Amendment right when asked about this reference to the State Department Inspector General’s report and about his FBI interview.

Mr. Bentel, on advice of the Obama Justice Department and personal counsel, refused to answer any questions about whether Hillary Clinton was paying his legal fees or offered him employment or other financial incentives. Pagliano also declined to say who was paying for his legal representation.

We previously deposed seven former Clinton top aides and current State Department officials, including top Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin. We also deposed IT official Bryan Pagliano, who asserted his Fifth Amendment right not to testify during the Judicial Watch deposition. And Clinton last week answered our questions under oath regarding her non-government email system.

The depositions come in connection with a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that seeks records about the corrupt patronage job given to Clinton confidante Huma Abedin, who served as deputy chief of staff to former Secretary Clinton (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

The fact that yet another State Department official took the Fifth highlights the disturbing implication that criminal acts took place related to the Clinton email system and our FOIA requests.

 

U.S. Spends Millions on “Green Bus Corridor” in Mexico, “Bicycle Highway” in Colombia

A recent survey revealed that Americans most fear government corruption and that the climate doesn’t even make the Top Ten list of worries.

Our Corruption Chronicles blog illustrates why Americans should worry about climate change – because of the government corruption involved in supposedly combatting it:

Surprise, surprise: The U.S. is the first to donate millions of dollars to yet another global warming experiment—run by the famously corrupt United Nations—that aims to forge “climate resilient infrastructure” in third-world countries.

The money will help build a bicycle highway in Colombia and bring electric buses and a “green bus corridor” to Mexico, issues that are unlikely to keep most American taxpayers up at night.

It’s part of an initiative called C40 Cities Finance Facility, launched at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris last year. The global warming powwow in France has already cost American taxpayers a chunk of change, and Judicial Watch made the numbers public over the summer after obtaining records from the U.S. Secret Service and the Department of the Air Force.

The documents offer a detailed breakdown of the cost, but the total expenditure to have President Obama attend the ludicrous Paris shindig was an eye-popping $4,165,068. Judicial Watch had to file a lawsuit to get the information because the administration refused to provide it under the federal public-records law that was enacted to keep government in check.

During the Paris conference, the C40 Cities Finance Facility was launched to provide much-needed cash for a 10-year-old program called C40 that claims to be a “network of the world’s megacities committed to addressing climate change.” The conglomerate specializes in tackling climate change in developing countries by driving urban action that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks.

Evidently, it’s come up with some brilliant ideas in the last decade to accomplish its mission but not enough money to implement them. As is the case in many of these global, feel-good initiatives, Uncle Sam has generously opened his checkbook for this important cause. Germany is the other “funding partner” listed along with the U.S.

The first $2 million, doled out this month by the U.S., will fund two urban pilot projects in Latin America that are expected to bring “climate change adaptation and mitigation benefits.” The first project is a 25-kilometer bicycle highway in Bogota, Colombia, that will connect citizens from low, middle and high-income neighborhoods to work, education, and recreation opportunities.

An announcement published by the U.S. government calls the project a “first-of-its-kind” traversing the Colombian city from south to north. The rest of the money will buy a fleet of at least 100 electric buses for Mexico City and install a “green bus corridor” in one of its major thoroughfares. It’s expected to serve an estimated 133,400 Mexicans daily, providing connections to metro lines. This is an important investment for the U.S., a government official says in the announcement, because the impacts of climate change are impeding cities from delivering reliable services, “especially to the poorest.”

Years ago, the Obama administration determined that the poor will feel the brunt of climate change and it has cost American taxpayers monstrous sums. In the last few years the U.S. government has funded a number of programs, both domestic and international, to prepare those communities for the impact.

Back in 2012 the administration asked Congress for a whopping $770 million to help developing countries with climate change initiatives after it had already spent $323 million on a project called Global Climate Change Initiative that helps “meet the adaptation and mitigation needs of developing countries, including deploying clean energy technologies.”

Earlier this year, a federal audit revealed that a $25 million project to help Guatemala combat the ills of climate change is rife with problems that include data errors and discrepancies. The program is officially known as Climate Nature and Communities in Guatemala (CNCG).

Ideology wrapped in dubious science = taxpayer boondoggle. Is it any wonder that people are tired of corrupt politicians?

 

Judicial Watch Will Monitor Virginia Polls on Election Day

As part of our ongoing Election Integrity Project, we plan to have Judicial Watch volunteer poll observers will monitor polling sites in Virginia on Election Day. We have significant concerns about the integrity of the election process there:

  • 1,046 aliens, or residents who are not U.S. citizens, were on the voter rolls in 8 Virginia counties.  If that rate of non-citizen registration held in the rest of Virginia’s counties, that would mean that about 6,500 non-citizens are registered to vote in Virginia.
  • A September 2016report by the Public Interest Legal Foundation and the Virginia Voter’s Alliance shows: “In the 8 jurisdictions that provided us with lists of aliens recently removed from their voter rolls, we discovered that 31 non-citizens had cast a total of 186 votes between 2005 and 2015. The most alien votes were cast in 2012 followed by 2008, the year President Obama was elected to his first term.” There are 133 total Virginia voting jurisdictions, so the number in this report represents a mere fraction of the true total of illegal votes.
  • 19 deceasedindividuals recently re-registered to vote in Virginia.
  • In 2013, the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program (Crosscheck), which provides a lists of voters who are registered in more than one of the 26 states participating in the program, revealed that57,923 Virginia voters were registered to vote in at least one other state. Of course this number would be much higher if the Crosscheck program included every state – including New York, California, and Texas, the most populous states in the country.

Our Election Integrity Project leader, Robert Popper, will train Virginia’s poll watchers.  Bob is a former deputy chief of the Voting Section in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and a veteran poll observer for the Department of Justice.

The Election Integrity project began in February 2012. Since that time Judicial Watch has put several state and county officials on notice when they are in violation of federal laws requiring them to clean up their voter rolls.

We also took action in lawsuits defending photo ID and other commonsense election integrity measures.  And there are also our historic and  successful lawsuits in states like Ohio and Indiana that resulted in cleaner voter rolls and have achieved victories in the United States Supreme Court to stop race-based elections in Hawaii.

Our team also fought in court against the Left (i.e. the Obama administration) that wants to make it easier for non-citizens to register to vote, and harder to remove them once they are illegally registered. And Judicial Watch has conducted election monitoring before, for example in New Hampshire in 2014.

“Judicial Watch election monitors will be neutral and silent observers at select polling places in Virginia,” Popper noted. “We do not oppose or endorse candidates for public office. Our election monitoring in Virginia is wholly independent of any party or candidate.”

Recent polls show that voters are becoming “deeply skeptical” about election integrity. One poll found that 98 percent of people believe that voter fraud occurs: 74 percent believed that “some” or a “great deal” of voter fraud is going on, and 24 percent said hardly any. A poll in The Washington Post found that: “60% of Republicans believe illegal immigrants vote; 43% believe people vote using dead people’s names.”

Virginia residents interested in monitoring a local polling site on Election Day may respond by email to Eric Lee at elee@judicialwatch.org.

The integrity of our government begins with our ability to trust what happens in the voting booth. Incidents of voting fraud now flaring up around the country are an indication that our concern is not misplaced.

 

Special Report: Clinton’s Pay to Play Scheme

Let me encourage you to watch the “One America News Network Special Report: Clinton’s Pay-to-Play Scheme.”

This well-crafted report reveals how the Clintons went from being “broke” to being worth hundreds of millions. In it, you will hear the experts, including representatives from Judicial Watch, disclose how the Clinton Foundation traded government access in exchange for donations. You also will see the evidence of an FBI “cover-up” of the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

You can watch it here. It is worth your time.