The November 8th election

This election is possibly the most important election in our history.  This is an election between government and the people.  

Hillary Clinton and her friends believe that only her and her rich and powerful friends are the only ones that can run the country, while Trump believes in government of the People, by the People and for the People.  This was given to us by our Founding Fathers.  However, as we have seen over the years, it is the rich, including members of Congress, Wall Street and the other powerful people that should be in control and not the people.  Listen to us, we know better, we are smarter and we will become richer while you become poorer.  

Hillary Clinton is a socialist who sells platitudes to the masses and national security to international Muslim leaders.  But heaven forbid that the “land of the free” irrevocably sell its soul to the doctrine of Hillary’s cult. Spiritually, socially, economically, politically — hers is a Kool-Aid from which we would not recover.

This is the choice we have this upcoming election.  Either we have government control every aspect of our life, how we live, where we live, what we eat, what we drive and how we spend our money.  Or do we want what Trump preaches, the people must get their government back or we become slaves of the rich and powerful.

What is sneaking past the public that you should know about the internet.

Obama’s Internet Surrender May Empower Bad Actors

Posted By Edmund Kozak On September 29, 2016 @ 12:39 PM In Poli | 

On Oct. 1, regulatory control over a significant portion of Internet infrastructure will be transferred from the U.S. government to a multinational, private organization composed of unelected officials.

“Friday is the potential point at which Obama can transfer control of the supervision of the internet from the United States to the international system,” former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said on “The Laura Ingraham Show” Thursday.

“Friday is the potential point at which Obama can transfer control of the supervision of the internet from the United States to the international system.”

Bolton is oversimplifying to some extent — the United States does not oversee the general supervision of the world wide web; no entity does.

But what the United States has been overseeing since the 1990s is the IANA, which is responsible for the allocation of things like global IP addresses, AS numbers, and DNS root zones — it is effectively the internet’s master directory of all numbers relating to Internet Protocol (IP) and the mechanism that ensures traffic can flow freely across the internet.

“This is the concrete manifestation of the loss of sovereignty,” Bolton continued. “Once we cede control to the international system, we will never get it back and the internet as we know it will disappear forever.”

Those opposed to the move, like Bolton, say that an independent ICANN based on a multi-stakeholder model inevitably opens the organization — and the entire DNS — to the influence of anti-American, anti-Democratic regimes.

“It will give the regimes like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea — you name it — control over something that they neither deserve nor will benefit the rest of the world,” Bolton said.

Proponents of this argument point to the fact that an IANA subject to U.S. government oversight is an IANA subject to First Amendment protections. “Is ICANN bound by the First Amendment?” Cruz asked ICANN CEO and President Goran Marby at a hearing earlier in September. “To my understanding — no,” Marby replied.

While ICANN has put in place measures to protect a free and open internet once it is in full independent control of IANA, it’s forgotten a crucial fact that potentially leaves it open to government influence. By acting as an effective extension of the government, ICANN currently has an antitrust exemption — an exemption it would lose.

Americans for Limited Government received a response from the Obama administration in August after filing a Freedom of Information Act request demanding “all records relating to legal and policy analysis … concerning antitrust issues for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.” There were no records relating to this crucial question.

“The reason ICANN can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes ICANN an ‘instrumentality’ of government,” L. Gordon Crovitz wrote in The Wall Street Journal in August. “Without the U.S. contract, ICANN would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption,” he explained.

“Authoritarian regimes have already proposed ICANN become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally,” Crovitz noted. But in this observation, Crovitz raises another point.  Authoritarian regimes would much rather ICANN and IANA be subject to supranational national government oversight via an organization like the U.N. A multi-stakeholder model could give such regimes moderate influence but not control.

Moreover, authoritarian regimes can and already do censor the internet in their own countries. In truth, the greatest threat in ICANN getting independent oversight of IANA is not people like Vladimir Putin, but people like George Soros.

The prevailing winds in this country and Europe are for complete control over the tone and timbre of online speech, and ICANN is at present firmly in the hands of the type of globalist liberals who believe that opposition to immigration is hate speech and that those who value national sovereignty are all fascists.

"Can you imagine what the new edicts will be for the personal code of responsibility, the global community hate speech police?" LifeZette Editor-in-Chief Laura Ingraham asked Bolton.

Searching For Answers In The Land Of The Immunized: FBI Discloses Five Separate Immunity Deals With Clinton Officials and Contractors In Email Scandal

1, September 27, 2016 jonathanturley Columns,

Last week, the disclosure of a total of five immunity agreements handed out by the Justice Department as part of its investigation of the Clinton email scandal. The extent of the deals and the recipients were surprising, particularly in the failure to previously disclose those deals. As a criminal defense lawyer, I was surprised to see the deals include Cheryl Mills, one of the highest officials accused in the deletion of tens of thousands of emails and the failure to heed warnings over the risk to national security from the use of the Clinton private server. Below is the column.

When FBI Director James B. Comey announced that there would be no criminal charges in the Clinton email scandal, there was an outcry by many who saw glaring contradictions, attempts to destroy evidence, and knowing failures to protect classified or sensitive information. At the time, I acknowledged that Comey’s decision was understandable and, while criminal charges might have been possible, this was not out of bounds of prosecutorial discretion. However, the news this week of a previously undisclosed immunity deal with a top Clinton aide raises serious questions over the handling of the FBI investigation.

The latest recipient of an immunity deal from the Justice Department is one of Clinton’s closest aides and a figure at the heart of the email scandal, Cheryl Mills. She joins two other central figures in benefiting from such deals: former State Department staffer, Bryan Pagliano and tech specialist Paul Combetta. In addition to at least two other immunized witnesses according to the Associated Press, they represent the big three of officials involved in the underlying allegations of Clinton’s potential criminal conduct. Their collective immunization is baffling.

For the Obama Administration, the criminal investigation into the Democratic presidential nominee and its prior secretary of State came with a heightened level of public scrutiny and skepticism. Many doubted that the administration would seriously pursue the Clintons, a family of political royalty in both Democratic and establishment circles. The easiest way for prosecutors to scuttle a criminal case is to immunize those people who are at the greatest risk of criminal indictment. Often prosecutors will avoid immunity deals in favor of offering plea bargains to key players, tying their cooperation against others to reduced sentences. Although a witness can lose an immunity deal by withholding evidence or lying, a witness can undermine cases against superiors by tailoring their accounts or memories to avoid statements showing intent or knowledge.

Before the disclosure of the Mills immunity deal, the two prior deals were curious given the evidence against both Pagliano and Combetta. Pagliano set up the notorious private server and later joined Clinton at the State Department, where various people raised objections to her use of unsecured communications. If Pagliano was problematic, Combetta’s immunity deal was perplexing. Combetta used a product called BleachBit to eradicate evidence of Clinton emails after a telephone conference with Clinton staffers. When he used the product, he admitted that he knew that Congress had issued a subpoena ordering the preservation of the evidence. Then, this month, it was alleged by a “Twitter sleuth” that Combetta, acting under the alias “stonetear,” solicited advice on how to change email records to remove a “VIP’s (VERY VIP) email address.” Either Combetta did not disclose this effort in violation of his immunity deal or the Justice Department effectively removed a serious threat of indictment though the agreement. Despite immunity deals pledging cooperation with all parts of the government, both Pagliano and Combetta have refused to answer questions from Congress, and Pagliano is facing a contempt sanction.

Mills is a participant in key emails and features prominently in allegations of destroyed emails. She was alleged to have been informed repeatedly of the dangers to national security, particularly regarding Clinton’s use of a personal BlackBerry. She was also central in the deletion of tens of thousands of emails that Clinton claimed were purely personal and not work related.

Many of those emails are now known to have discussed official issues and potentially embarrassing disclosures. Mills’ role in the later investigations has also been controversial. Surprisingly, defense attorney Beth Wilkinson agreed to jointly represent various former aides, including not just Mills but Deputy Chief Jake Sullivan, Mills’ deputy Heather Samuelson, and Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. Wilkinson is a very accomplished lawyer and there is no evidence of unethical acts. However, attorneys rarely represent parties with potential conflicts of interest and the agreement allowed for a single attorney to monitor the consistency of aides in their accounts.

The joint representation of the Clinton aides increased the chance for a uniform account in the controversy. Making this even more concerning is that Mills was allowed by the FBI to sit in on the interviews with Clinton, despite that fact that she was a key witness herself in the investigation. Mills, who is a lawyer, did not hold a legal position at the State Department and should have been excluded from the interviews. Finally, Mills has continuing interests in the election of Hillary Clinton, a development that would place her at the very top of the government.

Of all of the individuals who would warrant immunity, most would view Mills as the very last on any list. If one assumes that there may have been criminal conduct, it is equivalent to immunizing H.R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman in the investigation of Watergate. Mills appears repeatedly at critical moments as one of the most senior figures making decisions or monitoring events, including being informed as Clinton chief of staff of the search for emails by the State Department in response to a Freedom of Information demand in 2012 (three years before the disclosure of Clinton’s use of a private email server). In such circumstances, immunity can amount to impunity. Immunity does not remove the threat of prosecution, but it certainly reduces that threat, while the value of defending prior benefactors or loyalties can remain. Given the overlapping immunity deals, many will now find it unsurprising that Comey did not find evidence of “intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty . . . or efforts to obstruct justice.”

Comey removed the greatest threat that could have been used to get two underlings to implicate senior officials, and then gave immunity to the senior official most at risk of a charge. In the land of the immunized, the degree of cooperation can sometimes be as difficult to establish as the truth.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.

Bottom of Form