Tag: DNC

DID the FBI use Steele dossier to obtain FISA warrant?

UH-OH!

Sara Carter reports that the unverified dossier alleging connections between President Trump’s campaign and the Russians was used as evidence by the FBI to gain approval from the FISA court to monitor members of Trump’s team. Carter cites “multiple sources.”

Carter also notes that Sean Hannity says he has independently confirmed the dossier was used to obtain the FISA warrant. Hannity relies on three sources.

Meanwhile, Byron York reports that representatives of four congressional committees — the House Intelligence Committee, Senate Intelligence Committee, House Judiciary Committee, and Senate Judiciary Committee — have seen the documents the FBI submitted with its request for a FISA warrant. Thus, these members know whether dossier material was used to obtain the warrant.

So far, says Byron, the members and any staffers in the know have not leaked word as to whether such material was used. (As I understand it, this information is classified). Sara Carter appears to be relying on leaks from sources in the executive branch, whom she describes as “senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the dossier.”

At the end of the day, I suspect we’ll learn conclusively that unverified dossier information was indeed used to obtain the FISA warrant. And we already know the dossier information was obtained at the behest of, and with financing from, the Clinton campaign. And I think we know that at least some of the FBI agents and officials involved in the process were anti-Trump partisans alarmed at the prospect of Trump defeating Clinton

Fritz sums this up if it turns out to be true

To summarize, the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid a law firm to pay Steele, to pay the Russians for almost entirely unverified salacious material, paid journolists to report it, and passed it to the FBI, who used it to break the 4th amendment protections on the people in the Trump campaign at the hand of anti-Trump, pro-Clinton hacks in the FBI.

And the Trump campaign is being subjected to a Special “Counsel” investigation regarding collusion with the Russians in the election, for which there is essentially zero evidence. Go figure.

I wonder if Chris Cuomo will get his Whiteboard of Outrage out and go all “journalist” over this story? Yeah fat chance

O’Malley And Sanders Claim DNC Rigging Nomination Process

O’Malley Challenges DNC Over ‘Rigged’ Debate Schedule – The Hill

.

.
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley thinks the Democratic Party’s decision to limit the number of primary debates is tantamount to rigging the nomination process.

“Four debates and only four debates – we are told, not asked – before voters in our earliest states make their decision,” the presidential candidate said at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Summer Meeting on Friday.

“This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before,” he added. “One debate in Iowa. That’s it. One debate in New Hampshire. That’s all we can afford.”

After O’Malley’s speech wrapped up, observers noted palpable tension as he greeted DNC Chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

O’Malley had previously criticized the DNC’s decision to hold only four debates before early states cast votes as “undemocratic,” and questioned the legality of the schedule.

He has also said Democrats are making a “big mistake” by rushing to make Clinton the party’s nominee.

“I think it’s a big mistake for us as a party to circle the wagons around the inevitable front-runner,” O’Malley said on Thursday.

The first Democratic Party debate will be held on Oct. 13 in Las Vegas.

A RealClearPolitics polling average has Clinton leading the field at 47 percent support, followed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at 26 percent support and Vice President Biden at 14 percent support. O’Malley places fourth with just over 1 percent support.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Sanders: DNC Using Debates To Rig Primary – The Hill

.

.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) believes the Democratic Party is using its limited primary debate schedule to rig the nomination process.

“I do,” Sanders reportedly responded when asked Friday whether he agrees with former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s assertion that the debate system is “rigged.”

The two Democratic presidential candidates were speaking at the summer meeting of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in Minneapolis on Friday.

“This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before,” O’Malley said in his speech earlier Friday.

The DNC has drawn criticism for scheduling only four debates before the early-primary states cast their votes, and six total throughout the election cycle.

DNC spokeswoman Holly Shulman defended the schedule, saying it will “give plenty of opportunity for the candidates to be seen side-by-side.”

“I’m sure there will be lots of other forums for the candidates to make their case to voters, and that they will make the most out of every opportunity,” Shulman said in a statement, according to The Washington Post.

Sanders previously said he would not agree to additional debates unless all of the Democratic presidential candidates participated.

But he has expressed concern with the number of debates.

“At a time when many Americans are demoralized about politics and have given up on the political process, I think it’s imperative that we have as many debates as possible,” Sanders said in a statement earlier this month. “I look forward to working with the DNC to see if we can significantly expand the proposed debate schedule.”

“Further, I also think it is important for us to debate not only in the early states but also in many states which currently do not have much Democratic presidential campaign activity,” Sanders wrote in a letter to DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) in June.

The first Democratic Party debate will be held on Oct. 13 in Las Vegas.

.

.

DNC War On Women Intensifies: Female Staffers Paid 15 Percent Less Than Male Staffers

DNC War On Women Intensifies: Female Staffers Paid 15 Percent Less Than Male Staffers – Washington Free Beacon

Female employees of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) earn significantly less than their male counterparts, a Washington Free Beacon analysis has found.

A review of salary data filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) revealed that the DNC paid female staff members $501 less on average than male staffers in July 2012, a difference of 15 percent.

The DNC’s 119 female employees earned $3,342 on average in the month of July, compared to $3,843 for its 113 male employees. On an annualized basis, the average female DNC employee would earn roughly $6,000 less than her male coworkers.

The median female salary ($2,926) for July was also about 15 percent less than the median male salary ($3,370).

The results are consistent with those of other Free Beacon reviews of salary data for the White House, Democratic members of Congress, and President Obama’s re-election campaign.

In 2011, female White House employees made about 18 percent less than their male counterparts, the Free Beacon found.

More than a dozen Democratic Senators paid their female staff members at least 20 percent less than male staffers during that same period.

The Obama campaign’s recent filings with the FEC revealed that it paid women more than 5 percent less than men during the months of May and June.

Such findings undermine the concerted effort by the Democratic Party to portray Republicans as waging a “war on women.”

In June, Senate Democrats levied the charge against the GOP for opposing the so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act,” a bill that would make it easier for trial lawyers to file lucrative class action lawsuits over claims of gender pay discrimination.

Critics called the legislation “an employment act for trial lawyers,” noting that the trial lawyer industry is the top source of campaign contributions for all but five members of the Senate Democratic caucus.

The pay disparity among DNC employees is particularly striking given that DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) has been one of the most vocal propagators of the “war on women” charge.

Wasserman Schultz has been making the claim for more than a year. During one of her first public appearances after being named DNC chair in April 2011, she derided the GOP for waging a “war on women.”

“It’s just so hard for me to grasp how [Republicans] could be so anti-women as they are,” she said in May 2011.

Earlier this year, Wasserman Shultz berated Republicans for their opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a predecessor to the Paycheck Fairness Act that made it easier for women to sue their employers for pay discrimination.

“The focus of the Republican party on turning back the clock for women really is something that’s unacceptable, and shows how callous and insensitive they are towards women’s priorities,” she said on CNN’s State of the Union in April.

Just days after Wasserman Shultz made those remarks, DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told Slate’s Dave Weigel that the DNC has “not been running a campaign based on the term ‘war on women.’”

Woodhouse did not return a request for comment.

The DNC has also been caught up in the recent controversy surrounding the uniforms worn by this year’s United States Olympic team. The uniforms were made in China by prominent Obama donor Ralph Lauren’s clothing company. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said the appropriate solution would be to “put them in a big pile and burn them and start all over again.”

Since 2008, Lauren has donated more than $35,000 to the DNC, though it is unclear if the DNC intends to return the tainted money.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Obama, DNC And Ohio Democrat Party Suing To Restrict Military Voting

Obama Campaign Sues To Restrict Military Voting – Big Government

President Barack Obama, along with many Democrats, likes to say that, while they may disagree with the GOP on many issues related to national security, they absolutely share their admiration and dedication to members of our armed forces. Obama, in particular, enjoys being seen visiting troops and having photos taken with members of our military. So, why is his campaign and the Democrat party suing to restrict their ability to vote in the upcoming election?

On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state’s law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is “arbitrary” with “no discernible rational basis.”

Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military are given three extra days to do so. While the Democrats may see this as “arbitrary” and having “no discernible rational basis,” I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women’s time and their obligations to their sworn duty.

The National Defense Committee reports:

[f]or each of the last three years, the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program has reported to the President and the Congress that the number one reason for military voter disenfranchisement is inadequate time to successfully vote.

I think its unconscionable that we as a nation wouldn’t make it as easy as possible for members of the military to vote. They arguably have more right to vote than the rest of us, since it is their service and sacrifice that ensures we have the right to vote in the first place.

If anyone proposes legislation to combat voter fraud, Democrats will loudly scream that the proposal could “disenfranchise” some voter, somewhere. We must ensure, they argue, that voting is easy and accessible to every single voter. Every voter, that is, except the men and women of our military.

Make no mistake, the Democrat lawsuit is intended to disenfranchise some unknown number of military voters. The judge should reject it with prejudice.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story