DNC Comes Out of Closet– Goes Public, Handing Reins Over to Clinton Campaign

By Rob Kall

The DNC has allowed Hillary Clinton to replace Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the practical head of the DNC with someone of her choosing, finally coming out of closet, showing their collusion openly.

CNN reports with the headline,

Clinton campaign takes control of DNC.

They go on to inform us,

“Hillary Clinton’s campaign is taking the reins of the Democratic National Committee, installing a new top official on Thursday to oversee the party’s day-to-day operations through the general election.

Brandon Davis, national political director for the Service Employees International Union, will become the general election chief of staff for the Democratic Party. His selection formalizes the coordination of the Clinton campaign and the committee, a stark contrast to Donald Trump who is currently at odds with his party.”

Hillary supporters think this is wonderful and natural. I see it differently. It is grotesquely premature. The election is not over. The primary is not finished. What the DNC and Clinton, together, have done is to take the collusion that has been going on for over a year, probably far longer, but at least that long, as this article informs us, Guccifer Leaked Emails Show DNC Colluded, and takes it out of the closet.

Out of the closet. The DNC has been aiding and colluding with the Clinton campaign, coordinating with the mainstream media. Any Bernie Sanders supporter has seen and opined the reality. It was not subtle. But this move is the worst kind of offensive audacity.

Of course, this is all a part of the massive fraudulent tapestry the mainstream media wove, that I described in my article, MSM Sycophants Coronate The Pretender with a Massive PR Campaign.

Hillary supporters are celebrating the marginalization of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Howard Dean says, CNN reports,

“This is in fact what happens,” Howard Dean, former Democratic Party chairman, told CNN. “Debbie will still have the title, but somebody else will be the effective operator of the DNC. It’s Hillary’s pick.”

No it’s not. This is an outrageous manifestation of the attitude and unethical, rule-breaking relationship between the DNC and the Clinton campaign that has been in existence all along. The primary election is not over, not until the convention, regardless of how strong a PR campaign the Clintons and their mainstream media surrogates have put on.

This shows how broken the Democratic party is, how broken the two party system is. More than ever we need Bernie’s revolution.

Read More: 


Stock Market Rallies on Murder of Jo Cox; Wall Street Journal Defends It

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens:

The U.S. stock market was mired in red ink yesterday morning with every major Wall Street bank trading down on news that multiple polls in Britain were showing that a majority of citizens were in favor of the United Kingdom withdrawing from the European Union (EU). A referendum vote on the issue is to be held next Thursday.

Then, at 12:17 p.m. New York time yesterday, Bloomberg News printed the following headline: “U.K. Lawmaker Jo Cox Is Murdered, Silencing Brexit Debate.” Cox was a Member of Parliament from the Labour Party who was an advocate for the U.K. remaining in the EU. Cox, a mother of two children, was shot and stabbed by a man said to be in favor of Brexit, the term for a British exit from the EU. On the news of her death, which fueled the market perception that it would dampen the zeal to leave the EU, the pound and euro rallied along with the Dow Jones Industrial Average and Wall Street bank stocks.

After the U.S. market closed, with the Dow up 92 points on the day, an abrupt turnaround from morning trading, James Mackintosh penned an article at the Wall Street Journal taking note that markets can appear “callous,” but justifying the market reaction to the death of Cox with this line of reasoning:

“But one of the points of markets is that they are amoral. Not immoral — although much of the wrongdoing uncovered after the financial crisis certainly was — but unconcerned with morality at all. They are deliberately unfeeling, heartless and unsympathetic, because they exist to balance out millions of individual views in order to allocate capital and assess risk.”

This is simplistic and naively wrong on so many levels. Let’s start with the U.S. market’s ability to “allocate capital and assess risk.” Here’s what Ron Chernow correctly had to say on this subject back in 2001 in the New York Times:

“Let us be clear about the magnitude of the Nasdaq collapse. The tumble has been so steep and so bloody —  close to $4 trillion in market value erased in one year — that it amounts to nearly four times the carnage recorded in the October 1987 crash.” Chernow likened the NASDAQ stock market to a “lunatic control tower that directed most incoming planes to a bustling, congested airport known as the New Economy while another, depressed airport, the Old Economy, stagnated with empty runways. The market functioned as a vast, erratic mechanism for misallocating capital across America.”

The U.S. stock market at that time was corrupted by crooked research analysts at the still crooked Wall Street mega banks who were pumping out buy recommendations to the public while internally calling the stocks “crap,” and debating how to put lipstick on the pigs they were peddling.

Read More: 


EXPOSED: Leaked Emails Show DNC Colluded with Media to Push Clinton Nomination

By Tom Cahill

Despite claims of neutrality, recently leaked emails show the Democratic National Committee was putting its thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton for over a year.

When it was revealed that “Guccifer 2.0” (named after Romanian hacker Guccifer, who confessed to hacking into Hillary Clinton’s private email server multiple times) hacked the DNC’s servers, the main story was about leaked opposition research on Donald Trump. But on the same site Guccifer published the Trump research, “2016 GOP presidential candidates,” there were also DNC talking points suggesting the party’s central organization had been working since May of 2015 to make Hillary Clinton the nominee.

The DNC was diligently cleaning up Clinton’s record, using “specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”

The email also suggested collusion with media networks to push Hillary Clinton as the party’s eventual nominee, and anchors for national cable news networks may have broadcasted DNC talking points spoon-fed to them by Democratic Party operatives.

In the “Reporter Outreach” section, the document suggested “off-the-record conversations and oppo pitches to help pitch stories with no fingerprints and utilize reporters to drive a message.” This would seemingly vindicate Bernie Sanders’ supporters who have claimed networks like CNN have had a consistent pro-Clinton, anti-Sanders bias:

 
Read More: 

Sanders Supporters Vindicated: Proof DNC Used Media to Rig Election for Hillary

By Claire Bernish

United States — While Bernie Sanders’ supporters and independent media outlets have exhaustively pointed out that corporate media’s fatuous prattling over Hillary Clinton likely tipped the elections in her favor, we now have solid proof — leaked emails show the DNC colluded with mainstream outlets to heavily favor Clinton.

“Our goals in the coming months will be to frame the Republican field and the eventual nominee early and to provide a contrast between the GOP field and HRC,” reads an email dated May 26, 2015, referencing the former secretary of state by her initials, posted by “Guccifer 2.0” — after the Romanian hacker who allegedly accessed Clinton’s private email server multiple times.

One of the strategies listed for “positioning and public messaging” states, “Use specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency and campaign finance attacks on HRC.

As the mainstream largely directed attention to the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s strategy to oppose Donald Trump, this collusion to steer the narrative in Hillary’s favor appears to have gone unnoticed, as US Uncut reported. But this series of leaked emails show a meticulously plotted coordination between DNC narratives touting Clinton, rather than Sanders, as if she had been the presumptive nominee from the outset — precisely as activists and fair elections advocates had suspected.

Under the heading “Tactics,” the document states, “Working with the DNC and allied groups, we will use several different methods to land these attacks” — including, under the subheading, “Reporter Outreach”:

“Working through the DNC and others, we should use background briefings, prep with reporters for interviews with GOP candidates, off-the-record conversations and oppo pitches to help pitch stories with no fingerprints and utilize reporters to drive a message.” And under “Bracketing Events,” the email states: “Both the DNC and outside groups are looking to do events and press surrounding Republican events to insert our messaging into their press and to force them to answer questions around key issues.”

Read More: 

Although its content is accurate, the research out of Stanford is a paper, co-written by a Stanford
student. 
So it’s not a proper “study” by professors, duly peer-reviewed, as this headline misleadingly suggests.
Apologies.
MCM

Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud 

by Sean Adl-Tabatabai

A bombshell study released by Stanford University confirms evidence of election fraud during the 2016 Democratic Party primaries.
 

According to a paper released this week entitled, “Are we witnessing a dishonest election?,” a state comparison based on the voting procedures used during the election reveals endemic election fraud within the system.

Given the stakes in the outcome of the American presidential elections, ensuring the integrity of the electoral process is of the utmost importance.

Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive.

At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate?

We contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide converging evidence for this claim.

First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls.

Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama.

As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support.

Full report: Are we witnessing a dishonest election?


Two Bigots Running for US President

It’s easy to spot Donald Trump’s crude bigotry but harder to detect Hillary Clinton’s more subtle variety since it pertains mostly to Palestinians and people pressuring Israel to respect Palestinian rights, explains Lawrence Davidson.

By Lawrence Davidson

To find bigots in political office in the United States is not historically unusual. In fact, up until the 1960s and the Civil Rights Movement, publicly recognizable bigots in office were the norm in many parts of the country. Even in the post-1960s era, we find presidents such as Nixon and Reagan who could be openly bigoted. However, most recent office holders have known enough to keep their prejudices off of the public airwaves.

It is a sign of the fragility of the changes in national character wrought by the Civil Rights Movement that the inhibitions holding back public expressions of bigotry are wearing thin. And that has set the scene for the current contest for the presidency in which both major parties have thrown up (no pun intended) bigoted candidates. Yes, that is right, two of them, not just one.

On the Republican side the bigot is easy to spot. That is because Donald Trump wears his bigotry on his sleeve, so to speak. He can’t help but display it because, apparently even at this late date, he doesn’t understand what the big deal is.

On the campaign trail he has insulted Mexicans, Muslims and “our African-Americans,” and gotten away with it because millions of his supporters are also bigots. A common bigotry is one of the reasons they cheer him on. However, now that he is the “presumptive” Republican candidate for president, much of that party’s leadership and their media allies have begun to call him on these problematic public expressions.

They want to see Trump act “presidential,” hiding away his prejudices for the sake of achieving maximum appeal. Alas, this is not easy for a man who, all of his life, said what he thought, no matter how improper. He sees it as “just being honest,” and up until the run for president, his wealth had helped forestall most public criticism.

Hillary Clinton’s Bigotry

On the Democratic side the bigot is not so easy to spot, but the problem exists in any case. Hillary Clinton may not be a bigot in the same way as Trump. She certainly isn’t going to go about insulting ethnic groups with large numbers of potential voters. Indeed, she has cultivated many minority groups and is supported by them.

But such outreach has its limits, and in one important case she is willing to act as a de facto bigot in order to cater to a politically powerful interest group. Having actively done so, the difference in ethical behavior between her and Mr. Trump starts to blur.

In what way is Hillary Clinton, now the “presumptive” presidential candidate of the Democratic Party, behaving like a de facto bigot? She does so in her open, prosecutorial hostility toward the fight to liberate Palestinians from the racist oppression of Israel and its Zionist ideology.

Clinton, having in this case traded whatever principled anti-racist feelings she has for a fistful of campaign dollars, has openly sided with the Zionists. And, as she must well know, they are among the world’s most demonstrative bigots.

Read More: 


FBI criminal investigation emails: Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says WSJ:

FBI is investigating Hillary’s classified emails on State Dept. approval of CIA drone killings in Pakistan

By Ben Norton

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton checks her phone in October 18, 2011(Credit: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)The FBI has been conducting a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information for months.

An explosive new report reveals just what it is that the FBI is looking to: emails in which then-Secretary of State Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations in Pakistan with her cellphone.

From 2011 on, the State Department had a secret arrangement with the CIA, giving it a degree of say over whether or not a drone killing would take place.The U.S. drone program has killed hundreds of civilians in Pakistan and other countries.

Under Sec. Clinton, State Department officials approved almost every single proposed CIA drone assassination. They only objected to one or two attacks.

The emails that are at the heart of the FBI’s criminal investigation are 2011 and 2012 messages between U.S. diplomats in Pakistan and their State Department superiors in D.C., in which the officials approved drone strikes.

Clinton’s aides forwarded some of these emails to her personal email account, on a private server in her home in suburban New York.

These are the revelations of a report by The Wall Street Journal, based on information provided by anonymous congressional and law-enforcement officials who were briefed on the FBI’s probe.

The State Department revealed in January that 22 of the emails that were on Clinton’s private server at her home contained top-secret information. These messages were not publicly released, and an investigation was eventually launched.

The White House acknowledged in a press briefing on Thursday that the FBI probe into Clinton’s handling of classified information is a “criminal investigation.” President Obama endorsed Clinton for president on the same day.

Hundreds of civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and more have been killed by U.S. drones.

Pakistan is the site of more U.S. drone strikes than any other country. The Obama administration has carried out more than 370 drone attacks in Pakistan, killing as many as 1,000 civilians, including up to 200 children, according to data collected by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

The exact number of civilians killed is unknown, because the U.S. is very secretive about its program, and because it essentially redefines militant to mean any man of military age in a targeted area.

In 2011, some Pakistani officials pushed back against the U.S. drone assassination program, leading the U.S. State Department to ask the CIA to be more “judicious” about the timing of drone attacks. Clinton’s State Department did not oppose the CIA’s specific choice of targets, just their timing.

This led to a compromise in which the CIA gave the State Department some voice in the drone assassination process. Beginning in 2011, CIA officers began notifying diplomats in the U.S. embassy in Islamabad of planned attacks. The diplomats then conveyed the information to senior State Department officials.

Read More: 


CA voting rights activists observing the provisional ballot count looking for attorneys and poll workers in Alameda, etc.

Diana Finch <diana.finch@verizon.net>: Jun 10 03:46PM -0400

If anyone here knows attorneys or poll workers in California who are interested in helping to observe the provisional ballot review and counting, please reply to this message via the group or directly to me (but not to both) and I will put you in touch with the organizers of this effort, who include the Election Justice USA attorneys who also filed suit before the California primary concerning the provisional ballots.

Under California State Election law, certified observers are allowed to watch the provisional ballot counting. The counting and observations have begun already in San Francisco and are expected to continue next week in many other locations including Alameda.

Thank you!

Diana Finch
diana.finch@verizon.net


What Media Hid in De Niro Autism Film Affair

By F. William Engdahl

Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a former British gastro-enterologist and vaccine researcher has been fully exonerated of the charges that he, together with a world renowned pediatric gastroenterologist, Prof. John Walker-Smith, conducted fraudulent tests with children that raised the possibility of a link between the popular MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and onset of autism and other severe symptoms. Most remarkable is the fact that despite his de facto exoneration in a British Court more than four years ago, in 2012, mainstream media in the UK and the USA have chosen to deliberately ignore the fact. They did so to hide the explosive content of Wakefield’s film, Vaxxed.

This past April, Hollywood actor and founder of the Tribeca film festival, Robert de Niro, announced in an interview to the New York Times that he had personally arranged for a new documentary film, Vaxxed, about links between autism and vaccinations, to be shown on April 24 at his festival in order to open a national debate on the subject. Some 48 hours later the Tribeca website announced it had pulled the film. The pressure had been enormous. To his credit, some days later, on America’s most popular morning show, de Niro repeated his earlier statement that while he is not anti-vaccine, he wants an open debate on the subject. De Niro’s own son is autistic.

Exonerated

At the time I wrote my article, I was not aware that a British Court some four years ago completely exonerated Wakefield’s co-author and researcher in the autism study. Since then a helpful reader has pointed me to the entire text of the Court decision. I’ve decided to write this follow-up in the interest of justice to Andrew Wakefield, whom I’ve personally met and whose moral courage going up against the pharma lobby against all normal odds we owe a debt to. I do it also in support of Robert de Niro’s call for an open debate on the question of links between not only autism and vaccines. Had our “mainstream” media not been long ago polluted with the toxic waste of the pharma industry, and had they maintained a scintilla of honest journalism today, such an account would not have been necessary.

In February, 2012, Mr. Justice Mitting held hearings on the charges brought against world renowned pediatric gastro-enterologist, Prof. John Walker-Smith, Wakefield’s co-researcher, in Britain’s High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court.

The Justice ruled that charges brought against Walker-Smith by the British General Medical Council’s Panel, the GMC “panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it.” Walker-Smith won his appeal against a General Medical Council regulatory board that had ruled against both him and Andrew Wakefield for their roles in authoring a 1998 Lancet MMR paper, which raised questions about a link to autism. The complete victory means that Walker-Smith has been returned to the status of a fully licensed physician…”

Read More: 


Stunning Emails Reveal How Clinton Foundation Donor Bought Seat As Hillary’s Nuclear Weapons Advisor

By Tyler Durden

Forget Hillary’s personal email server: this is what true cronyism and criminal corruption looks like, and this is the biggest threat from a Hillary presidency.

It has been widely speculated, if not proven, that donors to the Clinton Foundation who over the years have transferred hundreds of millions of dollars to the “charitable organization”, bought political favors with the Clintons in exchange for their generosity. That has now been confirmed thanks to a stunning ABC report which reveals how a major foundation donor – one who previously had practically no experience on intelligence matters – mysteriously ended up as a nuclear weapons advisor to Hillary during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Worse, the person in question Rajiv K. Fernando, had been the head of a high frequency trading company, Chopper Trading (recently acquired [2]by HFT powerhouse DRW), which may explain the unprecedented pull of the HFT lobby throughout all ranks of the US political apparatus. In other words, Fernando bought a seat to not only have advance knowledge of all US foreign policy, but to directly shape it, something he could then parlay in the forms of massive policy frontrunning profits thanks to his trading company.

In other words, the appointment qualified Fernando, a trader in the public markets, for one of the highest levels of top secret access.

Just as shocking was the aggressive retaliation with which the State Department tried to cover up the cronyism that literally “bought” Fernando’s seat as one of Hillary’s closest political advisors, and how – as a result of ongoing media pressure – Fernando just as mysteriously resigned only days after his appointment was announced when the State Department was unable to come up with a legitimate reason for him to stay on.

The full shocking story follows, courtesy of ABC [3].

Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.

The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.

A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.

“We had no idea who he was,” one board member told ABC News.

Read More: 


What ‘Hamilton’ Forgets About Alexander Hamilton

By JASON FRANK and ISAAC KRAMNICK

ALEXANDER HAMILTON is all the rage. Sold out for months in advance, the musical “Hamilton,” Lin-Manuel Miranda’s remarkable hip-hop dramatization of this founder’s life, is arguably the most celebrated American cultural phenomenon of our time. Reported on from every conceivable angle, the show has helped keep Hamilton on the $10 bill and prompted a new nickname for this weekend’s Broadway awards ceremony: the “Hamiltonys.”

Central to the musical’s power is the way it and its extraordinarily talented multiracial cast use Hamilton’s immigrant hustle to explain the most important political episodes of his life. “I am not throwing away my shot,” Mr. Miranda’s Hamilton sings early on, and it is this motif that animates everything that follows.

In Hamilton’s tumultuous life, Mr. Miranda saw the drive and promise of the immigrant story of America. Already in 1782 the French immigrant Crèvecoeur had defined “the American, this new man” as one who moved to a land in which the “idle may be employed, the useless become useful, and the poor become rich.” Hamilton announces this entrepreneurial ambition early in the show: “Hey, yo, I’m just like my country/I’m young, scrappy and hungry.” The night’s biggest applause line, “Immigrants: We get the job done!,” proclaims that, contra Donald J. Trump, immigrants are the source of America’s greatness and renewal, not its decline.

Mr. Miranda’s depiction of Hamilton as resourceful immigrant and talented self-made man captures an important aspect of his character. But the musical avoids an equally pronounced feature of Hamilton’s beliefs: his deeply ingrained elitism, his disdain for the lower classes and his fear of democratic politics. The musical’s misleading portrayal of Hamilton as a “scrappy and hungry” man of the people obscures his loathing of the egalitarian tendencies of the revolutionary era in which he lived.

Read More: 


Forbidden Bookshelf

Forbidden Bookshelf




“While We Were Sleeping”

While We Were Sleeping is an urgent call to save Greenwich Village from New York University's uncontrolled expansion.

Click here to donate to NYUFASP and receive a copy of "While We Were Sleeping: NYU and the Destruction of New York" (minimum donation to receive a book is $10 plus $8 shipping).

Orwell Rolls In His Grave, featuring MCM – Buy the DVD



About News From Underground

News From Underground is a daily e-news service run by Mark Crispin Miller, a Professor of Culture and Communication at NYU. It is based on his belief that academics, like reporters, have a civic obligation to help keep the people well-informed, so that American democracy might finally work.

If you'd like to receive updates delivered to your inbox daily, sign up for News From Underground Alerts:

Help News From Underground!





Message from Mark: "I am a one-man operation, although assisted greatly by some volunteers, and, now and then, by people paid by others for one-time projects. There is no shortage of skilled, dedicated folks out there who want to help me. There is, however, nothing I can pay them with, unless you decide you can contribute something."

Please donate via the PayPal button above or via PayPal by email to: markcrispinmiller@gmail.com

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Popular Posts

Blogroll

Need a bigger font size?




Sponsored Links



  • Your link could be here too, contact us for pricing details.