Google involved with Clinton campaign, controls information flow – Assange

American tech giant Google is closely cooperating with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign to promote the candidate, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in a televised address to an international media forum.

“Google is directly engaged with Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” the WikiLeaks founder claimed, as quoted by the Sputnik news agency. He added that the company used the State Department as part of “a quid pro quo.”

The journalist behind the world’s most well-known whistleblower website appeared via videoconference at a session of ‘End of the Monopoly: The Open Information Age’, part of the ‘New Era of Journalism: Farewell to Mainstream international media’ forum organized at the Rossiya Segodnya International Multimedia Press Center in Moscow.

Assange is far from the only one to notice the link between Google and the Clinton campaign. Behavioral Psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein has pioneered research on how search engines affect elections and much more. He told Lee Camp, host of RT America’s ‘Redacted Tonight’, that “when one candidate is higher in search rankings ‒ that is, looks better than another candidate in search rankings ‒ that shifts a lot of votes to that candidate. And it’s not a tiny number. It’s a very, very big number of votes.”

Humans are trained to believe that the higher ranking links are “better” and “truer,” Epstein explained.

Last year, billionaire Alphabet chairman Eric Schmidt created a little-known start-up company called The Groundwork, “the sole purpose of which is to put Hillary Clinton in office,” he said. “It’s a very secretive organization, super high-tech stuff, and [it’s] very likely they’re using these techniques that we’ve been studying in our research to make sure that votes are shifted to Hillary Clinton in November.”

Assange believes that unlike Donald Trump, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is predictable and will constitute a problem for freedom of speech in the US if elected.

“Of course she when she is in power… She is a problem for freedom of speech,” the whistleblower said. “We know what she is going to do. And she made the chart for the destruction of Libya, she was involved in the process of taking the Libyan armory and sending it to Syria.”

“Google is heavily integrated with Washington power, at personal level and at business level… Google, which has increasing control over the distribution channels,… is intensely allying itself with the US exceptionalism,”Assange said, speaking in a video link from the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

“It [Google] shows the will to use that at different levels. It will inevitably influence its audience,” Assange said, recalling the occasion when Google leased its front page to “promote [US State Secretary] John Kerry’s call for bombing on Syria in 2013,” along with conspiring with “Al Jazeera to encourage Syrian defectors.”

“Google is an intensely Washington, DC-aligned company,” the famous whistleblower said.

Read More: 

From Chris Jonsson:

Mark, this title is on the Justice Gazette but their site is down. Funniest thing.

Recent Headlines:   *Bernie Sanders says fracking will be banned in his Administration. *HUD eliminates temporary housing funding to homeless while Patrick Kelly (Teamsters) and elected officials (including Loretta Sanchez, Maxine Waters, and Alan Lowenthal) speak out in support of restoring funding to homeless. *Inspector General’s Report discredits Hillary Clinton and viewed by many being basis for indictment. *Turns out Sanders won Kentucky but 5000 of his votes were removed. *Sanders wins Oregon and ties in Kentucky. *NDP caughtSp on video  force to cheat against peaceful Sanders delegates.  *Nevada Democratic Party caught on video cheating to give Clinton more delegates.  *Sanders landslided in West Virginia. ^Sanders wins Indiana. *Sanders wins Rhode Island.  Cheating in Clinton’s favor discovered in Delaware, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. *Clinton campaign posts child pornography on Sanders Facebook pages. *Democratic voters supporting Sanders removed from roles in Pennsylvania, evidencing likely plan to rig election. *Prince passes away; cities go purple. *Over 30% of New York Democrats are removed from roles and researchers suspect Hillary Clinton and NGP Van of involvement.* Evidence of election-flipping surfaces in New York election. *126,000 Democratic voters illegally removed from roles in Brooklyn, preventing them from voting a ballot for their hometown boy Bernie Sanders.

Due to some web problems, some subject pages of the Justice Gazette are under reconstruction .

Read More: 

Sanders Supporters Claim Clinton Campaign and AP Engaged in a Conspiracy – Complete With a “Secret Win” Code Name

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: June 8, 2016

If Hillary Clinton was hoping for Bernie Sanders’ supporters to fall in line and join her corporate media coronation, that scenario has taken an abrupt turn off the page. Charges now flying by Sanders’ supporters on social media make the Politburo look like pikers when measured against the alleged conspiracy between the Clinton campaign and Associated Press.

Here’s the timeline of the alleged conspiracy and sacking of a free election process:

On Monday evening, June 6, on the very eve of presidential primaries in six states, the Associated Press released its survey findings that Hillary Clinton had enough superdelegate votes to clinch the Democratic Presidential nomination. This is how the Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald reported what happened:

“Last night, the Associated Press — on a day when nobody voted — surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization’s survey of ‘superdelegates’: the Democratic Party’s 720 insiders, corporate donors, and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.”

The Dow Jones media outlet, MarketWatch noted: “The AP made the call on the basis that enough of the so-called superdelegates — party elites including President Barack Obama and President Bill Clinton, who have special voting rights — were now supporting Clinton.” (Obama and Bill Clinton? No wonder the Associated Press didn’t reveal whom they called.)

It did not seem to bother the Associated Press that the official position of the Democratic National Committee is that superdelegate votes should not be included in press tallies until the superdelegates actually vote at the Democratic National Convention, to be held on July 25-28 in Philadelphia. Superdelegates are freely allowed to change their minds until they actually vote and Clinton has enough explosive baggage now hanging over her head that predicting what could happen by late July is impractical. (Clinton’s use of a private email server while Secretary of State is under an active FBI investigation; a documentary on foreign cash flowing to the Clinton charity will be released soon, as well as a new book filled with explosive allegations by Gary Byrne, the former Secret Service agent who guarded Bill Clinton’s Oval Office.)

Moments after the Associated Press made their announcement on Monday, June 6, Hillary’s campaign sent out an email to their supporters acknowledging the AP announcement. But in a move reminiscent of Politburo screw-ups, the image in the Hillary Clinton email had this file name: “secret-win-V2-060416c_02.png.” The date embedded in the file name suggested to Sanders’ supporters that on June 4, 2016, two days before the AP went public with their survey of secret superdelegates, the Hillary Clinton campaign knew about this coming announcement from AP and had given it a code name of “Secret Win.”

Read More: 

Millions Around the World Fleeing from Neoliberal Policy

By Michael Hudson

June 07, 2016 “Information Clearing House” – “TheRealNews” –  Economist Michael Hudson says neoliberal policy will pressure U.S. citizens to emigrate, just as it caused millions to leave Russia, the Baltic States, and now Greece in search of a better life


A research team from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York estimates 875,000 deaths in the United States in year 2000 could be attributed to social factors related to poverty and income inequality.

According to U.S. government statistics, 2.45 million Americans died in the same year. When compared to the Columbia research team’s finding, social deprivation could account for some 36% of the total deaths in 2000.

“Almost all of the British economists of the late 18th century said when you have poverty, when you have a transfer of wealth to the rich, you’re going to have shorter lifespans, and you’re also going to have emigration,” says Michael Hudson, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Many countries, such as Russia, the Baltic States, and now Greece, have seen a massive outflow of their populations due to worsening social conditions after the implementation of neoliberal policy.

Hudson predicts that the United States will undergo the same trend, as greater hardship results from the passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, changes to social security, and broader policy shifts due to prospective appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court and the next presidential cabinet.

“Now, the question is, in America, now that you’re having as a result of this polarization shorter lifespans, worse health, worse diets, where are the Americans going to emigrate? Nobody can figure that one out yet,” says Hudson.

SHARMINI PERIES, TRNN: After decades of sustained attacks on social programs and consistently high unemployment rates, it is no surprise that mortality rates in the country have increased. A research team from Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York has estimated that 875,000 deaths in the United States in the year 2000 could be attributed to clusters of social factors bound up with poverty and income inequality. According to U.S. government statistics, some 2.45 million Americans died in the year 2000, thus the researchers estimate means that social deprivation was responsible for some 36 percent of the total deaths that year. A staggering total.

Joining us to discuss all of this from New York City is Michael Hudson. Michael is a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri Kansas City. His latest book is Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy

So, Michael, what do you make of this recent research and what it’s telling us about the death total in this country?

HUDSON: What it tells is almost identical to what has already been narrated for Russia and Greece. And what is responsible for the increasing death rates is neoliberal economic policy, neoliberal trade policy, and the polarization and impoverishment of a large part of society. After the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, death rates soared, lifespans shortened, health standards decreased all throughout the Yeltsin administration, until finally President Putin came in and stabilized matters. Putin said that the destruction caused by neoliberal economic policies had killed more Russians than all of whom died in World War II, the 22 million people. That’s the devastation that polarization caused there.

Read More:

Where Did 12 Million California Voters Go?

The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that 18 million newly registered voters in the state of California marked a new record for voter registration during a primary. Yet, only around 6 million votes were actually counted. Why?

Among reports of bogus party affiliation changes, voter purges, accidental party affiliations and rigged voting machines, the California primary was just one of six states experiencing what is looking more and more like widespread voter suppression by the Democratic party.

Tuesday’s California primary resulted in around 3.2 million votes cast in the Democratic party and around 1.5 million in the Republican primary. Even if we rounded that up to 5 million and accounted for another 1 million voters who somehow made a mistake of their own, what about the other 13 million new voters?

Reports of voter suppression started early when Bernie Sanders was not included on California’s mail-in ballot as a Democratic candidate. Since then, many people on social media have complained that their party affiliation was not correctly stated in the online Board of Elections database, or that they were not shown as being registered despite having registered way before the registration cutoff date.

Even Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein tweeted, “The Democratic Party is a disgrace to our democracy… blatantly rigging the system against @BernieSanders from the start,” making it clear that she recognizes the angry populace’s call for true democracy to be restored.

Read More: 

The AP Announcing Clinton’s “Victory” Was an Embarrassment to Journalism and U.S. Politics

By Shane Ryan

Last night, you may have seen the surprising news—first reported by the AP and then transmitted like a virus to every other major news outlet—that Hillary Clinton “clinched” the Democratic presidential nomination. To do so, she had to surpass the 2,383-delegate mark, just over the halfway point for the 4,765 total delegates available. Once she reached that milestone, it became mathematically impossible for anyone to beat her.

For those readers blessed with political savvy, something about the timing of this story might strike you as strange. How, you might ask yourself, could Hillary Clinton win on Monday night? There was no primary or caucus on Monday night, and as such there were no delegates available on Monday night. So what happened? Did Alabama cheat and hold a secret second primary?

Nope. What happened is that one AP reporter, Stephen Ohlemacher, called up some superdelegates—those party bigwigs whose influence in the primary is both undemocratic and overtly stifling— and extracted their commitment to support Clinton at the convention. With these new superdelegate supporters, he padded his numbers and essentially manufactured a Monday night win hours ahead of his competitors. This all went down on the eve of the last major set of primaries, when states like California and New Jersey were set to vote and play a major role in determining the mood of July’s national convention. The AP announcement was perfectly timed, if the goal was to have a chilling effect on those voters.

So, to recap: We live in a democracy where a victory can be declared not after a vote, but after a national reporter calls up a collection of mayors, congressmen, or whoever else, and badgers them until they say, “yes, fine, I’m supporting Hillary.” Even if that exact outcome was bound to happen down the line, the inescapable truth is that Ohlemacher created this victory from a few phone calls, and as a citizen, that should make you want to scream.

Now, let’s give the point-missers a chance for a predictable rebuttal:

“Hillary Clinton won the primary because she had more votes!”

That’s true, point-misser, but you’ve missed the point. Sure, Hillary has more votes, and yes, she was going to win eventually, and even though I think this will dampen turnout in today’s primary states, it might have even annoyed her camp that the AP essentially scooped their dramatic Tuesday victory moment. The point is not that this hurts Sanders, or even that it’s a purposeful conspiracy. The point is that we’re living in a fucked-up system where the absurd has become the new normal at every step in the process, and the mainstream media has been utterly complicit in the corruption.

Before the first votes ever took place, Clinton had a huge lead over Sanders because of the superdelegates, and almost every major media outlet included these vote totals in the overall tally without explaining what, exactly, was going on—even though the DNC told them not to. Why would the party’s ruling body take this step? Because superdelegates don’t vote until the convention, so their preference is entirely hypothetical!Unlike primary and caucus voters, whose choices are locked in, superdelegates can change their minds! Things can happen, like another candidate winning the popular vote and the supers thinking, gee, maybe we shouldn’t subvert the will of the people (see Clinton v. Obama, 2008). Or someone could get indicted, or die, or whatever.

Read More: 

‘It was just chaos’: Broken machines, incomplete voter rolls leave some wondering whether their ballots will count

By Matt Pearce

California voters faced a tough time at the polls Tuesday, with many voters saying they have encountered broken machines, polling sites that opened late and incomplete voter rolls, particularly in Los Angeles County.

The result? Instead of a quick in-and-out vote, many California voters were handed the dreaded pink provisional ballot — which takes longer to fill out, longer for election officials to verify and which tends to leave voters wondering whether their votes will be counted.

This year’s presidential primary race has already been one of the most bitter in recent memory. Before Tuesday’svote, Bernie Sanders supporters accused the media of depressing Democratic turnout by calling the nomination for Hillary Clinton before polls opened in California.

Those feelings haven’t gotten any less raw Tuesday as hundreds of Californians complained of voting problems to the national nonpartisan voter hotline run by the Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights Under Law.

It’s difficult to get a sense for how widespread the problems are or how they compare to recent elections. But experts said the culprit for Tuesday’s voting problems seems to be a confluence of factors — old voting machines, a competitive election that has drawn new voters, plus complex state voting laws that can be hard for poll volunteers and voters to follow.

“Presidential primary elections in California are the hardest elections of all. … This election reminds me of 2008 in that regard,” said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation. “Our voter registration deadline is 15 days before election day, and that gives all the counties, and especially L.A. County, very little time to get their polling place rosters updated with all the voters.”

When Sanders supporter Brandon Silverman, 29, showed up at his polling station in Echo Park at 8:15 a.m., he said poll workers immediately handed him a provisional ballot, explaining that their machine wasn’t working yet. The full list of voters’ names for the precincts also seemed to be missing.

Silverman, an assistant television editor, quickly called a Sanders voter hotline and L.A. County voting officials. About 45 minutes later, the problems seemed to be resolved and he was able to cast a regular ballot, he said. But the chaos shook his confidence in the fairness of the electoral process a little, especially after hearing other precincts and states struggle with voting problems this year.

“I tend to agree with most of the Bernie supporters who are disappointed in the media’s handling of the superdelegate counts, but I tend to shy away from the people saying it’s ‘stolen’ or ‘rigged,’” Silverman said. “I’d like to not think the worst, but at a certain point you think, is it a coincidence?”

In Bell, Albert Grey showed up at his polling site Tuesday morning to find that the vote-counting machine seemed to be jammed, and there didn’t seem to be a supervisor on site. So he left without voting.

“I still have my ballot, I’m going to go back, see if the machine is working, and if it is, I’m going to vote,” Grey said.

Read More: 

Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party

June 8, 2016

Exclusive: For nearly a half century – since late in the Vietnam War – the Democrats have been the less warlike of the two parties, but that has flipped with the choice of war hawk Hillary Clinton, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The Democratic Party has moved from being what you might call a reluctant war party to an aggressive war party with its selection of Hillary Clinton as its presumptive presidential nominee. With minimal debate, this historic change brings full circle the arc of the party’s anti-war attitudes that began in 1968 and have now ended in 2016.

Since the Vietnam War, the Democrats have been viewed as the more peaceful of the two major parties, with the Republicans often attacking Democratic candidates as “soft” regarding use of military force.

But former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military force to achieve “regime change” in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires. She abides by neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.

Amid the celebrations about picking the first woman as a major party’s presumptive nominee, Democrats appear to have given little thought to the fact that they have abandoned a near half-century standing as the party more skeptical about the use of military force. Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes.

As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton voted for and avidly supported the Iraq War, only cooling her enthusiasm in 2006 when it became clear that the Democratic base had turned decisively against the war and her hawkish position endangered her chances for the 2008 presidential nomination, which she lost to Barack Obama, an Iraq War opponent.

However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept on George W. Bush’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command, such as Gen. David Petraeus.

This “Team of Rivals” – named after Abraham Lincoln’s initial Civil War cabinet – ensured a powerful bloc of pro-war sentiment, which pushed Obama toward more militaristic solutions than he otherwise favored, notably the wasteful counterinsurgency “surge” in Afghanistan in 2009 which did little beyond get another 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed and many more Afghans.

Clinton was a strong supporter of that “surge” – and Gates reported in his memoir that she acknowledged only opposing the Iraq War “surge” in 2007 for political reasons. Inside Obama’s foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president.

Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama’s request by the leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton sank that deal and escalated tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel’s right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Clinton favorite.

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:

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Popular Posts


Need a bigger font size?

Sponsored Links

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