Guccifer 2.0 has been busy toward the end of the week with a new release found below:
As you see the U.S. presidential elections are becoming a farce, a big political performance where the voters are far from playing the leading role. Everything is being settled behind the scenes as it was with Bernie Sanders.
I wonder what happened to the true democracy, to the equal opportunities, the things we love the United States for. The big money bags are fighting for power today. They are lying constantly and don’t keep their word. The MSM are producing tons of propaganda hiding the real stuff behind it. But I do believe that people have right to know what’s going on inside the election process in fact.
To make a long story short, here are some DCCC docs from their server. Make use of them.
Special thanks to Nirali Amin for the list of passwords.
By the way, the complexity of the passwords leaves much to be desired.
Here are more docs from the DCCC server.
Copy of 114th Congressional Contacts
FL-18 Campaign Overview Appendix
These docs are from Nancy Pelosi’s PC
*****
Clinton Releases 2015 Tax Returns — Here’s Where 96 Percent of Their Charitable Donations Went
TheBlaze and Mediaite: Of the $10.6 million Hillary and Bill Clinton earned last year, they gave more than $1 million to charity, according to a tax filing released by the Democratic presidential nominee’s campaign Friday.
As it turns out, 96 percent of the Clintons’ 2015 charitable donations went to the Clinton Family Foundation, a tax-exempt charity owned by the Clintons but separate from the well-known Clinton Foundation. According to the tax release, the Clintons donated $42,000 to Desert Classic Charities and $1 million to the Clinton Family Foundation.
Interestingly, as the Daily Caller pointed out, the money donated to Desert Classic soon funneled back to the Clintons as the charity donated $700,000 to the Hillary, Bill and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The money was donated for work on obesity programs.
In 2012, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney became the subject of much scrutiny for his charitable donations. The former Massachusetts governor earned $14 million and gave $4 million to charity. Many progressive pundits hit Romney because a majority of his charitable giving went to the Mormon church and part of it was gifted to a foundation controlled by his family.
The Clintons’ charity work has been criticized ever since the release of Peter Schweitzer’s 2015 book “Clinton Cash.” The author asserts that many of the embattled Clinton Foundation’s donations from foreign and domestic people occurred alongside favorable treatment from Clinton’s State Department.
This comes amid a new release of Clinton emails seemingly showing a tangled relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.
The FBI pushed the Department of Justice to launch an integrity probe into the Clinton Foundation, but the agency denied, claiming there was not enough evidence of wrongdoing to justify such an investigation.
**** Oh Bill, what have you been doing lately?
Bill Clinton netted $1.6 million from for-profit colleges
WashingtonExaminer: Bill Clinton netted $1.6 million last year from a pair of for-profit education companies that caused controversy for the future president during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state.
Laureate Education paid Bill Clinton nearly $1.1 million in 2015, according to tax returns released by his wife’s campaign Friday. GEMS Education, a Dubai-based firm, paid him more than $560,000.
Both companies are major donors to the Clinton Foundation.
Bill Clinton’s lucrative consulting contracts with the corporations have raised questions about how closely his personal fortune is linked to his philanthropic activities.
What’s more, the State Department handed Laureate’s chairman taxpayer-funded grants under Hillary Clinton’s watch.
** Be sure to click the link below for the income graphic.Douglas Becker, CEO of Laureate, also heads a nonprofit group called the International Youth Foundation, which netted millions from the U.S. Agency for International Development in 2010. USAID is an arm of the State Department.
The Clintons have weathered criticism in the past for promoting affordable or free higher education while accepting a paycheck from one of the largest for-profit college education firms in the world.
Bill Clinton said he ended his time as the honorary chancellor of Laureate in April of last year, the same month Hillary Clinton launched her presidential bid.
Contracts with GEMS and Laureate have earned Bill Clinton more than $15 million. That sum padded the additional millions he pocketed from speaking fees thanks to engagements he booked around the world while Hillary Clinton served as the nation’s chief diplomat.
Five Clinton friends who got special State Department access
WashingtonExaminer: Hillary Clinton’s campaign has struggled to explain a batch of previously undisclosed emails that contain fresh evidence of cooperation between the State Department and donors to the Clinton Foundation.
The records, which emerged through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by conservative-leaning Judicial Watch, offered a narrow window into the extent to which friends and donors were afforded consideration and access above what was provided to other outsiders.
The emails revived questions about whether the former secretary of state maintained an appropriate distance from her family’s philanthropy. While State Department officials denied suggestions that the documents produced any evidence of impropriety, Clinton’s critics took her to task Wednesday for allegedly selling influence through the foundation.
As the Democratic nominee labors to repair a public trust that was damaged badly by the FBI’s investigation into her private email use, the signs of quid pro quo contained in the latest records will likely force Clinton to confront the long-simmering controversy surrounding her family’s foundation.
Gilbert Chagoury
Several of the most controversial emails came from the inbox of Douglas Band, a longtime Clinton aide who was then serving in a top role at the Clinton Foundation. Band went on to found a consulting firm, Teneo Strategies, whose work with clients that had interests before the State Department raised red flags.
Band wrote Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, in April 2009 to demand a major Clinton Foundation donor be given access to the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon.
Gilbert Chagoury, the Lebanese-born Nigerian businessman who had written checks to the Clinton Foundation, has a long history of giving to Clinton causes — even when election laws did not permit him to do so. His $460,000 donation to a group accused of funneling foreign contributions to the Democratic National Committee in 1997 earned him an invitation to dine at the White House with the Clintons amid a congressional probe into the arrangement.
Chagoury’s ties to the Clinton State Department have come under fire in the past due to the former secretary of state’s refusal to place Boko Haram, a Nigerian terror group, on the official list of foreign terrorist organizations. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., wrote to the State Department last year to inquire about the delay in designating Boko Haram a terrorist outfit and whether it was related to Chagoury’s proximity to Clinton.
Band stressed in his email to Abedin that the Chagoury request was “very important” and instructed her to reach out to the donor immediately.
Jennifer Granholm, a former governor of Michigan and current Clinton surrogate, attempted to dismiss Wednesday any association between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department’s rush to grant Chagoury access to a high-ranking official.
“Well, I mean, I wasn’t in the State Department at the time,” Granholm said during an appearance on CNN. “But I do know that [Clinton] has abided by the ethics agreement she signed at the beginning, which was not to take any action on the part of the State Department that mixed foundation business.”
Granholm said Band had reached out to Abedin in his capacity as a representative of former President Bill Clinton, not as an employee of the family’s charity.
Even that explanation, if true, would not eliminate all the potential conflicts of interest at play, as Bill Clinton netted generous speaking fees from Nigerian entities linked to Chagoury.
Wall Street executive
Hillary Clinton welcomed a Feb. 2009 meeting with Stephen Roach, a top executive at Morgan Stanley, after Roach slipped her a copy of the testimony he planned to deliver before Congress the following week.
The Democratic nominee instructed her staff to arrange a time to meet Roach, who then ran the bank’s Asian operations, in Beijing during her upcoming swing through southeast Asia.
Morgan Stanley has given up to $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, donor records show. Roach had personally donated heavily to Clinton’s past political campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The testimony Roach delivered encouraged U.S. officials to dial back the tough talk on China and embrace trade deals that included Beijing’s interests. The Morgan Stanley executive chastised politicians for saddling Wall Street with the blame for economic failures and encouraged the U.S. to address a receding middle class “without derailing globalization.”
In an interview with a Chinese television station and separate remarks alongside the Chinese foreign minister just days later, Clinton echoed many of Roach’s points about the need for Americans to save more of their paychecks and for China to increase its consumption of American goods.
It is unclear whether Roach’s inside access to Clinton persuaded her to hew closely to the views on Chinese trade he had laid out for her.
But the timing of his communications with Clinton raises questions about whether Roach exerted influence over the former secretary of state.
What’s more, the Beijing tryst was not the only time Clinton took advice from the Morgan Stanley executive.
In July 2010, Clinton told Roach she was “delighted” to receive an email from him and solicited his thoughts on upcoming bilateral talks about the economy with the Chinese. She again pushed her staff to schedule a meeting with Roach.
Morgan Stanley executives have given extensively to Clinton’s presidential campaign, despite her promise to crack down on the excesses of Wall Street.
Lobbyist access
When Jonathan Mantz, the former finance director for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign who had become a lobbyist, reached out to the secretary of state in Feb. 2009 to share some “great news,” Hillary Clinton instructed her assistant to add him to a list of people she was scheduled to call.
The email exchange offered a brief glimpse into what appeared to be a profitable friendship for both Mantz and Hillary Clinton.
For example, Mantz agreed to assist in steering his client’s funds toward one of Hillary Clinton’s pet projects: the U.S. pavilion at the Shanghai Expo. The State Department could not spend taxpayer money on the project, which many experts viewed as a diplomatic priority, so Hillary Clinton dispatched her aides to drum up funding from the same network of donors that funds the Clinton Foundation.
In June 2009, Kris Balderston, the aide charged with soliciting much of the funding for the pavilion, told Hillary Clinton that Mantz was “engaged” in the project, along with Pepsi, Microsoft and General Electric (all foundation donors).
In March 2010, Balderston informed his boss that Delos Living, a real estate company he described as “a Mantz client,” had kicked in $250,000 for the pavilion.
Within a year, Delos Living, whose board included Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, was tapped for a $5 million effort to build a soccer stadium in Haiti with the Clinton Global Initiative.
Mantz personally earned $280,000 for the “strategic counsel” services he provided Delos Living, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Unidentified job seeker
In April 2009, Band approached Abedin and Cheryl Mills, then Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, about hiring at the State Department an individual whose name was redacted.
Band forwarded an email in which the individual had expressed gratitude for an “eye-opening” trip to Haiti, where the Clinton Foundation claims to have done extensive work. The foundation official told Mills and Abedin that it was “important to take care of” the unnamed individual.
“Personnel has been sending him options,” Abedin replied.
Elizabeth Trudeau, a State Department spokeswoman, refused to reveal the identity of the individual Wednesday but argued her agency brings in many different people for many different reasons.
“The department regularly hires political appointees with a range of skill sets,” Trudeau said.
The spokeswoman declined to say whether the person was put in a government position by Hillary Clinton’s team. If he was, it would not have been the first time a donor received a plush appointment.
In 2011, Hillary Clinton’s aides rushed a top secret security clearance for Rajiv Fernando, a wealthy Chicago businessman, so he could serve on the International Security Advisory Board.
When reporters asked for a copy of his resume, State Department officials panicked and stripped Fernando of his position for fear that his lack of credentials would come under scrutiny.
Consulting connections
Hillary Clinton asked Abedin in April 2009 whether she should reach out to a Pentagon official on behalf of Jackie Newmyer, a longtime friend and president of a consulting firm called Long Term Strategy Group.
Emails made public by the State Department suggest Newmyer secured meetings with Department of Defense officials by the following month about landing a contract for her firm.
In March, Newmyer had prepared for Hillary Clinton a proposal in the hopes of winning a consulting deal with the State Department.
Newmyer aimed to advise the administration on Iran, among other things, as the U.S. moved toward its controversial negotiations with the country.
*****
Not complete without George Soros has access and influence, right? Poor Ambassador Stevens never had the access or influence with Hillary Clinton, nor did any of those survivors or the dead from Benghazi.
Leaked e-mail shows Soros urged Clinton to intervene in Albania civil unrest
More leaked e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State prove that she was taking foreign policy advice from left-wing billionaire activist George Soros.
An e-mail provided by WikiLeaks showed Soros reaching out to Secretary Clinton over a foreign policy dispute in Albania.
“Dear Hillary,
“A serious situation has arisen in Albania which needs urgent attention at senior levels of the US government. You may know that an opposition demonstration in Tirana on Friday resulted in the deaths of three people and the destruction of property.
“There are serious concerns about further unrest connected to a counter-demonstration to be organized by the governing party on Wednesday and a follow-up event by the opposition two days later to memorialize the victims.
“The prospect of tens of thousands of people entering the streets in an already inflamed political environment bodes ill for the return of public order and the country’s fragile democratic process.”
Soros urges the then-Secretary of State to get the international community involved and pressure the Prime Minister to “forestall further demonstrations” and “tone down public pronouncements” as well appointing a senior European official to act as the mediator.
The left wing billionaire also gave Clinton a list of potential nominees to appoint as mediator: Carl Bildt, Martti Ahtisaari and Miroslav Lajcak.
The e-mail was sent from Soros’ aide to Richard Verma, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs who forwarded it to several of Clinton’s top aides including Huma Abedin, Jacob Sullivan, and Philip Gordon. Sullivan forwarded it to Clinton.
Just three days after Clinton received the e-mail from Soros the EU ended up sending Soros’ suggested nominee Lajcak to mediate the civil unrest, the BBC reported.
Ballot measures are slated for just about everyday and they range from the sublime to the ridiculous…have you paid any attention?
Just in case you need an overview:
Who’s backing 2016 ballot measures?
CPI: National advocacy groups are gearing up to push state ballot measures in 2016 on topics ranging from the minimum wage to marijuana legalization. Below is a sampling of groups and their plans.
For a sampling some of the work and in sight has already been provided such that you should be on alert by going here.
Soda tax battle brewing at 2016 ballot box
June 8, 2016: Opponents of a proposed sugary drink tax demonstrate outside City Hall in Philadelphia. (AP)
FNC: Local governments are always thirsty for revenue – and their taste for a soda tax keeps getting stronger, fueling a new battle this fall with America’s beverage industry.
Boosted in part by anti-soda warrior and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, proponents are trying to get a tax on sugary drinks approved at the ballot box in at least four more municipalities.
The initiatives mark a resurgence of sorts for the soda tax crusade. According to the American Beverage Association, voters have rejected 43 such measures in the past eight years. But in a major win for the movement, the Philadelphia City Council approved a 1.5-cents-per-ounce soda tax this past June.
Now, three California municipalities – San Francisco, Oakland and Albany – are slated to vote on a soda tax of a penny per ounce. Boulder, Colo., could double that, if voters OK a 2-cents-per-ounce tax. The initiatives, which have been approved for the ballot, target both sugary drinks and diet drinks.
Advocates cite health benefits in pushing the proposals. “The goal of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages is to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, which science has proven to be directly correlated to detrimental health impacts such as diabetes, obesity and heart diseases,” San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Malia Cohen told FoxNews.com.
Bloomberg, often ridiculed for his efforts to ban the big gulp in his home city, spent $1.6 million to advocate for the passage of the Philadelphia tax and reportedly will be bankrolling efforts in San Francisco and Oakland as well.
But the American Beverage Association is staunchly opposed. ABA spokeswoman Lauren Kane said the Philadelphia tax is highly unpopular and shouldn’t be a model for any other city.
“This is a regressive tax, it raises the price of groceries and it’s discriminatory because it singles out a single product in the grocery cart,” Kane told FoxNews.com. “Once the government reaches into the grocery cart, everything else is vulnerable.”
The beverage association contends that soda consumption is at a 30-year low, yet obesity has continued to climb in recent years. Further, it notes West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee all imposed some soda tax, but rank among the most obese states in the nation.
“There is no single product that is responsible for obesity,” Kane said.
So far, only Berkeley, Calif., has enacted such a tax with voter approval, OK’ing a 1-cent-per-ounce tax in the 2014 election.
If a city the size of San Francisco adopts a tax at the ballot box, it could be a model for others, advocates hope.
“San Francisco has always been a pioneer in landmark legislation and I have no doubt the passage of a sugary beverage tax in San Francisco will encourage other municipalities to seriously consider implementing a similar tax,” said Cohen, who led the effort to have the measure placed on the ballot.
San Francisco would appear the most likely to adopt the measure since 56 percent of voters backed a proposed 2 percent tax increase in 2014. It needed a two-thirds majority to pass because the tax revenue was dedicated for a specific purpose. This year, it’s a proposed 1 percent tax that requires only a simple majority, since the revenue would be going to the general fund. If approved, the tax is projected to bring in $14.4 million annually – money supposedly to be used for health and nutrition programs.
Therein lies another concern. Kane said the revenue would be going into the general budget “with no strings attached” – so voters wouldn’t even know if the revenue would be used “to fight obesity.”
The ABA has a formidable foe in Bloomberg. He telegraphed his plans in a statement issued after the Philadelphia tax victory.
“In November, voters in three California cities will take up the issue, and it may also come before voters in Boulder, Colorado,” Bloomberg said. “When cities lead the way, solutions that were once considered non-starters can quickly catch fire and spread around the world. It would not be the first revolution Philadelphia has sparked.”
The issue even worked its way into presidential politics this year. After eventual Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton said she was “very supportive” of the Philadelphia proposal in April, her opponent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote an op-ed for Philadelphia Magazine calling it a “regressive grocery tax that would disproportionately affect low-income and middle-class Americans.”
Cohen objects to the charge of a regressive tax.
“What this assumption ignores is the fact Type 2 Diabetes is a regressive disease,” Cohen told FoxNews.com. “At today’s rate, 50 percent of African American youth vs. 25 percent White youth will contract Type II Diabetes in their lifetime. This is not a coincidence and we must do something today to address this crisis.”
This Company Has Built a Profile on Every American Adult
Wait…there is another problem you don’t know about.
Internet providers are still hashing out issues with the FCC. In particular, Comcast is currently defend its “pay-for-privacy” model to the FCC [PDF]. Comcast has even contended that “the FCC has no authority to prohibit or limit these types of programs.”So what exactly is the “pay-for-privacy” system? Essentially, companies like Comcast offers discounts to customers in exchange for allowing ISP’s to use their data. Comcast then floods these customers with various behaviorally-targeted ads. Customers who prefer privacy over pricing are charged a premium.
image: http://hothardware.com/ContentImages/NewsItem/38236/content/small_comcast_office.jpg
Several weeks ago a number of lawmakers urged the FCC to ban the “pay-for-privacy” system. They argued that this pricing pyramid is particularly harmful to elderly customers who do not necessarily understand how ISP’s work and low-income customers who cannot afford to pay the privacy premium. Members of Congress noted that Comcast’s policies are “counter to our nation’s core principle that all Americans have a fundamental right to privacy.”
Comcast argued that the “pay-for-privacy” model actually benefits elderly and low-income customers. They insisted that its “prohibition would harm consumers by, among other things, depriving them of lower-priced offerings.” They noted that this system is commonly used throughout the United States economy.
image: http://hothardware.com/ContentImages/NewsItem/38236/content/small_fcc.jpg
Comcast also argued that its ensures “through contractual provisions that vendors who handle customer-related data have strong measures in place to protect that customer-related data, and that the vendors are prohibited from using that data for any purposes other than as directed by Comcast.”
The company concurs that opt-in agreements should be required when dealing with sensitive information. This kind of information would include financial, health, and children’s information, Social Security numbers, and precise geo-location information. All other information, however, would be subject to opt-out or, in most instances, “implied” consent. The FCC is currently considering privacy rules that would require broadband providers to obtain consumers’ opt-in consent regardless of whether the information was sensitive or not. Hat tip to HotHardware
