Head of ’17 US intelligence agencies’ James Clapper was hacked by a US teen in Jan. 2016. Director of National Intelligence Clapper had taken no steps to keep his phone number or home address hidden, both found in Google search. In 2015, the teen’s group, Crackas With Attitude (CWA), also took over CIA Dir. Brennan’s personal email account-ComputerWorld, BBC, Jan. 2016
“(James) Clapper became DNI in 2010 and acts both as head of the 17-agency intelligence community and a lead adviser to President Barack Obama on intelligence issues.” 1/27/2015
As of Jan. 2016, James “Clapper (Director of National Intelligence) had taken no steps to keep his phone number or home address hidden as both can reportedly be found via a simple Google search. That’s “insane” according to information security expert Michael Adams; he told Motherboard, “If I’m the Director of National Intelligence of the United States of America nobody is going to know where the [bleep] I live, nobody is going to have my [bleep] phone number or address.”” In 2015, “one of the CWA hackers originally dubbed a teenage stoner – took control of CIA Director John Brennan’s personal email account.”
Jan. 13, 2016, “Hackers took over Director of National Intelligence’s phone and personal email,” ComputerWorld.com, Darlene Storm
“Hackers flying under the banner of Crackas With Attitude took over Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s Verizon My FiOS account and forwarded all his calls to the Free Palestine Movement.“
“If you were Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and confused colleagues inquire as to why they keep reaching the wrong number when they try to call you, then it would have to be embarrassing to explain that hackers had taken over your Verizon My FiOS account and all your calls are being forwarded to the Free Palestine Movement.
Social engineering is apparently no less effective for a group of hackers flying under the banner of Crackas With Attitude (CWA) than it has been in the past when Cracka – one of the CWA hackers originally dubbed a teenage stoner – took control of CIA Director John Brennan’s personal email account.
Clapper had taken no steps to keep his phone number or home address hidden as both can reportedly be found via a simple Google search. That’s “insane” according to information security expert Michael Adams; he told Motherboard, “If I’m the Director of National Intelligence of the United States of America nobody is going to know where the [bleep] I live, nobody is going to have my [bleep] phone number or address.”
CWA also provided Motherboard with a phone number allegedly belonging to Clapper’s wife, screenshots of their Verizon FiOS account, her Yahoo account, and a list of call logs to Clapper’s home number, including Vonna Heaton, a former senior executive at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. She seemed shocked to receive a call from a journalist and politely ended the call.
Cracka, using a different Twitter account this time, taunted various agencies in the U.S. intelligence community, but that’s not surprising since most of the agencies are already on the long list of CWA’s enemies.
Besides previously targeting CIA Director John Brennan, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, White House Deputy National Security Advisor Avril Haines, and FBI Deputy Director Mark Giuliana, CWA claimed to have gained access to the national Joint Automated Booking System (JABS), a database of arrest records, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, and the FBI’s Virtual Command Center. After CWA dumped personal details of 2,400 government employees, the Internet Crime Complaint Center warned police and public officials of an increased risk of being the target of cyber-attacks and doxing.” Image from Medill DC
1/13/2016, “Hacker hits US spy chief James Clapper’s personal accounts,” BBC
[Ed. note: The head of the entire US intelligence and cyber-security apparatus has only one more “appropriate authority,” the President of the United States. Since Obama’s obviously not going to drop everything and tend to this matter, didn’t BBC wonder what “authorities” were being referenced?]
It follows a similar cyber-attack on the CIA’s director (Brennan) in October.
The Motherboard news site reported on Tuesday that it had been contacted by a young hacker who had claimed responsibility. Motherboard reported the teenager had said he was part of the same group – Crackas With Attitude (CWA) – behind the earlier breach.
The youth said he had broken into Mr Clapper’s personal email, his Verizon phone and internet account settings and a Yahoo email account belonging to Mr Clapper’s wife.
The BBC understands that Mr Clapper’s office has only seen evidence that the hacker actually accessed Sue Clapper’s email and the couple’s family phone number.
It appears that the teenager altered the phone number’s settings so that calls were rerouted to a spokesman for the Free Palestine Movement, a cause the CWA says it supports.
Motherboard said the hacker had also passed on what he claimed was a log of home calls Mr Clapper had recently made and received.”…
Oct. 19, 2015, “CIA boss John Brennan’s personal email ‘hacked’,” BBC
Oct. 10-15, 2016, 774 likely Ohio voters, 3.5 error margin, 34D, 32R, 34 Ind. (p. 9), landline and cell phone
10/17/16, CNN ORC poll, Ohio
10/17/16, “Tight races remain in three battlegrounds: Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio,“ CNN, J. Agiesta
10/12/16, “Raising barriers: a new age of walls,“ Washington Post, Samuel Granados, Zoeann Murphy, Kevin Schaul, Anthony Faiola
“A generation ago, globalization shrank the world. Nations linked by trade and technology began to erase old boundaries. But now barriers are rising again, driven by waves of migration, spillover from wars and the growing threat of terrorism.”
“In many ways, the barrier-building is being driven by fear. Most of the new walls are being erected within the European Union, which until recently was nearly borderless….Intended to counter migrants and terrorist attacks, these moves are not limited to Europe. In the Middle East, Tunisia is erecting a desert barrier with lawless Libya to insulate itself from unrest and an Islamic State-led insurgency.
Today, barriers on these 63 borders divide nations across four continents….
Even as globalization was working its magic on trade, mobility and investment, a seditious resentment was brewing among those left behind.”…
[Ed. note: Definition of sedition: Merriam-Webster: “The crime of saying, writing, or doing something that encourages people to disobey their government.“
By use of the word “seditious,” the Washington Post defines as criminals: Americans who’ve been sold out (“left behind“) by their own elected representatives via the “magic” of “globalization” and feel “resentment” about it.]
(continuing): “In the United States, Donald Trump’s call to build a wall is dividing Americans and worrying anxious migrants, nowhere more so than in dusty cantinas and lively migrant shelters in the arid reaches of the U.S.-Mexico border region.”...
(continuing): “That (US-Mexico) international border stretches 1,989 miles, but for now fences line only about 700 miles. The idea of building a barrier is not new; the first 14-mile stretch, jutting eastward from the Pacific Ocean, dates to 1993….
The numbers are clear: In 2015, work started on more new barriers around the world than at any other point in modern history. There are now 63 borders where walls or fences separate neighboring countries.”…
The critical question is why is Trump’s popularity so shocking to our political culture? Perhaps it signifies a profound challenge to elite opinion-Sept. 7, 2015, Julius Krein (Before Trump, no one of significance has suggested lifting the giant boulder crushing the American spirit: the political and media establishment)
“The critical question, however, is not the source of Trump’s popularity but rather the reason his popularity is so shocking to our political culture. Perhaps Trump’s candidacy threatens a larger consensus that governs our political and social life, and perhaps his popularity signifies a profound challenge to elite opinion.”…
9/7/2015, “Traitor to His Class,“ Julius Krein, Weekly Standard“
“Nothing is more terrifying to the elite than Trump’s embrace of a tangible American nationalism.…
It would seem to be the duty of every American pundit today to explain the inexplicable and problematic rise of Donald Trump.
The critical question, however, is not the source of Trump’s popularity but rather the reason his popularity is so shocking to our political culture. Perhaps Trump’s candidacy threatens a larger consensus that governs our political and social life, and perhaps his popularity signifies a profound challenge to elite opinion.”…
[Ed. note: This would be an “existential” change. If you don’t like the idea of the change, you might call it an “existential threat.” Definition of “existential:’ “of, relating to, or affirming existence, grounded in existence or the experience of existence: empirical b: having being in time and space,” Merriam-Webster]
(continuing): “Why is Donald Trump so popular? Explanations range from mere celebrity, to his adoption of extreme positions to capture the most ideologically intense voters, to his explosive rhetoric. These explanations are not entirely wrong, but neither are they entirely right.
To begin with, his positions, as Josh Barro has written in the New York Times, are rather moderate. As Barro points out, Trump is willing to contemplate tax increases to achieve spending cuts. He supports some exceptions to abortion bans and has gone so far as to defend funding Planned Parenthood. He has called for protective tariffs, a position heretical for Republicans, who are typically free traders. Although opposed to Obamacare, he has asserted that single-payer health care works in other countries. Even on the issue of immigration, despite his frequently strident rhetoric, his positions are neither unique—securing the border with some kind of wall is a fairly standard Republican plank by now—nor especially rigid.
With respect to his rhetoric, whether one characterizes his delivery as candid or rude, it is hard to ascribe his popularity to colorful invective alone. Chris Christie, who never misses an opportunity to harangue an opponent, languishes near the bottom of the polls. Or ask Rick Santorum, as well as Mitt “47 percent” Romney, whether outrageous comments offer an infallible way to win friends and influence voters. Trump’s outré style, like his celebrity, helps him gain attention but just as certainly fails to explain his frontrunner status.
Most candidates seek to define themselves by their policies and platforms. What differentiates Trump is not what he says, or how he says it, but why he says it. The unifying thread running through his seemingly incoherent policies, what defines him as a candidate and forms the essence of his appeal, is that he seeks to speak for America. He speaks, that is, not for America as an abstraction but for real, living Americans and for their interests as distinct from those of people in other places. He does not apologize for having interests as an American, and he does not apologize for demanding that the American government vigorously prosecute those interests.
What Trump offers is permission to conceive of an American interest as a national interest separate from the “international community” and permission to wish to see that interest triumph. What makes him popular on immigration is not how extreme his policies are, but the emphasis he puts on the interests of Americans rather than everyone else. His slogan is “Make America Great Again,” and he is not ashamed of the fact that this means making it better than other places, perhaps even at their expense.
His least practical suggestion—making Mexico pay for the border wall—is precisely the most significant: It shows that a President Trump would be willing to take something from someone else in order to give it to the American people.
Whether he could achieve this is of secondary importance; the fact that he is willing to say it is everything. Nothing is more terrifying to the business and donor class—as well as the media and the entire elite—than Trump’s embrace of a tangible American nationalism. The fact that Trump should by all rights be a member of this class and is in fact a traitor to it makes him all the more attractive to his supporters and all the more baffling to pundits…
(p. 2) Conservative pundits have complained for years about the base and its desire for “ideological purity.” Trump shows that what is most in demand, however, is not ideological purity but patriotic zeal. Only a fool would believe that the fate of the Export-Import Bank could motivate millions of voters. It is not a minor and complicated organ of trade promotion that motivates but whether the ruling elite is seen to care more about actual national interests or campaign dollars and textbook abstractions like free trade.
Trump’s critics misunderstand his political appeal just as they fail to comprehend his business appeal. Indeed, Trump is almost certainly not as rich as he claims he is, nor is his record as glittering as others’, nor is his a rags-to-riches story….For Trump, business is about winning and losing, and for real human beings, that’s what gives it life….
“Serious politics” is believed to be the politics of rational beings on the path to perpetual peace—not men, and certainly not Americans, with real interests that sometimes conflict with those of other nations. Questions of basic policy, if not argued from some victim narrative, are inevitably situated in arcane disputes over economic theory. The words victory and defeat have been banished from our discourse. “Serious politics” is now confined to detached rationality.
Trump, however, is eros and thumos incarnate, and his very candidacy represents the suggestion that these human qualities should have a role in our political life beyond quivering sentimentalism. Trump alone appears to understand that politics is more than policy and ideology. Beneath the bluster, he offers an image of Machiavellian virtù long absent from American politics.
Nothing in our politics seems worthy of being taken seriously anymore. The White House takes to Twitter with Straight Outta Compton memes about the Iran deal….This is precisely the precondition for Trump’s popularity, and his unapologetic mockery of more conventional forms of political theater makes him in some ways the most serious candidate in the race.”
“Julius Krein is a writer in Boston.”
Added: Trump accurately stated that his campaign “represents a true existential threat” to the “political and media establishment.” Thurs., 10/13/16 at his West Palm Beach, Florida rally, Trump said:
““Our campaign represents a true existential threat like they haven’t seen before. This is not simply another four-year election. This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we, the people, reclaim control over our government.”“”
10/13/16, “Donald Trump: I’m Being Attacked Because Establishment Sees Me As An ‘Existential Threat,” Daily Caller, Alex Pappas
(Ed. note: The Daily Caller is most certainly a member of the “political and media establishment.”)
Comment: Before Trump, no one of significance has suggested lifting the giant boulder crushing the Americans spirit, ie the political and media Establishment. Corporate donors are mainly globalists, so focusing on America wouldn’t fill their needs. As to “political and media elites,” no doubt they like their current imperial existence. Anyone suggesting a change to their superior status would have to be silenced, ie, ridiculed into oblivion. Most people can’t withstand ridicule. Donald Trump is the only human being who has been willing to withstand 24/7 ridicule on our behalf. (If he’d hidden his views or used taqiyya to advance his agenda, no one would be attacking him. But he chose to be honest).
In May 2016 Polish PM said Bill Clinton should apologize for insulting the Polish people, his cruel words on campaign trail for Hillary “sicken” Americans of Polish descent. Bill said Hungary and Poland should take more potential terrorist refugees, they act like ‘democracy is too much trouble,’ they ‘wouldn’t be free’ if not for the US, now want to have ‘authoritarian dictatorship and keep foreigners out”
“(Bill) Clinton’s words “must sicken anybody who knows the history of Poland and of the Poles,“…Frank Spula, the head of an organization in Chicago representing some 10 million Americans of Polish origin, told Polish state radio.”
May 18, 2016, “Polish PM wants Bill Clinton’s apology for political comment,“ AP, Warsaw, Poland
|5/6/16, Portland, Ore.|
“Former U.S. President Bill Clinton should apologize to the Poles for having said they think “democracy is too much trouble” and want to have an “authoritarian dictatorship,“ Poland’s prime minister said Wednesday.
Beata Szydlo called Clinton’s words “unjustified and simply unfair.”
“With all due respect, and without using coarse words (Clinton) exaggerated and should apologize to us,” she told Polish state radio on Wednesday.
Speaking in New Jersey in support of wife Hillary’s U.S. presidential campaign, Clinton said Hungary and Poland “would not be free” if not for the United States, but “have now decided this democracy is too much trouble.”
“They want (Russian President Vladimir) Putin-like leadership. Just give me an authoritarian dictatorship and keep the foreigners out,” he said….
A comparison to Putin is especially shocking in Poland, which is very distrustful and critical of his policies.
Clinton was also referring to Warsaw and Budapest protesting European Union plans to redistribute some of the tens of thousands of refugees flooding into Europe and refusing to take in some of them.
The head of Poland’s conservative ruling party, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, said Clinton is misinformed.
“If someone says there is no democracy in Poland today, that means he should have a medical test,” he said….
Frank Spula, the head of an organization in Chicago representing some 10 million Americans of Polish origin, told Polish state radio that Clinton’s words “must sicken anybody who knows the history of Poland and of the Poles.”
Image caption: “In this Thursday, May 5, 2016 file photo, former President Bill Clinton speaks in Portland, Ore., while campaigning for his wife, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.“
5/19/16, “Hungary: US wants to fill Europe with Muslim migrants,“ AP, Budapest, Hungary (via Daily Mail)
“President Barack Obama and the United States favor illegal migration in Europe because they want to fill it up with Muslims, the chief of staff of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said Thursday.
Janos Lazar also described Hungarian-born American financier George Soros as a standard-bearer for Obama’s immigration policies for Europe and said “certain American groups” want Europe to be “diluted“ so Europe and America can cooperate without restraint.”…
Lazar called Soros a patron of former U.S. President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, the current U.S. presidential candidate, and a Democratic Party supporter who was “ready to step up” against Orban.
“Not so long ago while visiting Europe, President Obama clearly spoke out in favor of the importance of migration, settlement and even the forced settlement (of migrants),” Lazar said at a news conference. Obama and America “are following a very strong pro-migration, pro-illegal migration policy in the interests of having as many Muslims as possible in Europe.“…
“Our conviction is that the borders of Europe have to be defended,” Lazar said. “If the countries of Europe need immigration, it can be possible only in a limited, controlled manner.”…
Added: For the record, the definition of genocide:
“The crime of genocide is defined in the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.””…
“Raphael Lemkin in his masterpiece “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe” (1943) invented the term “genocide” by combining “genos” (race, people) and “cide” (to kill). Lemkin defined genocide as follows:
“Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation.
It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.”” from Genocide Watch
Trump leads by 4 points in Iowa, Des Moines Register poll, Oct. 3-6, 2016. Trump has 11 point lead among independent Iowa voters, 14 point lead among first time or infrequent voters. 20% of Bernie supporters have moved to Trump, 62% to Hillary. Trump has 8 point lead among voters under 35 as well as those under 55-Des Moines Register
Independent voters (per article)
Oct. 3-6, 2016, 642 likely Iowa voters, 3.9 error margin, randomly selected land lines and cell phones. Political affiliation of respondents, D-R-I, is not provided in the linked poll or the narrative. Link to poll
10/8/16, “Iowa Poll: Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 4 points,“ Des Moines Register, Jason Noble
“Donald Trump leads the presidential race in the swing state of Iowa, lifted by voters’ widespread distrust of Hillary Clinton and pessimism about the nation’s direction.
The Republican nominee tops his Democratic rival by 4 percentage points in the latest Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll, defying a surge in support for Clinton seen nationally and in other battleground states since the candidates’ first debate, on Sept. 26.
Interviewing for the Iowa Poll concluded before the revelation Friday of a recorded conversation in 2005 in which Trump made lewd comments about kissing and groping women….
In the new poll, Trump is the first choice for 43 percent of likely voters, compared with 39 percent who back Clinton. Six percent say they’re voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson, and 2 percent favor Green Party candidate Jill Stein.
Election forecasters generally see Iowa as critical to Trump’s path to the presidency, while Clinton could reach the White House without winning the Hawkeye State.
Driving Trump’s success is a deep dislike for Clinton among Republicans and independents, and a sense among likely Iowa voters that he would deliver better results on several major issues confronting the country.
“Hillary Clinton has real problems in the state of Iowa,” national elections forecaster Harry Enten said.
Enten, who examines political polling for the news site FiveThirtyEight.com, cautioned that Clinton could still win the state but said the Iowa Poll results prove the effectiveness of Trump’s relentless hammering on an opponent he calls “Crooked Hillary.”
“His message is working there,” Enten said. “It’s very clear that Iowa voters have a big beef with Hillary Clinton — more so than voters nationally.”
Indeed, trust concerns — both general and specific — are a major drag for Clinton here. Fifty-two percent of respondents say questions about her trustworthiness bother them a lot, and the numbers are similar for three specific instances in which Clinton’s honesty has been challenged.
Fifty-one percent of respondents are bothered a lot by donations to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments during Clinton’s term as secretary of state; 52 percent by her handling of the terrorist attack on a diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya; and 53 percent by her handling of her private email as secretary….
Iowa voters also see Trump as the better choice for handling a range of issues.
Fifty-three percent say Trump would do a better job of fixing the economy, compared with 40 percent who choose Clinton. Pluralities also peg Trump as doing a better job than Clinton on combating Islamic terrorism, fixing the immigration system and determining tax policy.
But Iowans are evenly divided on one of the things Trump brags about often: his ability as a negotiator. Respondents split 46-46 on whether Clinton or Trump would be better at negotiating favorable trade deals.
Only when it comes to handling relations with other countries does a majority see Clinton as the better option. Sixty percent say she’d do a better job, compared with 34 percent who say Trump would.
The poll of 800 Iowa adults was conducted by Selzer and Co. of Des Moines on Oct. 3-6 and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Questions asked of the 642 likely voters have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points….
Its results showing a Trump lead align with other polling here in September. A Real Clear Politics polling average compiled shortly before the Iowa Poll was released gave Trump a 5 percentage point lead here.
Besides reflecting distrust for Clinton, Trump’s advantage in the state also represents an erosion of support for Democratic candidates that was evident even in 2014, Enten said.
“Regardless of whether or not there’s a trend in her direction, it’s very clear that these six electoral votes will be tough for her,” Enten said. “If Donald Trump is to win a state that Mitt Romney didn’t win in 2012, Iowa is right on the top of that list.”
Trump does best with younger voters, protestants, born-again Christians, rural voters and residents of the heavily conservative 4th Congressional District, in western Iowa.
He also leads Clinton 46 percent to 32 percent among male voters, while Clinton holds a narrower edge among women, 46 to 41. And among self-identified independents, he leads 42 percent to 31 percent….
Trump is also finding success among new and marginal voters in Iowa’s electorate. The candidates are virtually tied among voters who have cast ballots in most general elections — Trump leads 42 percent to 41 percent. But he has a much wider lead, 47 to 33, among those who are either voting for the first time or have voted irregularly in the past.
That means victory for Trump in Iowa could hinge in part on whether his voter turnout effort is robust enough to ensure that these sometime voters cast ballots this time.
Besides with women, Clinton counts higher support than Trump among voters ages 65 and older, those with a college degree, Catholics, those who identify with no religion, and those living in Iowa’s urban areas or in the 1st Congressional District, which is in eastern Iowa….
Just 1 percent (of Hillary supporters) say her history-making potential to become the first female president is the main reason for their support….
For Trump supporters, the candidate’s campaign motto alone captures the top reason for their support. Thirty-two percent of respondents say they back Trump because he will “restore what is good about America that has slipped away” — that is, he’ll make America great again. Another 29 percent say they’ll vote for Trump because he’s not a politician.
Iowans are widely pessimistic about the direction of the country, with 71 percent saying it’s on the wrong track against just 21 percent who say it’s on the right track. That wrong-track rating is up 6 percentage points since February, and is the highest recorded by an Iowa Poll since September 2008, when the economy was on the brink of collapse.
But even within that wide consensus on the country’s direction, there’s a huge discrepancy between Democrats and Republicans and, especially, Clinton and Trump voters.
Trump supporters see the situation as dire: 92 percent say the country is on the wrong track. Clinton voters, though, are mostly positive about the country’s direction. Fifty-one percent say it’s on the right track compared to 41 percent who say it’s on the wrong track.
A 48 percent plurality of respondents, meanwhile, say Iowa is on the right track, compared with 39 percent who say it’s on the wrong track — a slightly more positive result than from an Iowa Poll conducted in February.
Also of note is the dispersal of Bernie Sanders’ legion of supporters from last winter’s Iowa caucuses and the lengthy primary process that followed.
Thirty-seven percent of Iowa Poll respondents say they supported Sanders’ bid for the Democratic nomination at one time or another. But with Sanders out of the race and Clinton the nominee, a significant number of those — 27 percent — now say they’re unlikely to vote in November.
And Clinton has not succeeded in locking up a significant slice of one-time Sanders supporters who will cast ballots: 62 percent say they’re backing Clinton, while 20 percent have migrated to Trump.
About the poll
The Iowa Poll, conducted Oct. 3-6 for The Des Moines Register and Mediacom by Selzer and Co. of Des Moines, is based on telephone interviews with 800 Iowans ages 18 or older, including 642 likely voters in the 2016 general election. Interviewers with Quantel Research contacted households with randomly selected landline and cell phone numbers supplied by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were administered in English. Responses were adjusted by age, sex and educational attainment to reflect the general population based on recent census data.
Questions based on the sample of 800 Iowa adults have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. This means that if this survey were repeated using the same questions and the same methodology, 19 times out of 20, the findings would not vary from the percentages shown here by more than plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Results based on smaller samples of respondents — such as by gender or age — have a larger margin of error. For example, the margin of error is +/- 3.9 percentage points for answers among likely voters.”
Bill Clinton, who desperately wants a total of 16 years in the White House, is reportedly an honorary chairman of Commission on Presidential Debates, the group that decides every detail of televised presidential debates. The Commission says, trust us, Bill Clinton isn’t involved in decisions, is just honorary
Bill Clinton’s name hasn’t yet been added to the website of the Commission on Presidential Debates as an “Honorary Chairman.” Jimmy Carter is currently the only living president listed on the website among “Honorary Chairmen.” The Commission has “National Debate Sponsors,” but the Commission’s website hasn’t been updated to include 2016’s sponsors, only lists up to 2012. Janet Brown of the Commission confirmed to Daily Mail in Nov. 2015 that Bill Clinton was an Honorary Chairman: “And Brown, the executive director of the commission, told DailyMail.com that the honorary co-chairmen…includes President Clinton.”
Cameras rolled as Bill Clinton appeared on the debate stage as a “family member” of one of the debaters though he was also there as an “honorary chairman” of the Commission running the “debates.” With trillions at stake, the globalists intend to deliver 16 years in the White House to the Clintons. As it happens, the Republican and Democrat Establishments are in complete agreement: “The elites of both parties are, as if by rote, extreme globalists.” (The two “sides” occasionally pretend to be opponents, but just for show). Images above from debate one, 9/26/16, via justjared.com
Following is Nov. 2015 article
Nov. 2, 2015, “Bill Clinton is honorary chairman of Presidential Debate Commission that will decide how Hillary will battle it out on stage,“ by Nikki Schwab, US political reporter for DailyMail.com
“The Daily Caller is pointing out that Bill Clinton serves as an honorary chairman of the Commission on Presidential Debates, which could create a conflict of interest if his wife Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee.