>>15335690, >>15335700, >>15335706, >>15335710, >>15335713, >>15335718, >>15335719, >>15335724 The Harry Reid Collection
Nancy Pelosi remembers Harry Reid =kek=
Trump Fundraiser Caroline Wren: Donors Want a Forensic Audit of GOP Campaign Spending
Hannah Bleau8 Jan 2022
Promote on Twitter
#AuditGOPSpending
#CorruptGOPSpending
Longtime Republican fundraiser Caroline Wren, who served as the finance director for the Trump Victory Fund, told Breitbart News Saturday that donors want a forensic audit of money raised and spent by Republicans in the wake of the disastrous 2020 election, emphasizing that Republicans need to focus on infrastructure problems within the party in order to defeat the Democrats.
Wren, who focuses on high dollar giving, has recently begun to speak out against political consultants who took money that donors gave to the Trump campaign and effectively squandered it. That issue is just a piece of the greater issue, she explained, noting that the money given leading up to the 2020 election was not spent well.
“We have zero branches of government. To me this is almost like our Pearl Harbor in the Republican Party. We’ve lost everything and I do not believe we’re losing elections, and frankly the entire foundation of our country, because we have inferior candidates or inferior policy positions or ideas,” she said. “We are losing because we are playing a game that we do not understand. Democrats are at war with conservatives. It is a war. And we treat it like it is just, you know, ‘oh this is just politics and elections, we’ll just win this next one.’ And it has to stop.”
Wren explained that she has spent the last year trying to understand the Democrat funding structure, noting that they outspend Republicans 10-1 and do so “smartly” while Republicans spend money “horrifically.”
“We’re caught in this web of party committees and Super PACs, and it’s just not at all how the Democrats are fundraising and we have got to have some self-reflection and look back and say what just happened here,” she said, offering a bit of background.
During the months leading up to the election, donors could give a max amount of $817,600 to Trump Victory, and donors, if they gave the full amount, were told that about $200,000 would go to the legal fund which would be “stacked with cash” and equipped with lawyers, because as Wren said, the “Democrats cheat every time.”
However, this turned out to be a lie, because the fund existed, but “where was the money spent?” That became more evident after the election, when she realized that lawyers were not ready to go — not in Nevada, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Michigan. Five days after, Wren said, she noted that Trump received 13 million more votes than he did in 2016, which is “so unheard of.” But Biden received 15 million more than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, even though “there was no energy on the ground to show that or to expect that.”
“Something else happened here,” she said, concluding it all comes down to money and briefly explaining how the Democrats rigged the 2020 election in their favor. Wren said it really began in March 2020, as Democrats began to broaden voting rules under the guise of the coronavirus. She also referenced the strategy outlined in David Plouffe’s book A Citizen’s Guide to Beating Donald Trump. There, Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, called for a block by block street fight in counties Clinton won by ten points or more in the eight swing states needed to win. Then, left-wing lawyer Marc Elias changed his strategy, beginning to sue and win in those areas. Then, Mark Zuckerberg got involved, and the rest is history.
Breitbart News’s Washington Bureau Chief Matt Boyle suggested that Republicans should have a forensic audit of all spending in the Republican Party by every campaign and consultant.
“Some of these people are walking away with millions of dollars when you add up all the different ways they’ve carved out to pay themselves out,” he said, noting the Karl Roves of the world are raking in millions and essentially “stealing the money that the donors and grassroots people are giving to these candidates because they believe in these causes and these candidates.”
“They do want it,” Wren said of donors and a forensic audit. “That would be a great idea actually to have them stand up and say that.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/01/08/trump-fundraiser-caroline-wren-donors-want-a-forensic-audit-of-gop-campaign-spending/
Glenn Greenwald@ggreenwald
·1h
Wanting the state to silence one's adversaries is pervasive across time and culture that's why the 1st Am banned it but until recently, people were embarrassed to explicitly advocate it.
But in US liberal culture, censorship is now so normalized that this is no longer odd: https://twitter.com/JuddApatow/status/1480011490643959809
That's all independent of the legal inanities in Apatow's demand as it pertains to the FCC's powers and the like. That's just standard ignorance.
Most notable is how common it is among Dems to crave a union of state and corporate power brute censor one's political adversaries.
Again: it is bizarre surreal that the people who have convinced themselves they are fighting fascism in the US vehemently demand a union of state and corporate power to silence their enemies.
A fanatic, by definition, believes all their tactics are inherently just.
One last point about Apatow's censorship call: many cheering liberals in reply mention the court case Fox won by arguing cable hosts aren't newscasters. They have no idea Maddow/MSNBC won with the same argument - first! - because the media ignored it:
For those preposterously claiming Apatow's pro-censorship view isn't representative of Dem Party or establishment liberalism orthodoxy, here's a 2021 Pew poll finding Dems overwhelmingly want not just Big Tech but also the state to censor more online:
Apatow, without comment, has now deleted his pro-censorship tweet. Here it is, along with a representative approving reply from blue-check liberals:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1480191523924946944?s=20
J6 Hysteria Is How Media And Other Democrats Are Avoiding Accountability For Their Rigging Of The 2020 Election
BY: MOLLIE HEMINGWAY
JANUARY 06, 2022
The 2020 presidential election was unlike any in American history.
Hundreds of laws and processes were changed in the months leading up to the election, sometimes legally and sometimes not, creating chaos, confusion, and uncertainty. Tech oligarch Mark Zuckerberg, one of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful men, spent $419 million — nearly as much as the federal government itself — to interfere in the government’s management of the election in key states.
Powerful tech oligarchs and corrupt propaganda press conspired to keep indisputably important news stories, such as allegations of corruption regarding the Biden family business, hidden from voters in the weeks prior to voting. Information operations were routinely manufactured about President Trump in the closing months of the campaign, including the false claim that Russians paid bounties for dead American soldiers and Trump didn’t care, and that Trump had called dead American soldiers losers. Both were disputed by dozens of on-the-record sources.
Effective conservative voices were censored by the social media arms of the Democrat Party. And all this was done after the establishment spent years running an unprecedented “Resistance” that falsely claimed Trump was a traitor who had colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election.
It’s not surprising that polls show most Republicans are deeply concerned about the integrity of such an election. If anything, it’s surprising that all of them aren’t screaming from the rooftops about it. But it is interesting and telling how little the media and other Democrats are willing to talk about efforts to rig the election.
With the exception of a single Time Magazine article admitting there was a “conspiracy” by a “a well-funded cabal of powerful people” who worked to “change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information,” to create a “revolution in how people vote,” corporate media have largely kept silent about or downplayed how the establishment secured its victory for their man Joe Biden.
Time’s article didn’t come out until February 4, 2021, but in the months prior to its publication, Republicans grew increasingly concerned that the rigging it described had, in fact, happened.
Their desire for free and fair elections they could trust, elections that “well-funded cabals of powerful people” weren’t able to rig, resulted in mass protests following the November election. The fact that the election was exceedingly close didn’t help matters.
Media and other left-wing pollsters had put out preposterous suppression polls to help Biden get over the finish line. For example, the Washington Post’s final poll claimed Biden would win the swing state of Wisconsin by 17 points, indicating a nationwide blowout of historic proportions. (He won it by seven-tenths of a percent.) The actual outcome took weeks to calculate and came down to just 43,000 votes across three states, even closer than Trump’s close victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The media and other Democrats have used the January 6 riot at the Capitol as a way to ignore legitimate concerns about what they did to the election system, and as a way to continue the assault on election security.
As part of their political operation, they have used a propaganda technique of redefining efforts to secure the integrity of elections as attacks on democracy…..
….The media and Democrats’ J6 hysteria is meant as a distraction to keep Americans from properly dealing with the very real problems with how the 2020 election was overseen.
The future of the country rests on the ability of both winners and losers to trust our elections, to make it easy to vote but difficult to cheat, and to have some reasonable level of confidence that voting is conducted privately and without coercion, harvesting, or undue third-party influence.
The media and other Democrats are cartoonishly overhyping the J6 riot to avoid being held accountable for the many ways in which they destroyed election integrity in the months and years leading up to November 2020. Wise people are not fooled by their distraction attempt.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/06/j6-hysteria-is-how-media-and-other-democrats-are-avoiding-accountability-for-their-rigging-of-the-2020-election/
Everyone’s nose is big in that cartoonish picture! And he shouts bigotry
https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1479934544090484741?s=20
Kek
Kyle Mann@The_Kyle_Mann
The Supreme Court has now shared more COVID misinformation than your aunt on Facebook
12:13 PM · Jan 8, 2022·Twitter Web App
https://twitter.com/The_Kyle_Mann/status/1479863849637404672?s=20
Ned Ryun Nails it
The Dirty Truth (Josh).@nedryun says theCheneys showing up on the house floorsuggest the ruling class feels their power slipping away. https://t.co/n9UoLE7n5g
https://twitter.com/AKA_RealDirty/status/1479630704149516288?s=20
8:47 PM · Jan 7, 2022
Tucker:kek, someone is getting droned
Wow, FBi still fighting the release…why?
FBI FOI fight in Seth Rich death
Dated: January 9, 2022 by Sharyl Attkisson
The mysterious death of Democratic National Committee worker Seth Rich and the FBI's battle to keep documents about it secret
……Long Article Read All Of It, very revealing
Even if the FBI did not examine Seth Rich’s laptops, that would be very important information in and of itself. In Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on his investigation, he claimed there was no evidence that Seth Rich was involved in sharing Democratic National Committee emails with Wikileaks. We know from the records already produced that the FBI conducted that investigation at Mr. Mueller’s direction. If the FBI took custody of Mr. Rich’s laptops but never examined those laptops, then that would call into question the integrity of the investigation conducted by Mr. Mueller and the FBI.
The FBI’s next admission is an implicit one. In its response to my email to you, the FBI completely ignored my inquiry about the Data Intercept Technology Unit (“DITU”). After reviewing Mr. Seidel’s declaration, it is now clear why. Beginning on p. 79, in Paragraphs 163-167, Mr. Seidel references a “sensitive investigative database” that the FBI cannot so much as acknowledge.
The existence of the DITU is not a secret, and it certainly is not classified. See, e.g., Thomas Brewster, “Revealed: Two Secret Cogs In The FBI National Surveillance Machine,” February 21, 2018 Forbes,https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/02/21/fbi-hidden-hacking-groups-revealed/?sh=4e1a8c51330f; and Shane Harris, “Meet the Spies Doing the NSA’s Dirty Work,” November 21, 2013 Foreign Policy, https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/11/21/meet-the-spies-doing-the-nsas-dirty-work/. Furthermore, an email previously released by the FBI in response to a FOIA request plainly references DITU (because it was sent by the acting unit chief of DITU). See https://www.eff.org/files/fbi_cipav-08-p9.pdf. In short, there is no legitimate basis for trying to shield DITU.
As noted above, Mr. Mueller claimed there was no evidence that Mr. Rich transmitted emails to Wikileaks. According to the publicly-available sources cited above, DITU is the entity responsible for electronic data intercepts, therefore its database would be the place to search for communications between Mr. Rich and an overseas entity such as Wikileaks.If the FBI and Mr. Mueller failed to search DITU, that fact alone is something that the public deserves to know, because it would show that the investigation was a sham.
Finally, I will address the FBI’s claim that Aaron Rich’s identity is subject to privacy protections. Aaron Rich has spoken very publicly about the matters pertaining to my client’s FOIA request. See, e.g., Michael Isikioff, “'It is indescribable': How a harassment campaign overwhelmed Seth Rich's friends and family,” August 6, 2019 Yahoo!News, https://www.yahoo.com/now/it-is-indescribable-how-a-harassment-campaign-overwhelmed-seth-richs-friends-and-family-100000936.html. An Asst. U.S. Attorney testified that she obtained at least one of Seth Rich’s laptops from Aaron Rich. A transcript of her testimony is posted on my blog. See March 20, 2020 Deposition of Deborah Sines, https://lawflog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.03.20-Deborah-Sines-deposition-transcript.pdf. Finally, Aaron Rich sued one of my client’s in federal court, alleging that he was defamed because my client alleged that he played a role in leaking DNC emails to Wikileaks. See Rich v. Butowsky et al, Case No. 18-cv-00681-RJL (D.D.C.). Under the circumstances, Aaron Rich has no privacy interest to protect.
https://sharylattkisson.com/2022/01/read-fbi-foi-fight-in-seth-rich-death/
These are the emails from Sharyl’s the article sent recently to the FBI Foia rep…this matter is HUGE considering this atty has been at it since late 2016-17 to get the info from FBI—that is 5+ years Ty has been trying to get the info
Attorney Ty Clevenger represents a citizen named Brian Huddleston, who sued the FBI under Freedom of Information law for the agency's refusal to promptly turn over public documents in the case.
Below, you can read recent communications between Clevenger and a representative from the Department of Justice.
From: Ty Clevenger
Sent:Monday, December 27, 202110:06 AM
To: Parker, Andrea (USATXE)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 4:20-447 (Huddleston)
Andrea,
I recently became aware of two FBI units in Quantico that may have information pertaining to Seth Rich and/or Aaron Rich:the Operational Technology Division (OTD) and the Data Intercept Technology Unit (DITU). As I understand it, the Vaughn index indicates only that only FBI headquarters and the Washington Field Office were searched.
Would you ask the FBI to clarify whether OTD and DITU were searched? And if not, would the FBI be willing to search OTD and DITU? Thank you.
Ty
On Monday, December 27, 2021, 10:19:24 AM CST, Parker, Andrea (USATXE) <andrea.parker@usdoj.govwrote:
I'll check and let you know. I’m not sure how much response I will get this week.
Andrea
From: Ty Clevenger
Sent: Tuesday,January 4, 20221:02 PM
To: Parker, Andrea (USATXE)
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] 4:20-447 (Huddleston)
Did you hear back from the FBI about this? Or from CRM about the judicial records?
On Tuesday, January 4, 2022, 01:51:58 PM CST, Parker, Andrea (USATXE) wrote:
Yes, as to your first question, FBI’s response is as follows:
“FBI found no leads to indicate that records responsive to Plaintiff’s requests concerning subject, Seth Rich,would likely exist in OTD and DITU. Accordingly, if Plaintiff is able to provide a more concrete lead to show that records likely exist in either OTD and/or DITU relating to Seth Rich, we would consider conducting a search of those locations. However, at this time such a search of these locations for records relating to Seth Rich is not warranted without a concrete lead indicating that records would likely exist within OTD and DITU. Concerning Aaron Rich, the requester does not have a signed privacy waiver for Aaron Rich, so the FBI’s prior 6/7C response remains intact and no search would be conducted concerning him in either of these locations.”
Remind me what the issue is with CRM and judicial records?
From: Ty Clevenger To: Parker, Andrea (USATXE)
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022, 01:37:35 PM CST
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] 4:20-447 (Huddleston)
Andrea,
My frustration is not directed toward you in any way, butI am stunned by the FBI’s latest admissions. I’ll begin with the admission that the FBI failed to search the Operational Technology Division (“OTD”).
Paragraph 8 of Michael Seidel’s affidavit acknowledges that my client’s FOIA request specifically covered the “Computer Analysis Response Team (‘CART’), and any other ‘cyber’ unit within the FBI.”
According to publicly-available sources, e.g., the FBI’s own website, CART is a part of ODT. See https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2008/november/techexperts_110708. In fact, the LinkedIn page of John Dysart, the current chief of CART, notes that CART is part of ODT. Seehttps://www.linkedin.com/in/john-dysart-20056363/. Furthermore, ODT itself is unequivocally a “’cyber’ unit within the FBI.” See https://www.fbi.gov/services/operational-technology.
Mr. Seidel should have come clean and admitted up front in his declaration that ODT / CART was not searched, rather than forcing me to smoke him out. Then again, this not the first time I’ve caught an FBI section chief being deceptive in response to a FOIA request.
In this very litigation, after long denying that it investigated anything pertaining to Seth Rich, the FBI was finally forced to admit that it took possession of his personal and work laptops. ODT would have been responsible for examining those laptops. We know this because, for example, ODT was responsible for examining the laptop of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner when it was referred to the FBI by the New York Police Department. See p. 388 of the DOJ inspector general report on the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails (https://www.scribd.com/document/381806566/IG-Report-on-FBI-and-DOJ-Handling-of-Clinton-Investigation).