Busted! Annotated video shows how Hillary signaled moderator to “throw it back to her” in rigged Sept. 26 debate

hillary-bnw-handsignals1

A video analysis (which was already censored on Youtube, citing a copyright claim by [Merlin] SC Distribution) demonstrates how Hillary Clinton — whose answers were so well-rehearsed and practiced that it almost appeared she knew Monday night’s questions in advance — signaled her tag-team partner, Mainstream Media debate “moderator” Lester Holt, whenever she wanted the “moderator” to throw a question directly to her for a “zinger” comeback instead of changing the subject:

http://www.infowars.com/world-champion-poker-player-clinton-secretly-signaled-moderator-during-debate/

or see it here: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/breaking-poker-pro-agrees-hillary-sending-hand-signals-debate-moderator-holt/

Meantime, is the last election cycle during which Americans will have a (mostly) free Internet through which to discover and report such scams?

frank300dpi-196x300

Center for Security Policy president and founder Frank Gaffney explains how Congress has only two more days to intervene before Barack Obama plans to turn over control of the Internet to an “international” body, ceding any American veto power over the kind of restrictions that despotic nations like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would like to impose:

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/09/28/frank-gaffney-obamas-attempt-slip-irreversible-internet-surrender-under-radar-three-days-fix-this/

Excerpt: “What they’re preparing to do is to cede, or surrender, the last vestige of American control, or even influence, over what is done with critical functions of the Internet. It gets pretty arcane, but the point is, if you think that the freedom of the Internet -– whether it’s the ability of people to communicate freely information on it, or whether you think of it as an engine for free enterprise, let alone if you understand the contribution that it makes these days to national security -– including, by the way, the operations of our critical infrastructure -– you will understand that the United States retaining a measure of quality control as to what’s going on with how the Internet is populated with names and numbers, domains, websites and the like, is a very important thing.

th

“And for absolutely no good reason,” Mr. Gaffney copntinues, “other than people -– or countries, I should say, like Russia, and China, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and North Korea -– don’t want us to have any say in this and would like to be able to change things around so that they cannot only restrict all the things the Internet does to help their own people become familiar with the terrible they’re being subjected to, at the hands of their totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, but they want to take those freedoms -– freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of enterprise -– away from us, as well.

“So this is what it comes down to, Alex: there’s no good reason for doing this, certainly not in the next three days, which is what’s going to happen unless Congress intervenes.”

1467920534070

More from Frank Gaffney, including “See No Sharia: FBI Releases Censored Transcript of Orlando Jihadi’s Islamic State Pledge”; “Hillary Clinton’s Muslim Brotherhood Problem”, and “The Love of Freedom Is Not ‘Hate'”, here: http://www.breitbart.com/author/fgaffney/

7 Comments to “Busted! Annotated video shows how Hillary signaled moderator to “throw it back to her” in rigged Sept. 26 debate”

  1. Vin Says:

    P.S. — On Sept. 26, the day of the debate, Bloomberg polling (an outfit about as likely to favor Donald Trump as Hillary Clinton is to cut taxes or turn down Saudi money) reported that if the general election were held that day, Trump and Clinton would tie, 46-46 in a two-way race, and that Trump would win a four-way match-up (including Johnson and Stein) by two points.

    That same day, a Quinnipiac University poll showed Clinton would beat Trump by one point, either head-to-head or in a four-way race.

    Obviously, those two polls use slightly different methodologies and sample groups (though virtually all the professional polls now tend to focus on “likely voters,” running the risk that they could be caught off guard by a surge of newly registered or otherwise “unlikely voters.”)

    However, those results are close enough that they tend to serve as a check on one another — just as wise mariners might have two different officers take a navigational sighting, with an error more likely to be picked up if the two readings diverge considerably.

    On that same day, however, an NBC poll reported Clinton leading nationwide by 5 points, and by 7 points in a four-way race — a much stronger lead for Mrs. Clinton than anyone else had been reporting for weeks.

    Lester Holt is NBC’s front man, their star, the man who currently sits in the chair once occupied by television journalism legend David Brinkley. So if Lester Holt was in the bag for Hillary (he interrupted or argued with or contradicted Trump 41 times, interrupted Hillary only seven times, never asked her about Bengazi, about the pay-for-play scandal at the State Department, about her neurological health, about the purposeful gutting of our anti-terror efforts as documented by Phil Haney, or about this administration arming ISIS (but thought America wanted a rehash of where Barack Obama was born?) — and now we see evidence he was taking signals from his tag-team debate partner, Mrs. Clinton . . . is there any reason to doubt NBC would take its poll results and add six points for Clinton (if not more), “just to make it come out right”?

    What IS it the New York-Washington media-political elite fear Donald Trump will discover if he enters the back room at the White House and turns on the lights?

  2. Bear Says:

    This one’s going to moderation for too many links. [grin]

    HRC’s podium appeared to equipped with some sort of screen, possibly a tablet computer.

    And likely an ear piece of some sort. Some say an inductive pickup, others a simple hearing aid. A few think it’s a medical device related to seizures. Or it may be so they can talk her down without her large, helpful assistant having to come on stage to tell her to keep talking, that it’ll be OK.

    Let’s not forget the “cleaner” who appears to retrieve Clinton’s podium notes and pass them to the moderator. And goes back a second time to retrieve some small dark object from the shelf in the back of the podium.

    Then there’s this one, which someone claimed was Clinton using a touchpad, but which I think is just tremors. My father’s hand does the same thing.

    No idea what is running up her back, but it’s positioned wrong to be the wire for her mike, and it’s too bulky anyway. One claim is that it’s another gadget for controlling seizures.

    If they’re having to wire HRC that much just to keep her talking and appearing to think, they should go all out and replace her with a Disney animatronic version.

  3. Vin Says:

    Mr. Trump doesn’t generally call me for advice, but if it were me, I think I’d:

    1) Have a truck full of radio engineers with frequency detection devices and multi-frequency jamming equipment sitting outside the building for future debates, ready to start piping either John Philip Sousa or some serious heavy metal on any frequency found in use OTHER than that used by the actual, legitimate TV broadcasters, and . . .

    2) arrive at the next debate all smiles, shake hands with everyone, walk behind Hillary’s lectern, and say, “OK; ready to go.”

    ABC Moderator Martha Raddatz: “No sir, I’m sorry, that’s Mrs. Clinton’s podium; you’ll have to move to the other podium.”

    D. Trump: “It’s called a lectern, actually, Martha, but no thanks, I like this one just fine. Let’s go.”

    Martha: “I’m sorry, sir, you’ll have to move.”

    D. Trump: “What’s the problem, Martha? Is there some DIFFERENCE between these lecterns? Let’s see what we can find inside this one. Looks like we’re live on air in three, two, one . . . Goodness, what have we here . . .?”

  4. Vince Says:

    “…start piping either John Philip Sousa or some serious heavy metal on any frequency found in use OTHER than that used by the actual, legitimate TV broadcasters…”

    Arrg! I don’t often guffaw hard enough to snort ice water out my nose but when I do…

    The look on her face would be PRICELESS!

  5. Bear Says:

    Given that she seems seizure-prone, I’d suggest Queen’s We Will Rock You foot-stomp on a perpetual loop. Be interesting to try to find a way to strobe the the lights. Maybe a YouTube video: hack her tablet and run the vid of flashing lights. If she seizes, that’s a giveway. If she panics and tries to shut it down… possibly even better.

  6. Vin's Brunette Says:

    Good work with those links, Bear! Especially that first one, which I hadn’t spotted — the others sounded familiar, so I didn’t check them all out. And then there’s this:

    “Trump was right! What Lester Holt had in his ear proved Hillary rigged the debate”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMFtZtd9Am4

    Definitely some hinky stuff going on with all that furtive activity around her podium — both before and after the debate. No one seems to have taken any similar interest in Trump’s.

    There’s also a somewhat longer (16:45) compilation video here, if anyone’s interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDbphpn4_Mg

  7. Vin Says:

    These videos bring up a lot of valuable material. (Why do I think we won’t be seeing them on CNN or MSNBC?) But careless reporting can also creep in.

    In one of these videos, Gary Franchi asserts debate moderator Lester Holt “broke the law” by wearing an earpiece during the Sept. 26 debate, which (Mr. Franchi asserts) becomes a federal matter because the rules for these debates are set by the “Federal Elections Commission.”

    Not so much.

    I don’t know if the rules forbid earpieces for the moderators — or even sneaky little tablet computers with e-mail capability for the candidates. Worth checking.

    But the presidential debates were taken over in 1988 from the previous organizers, the League of Women Voters, by the then newly formed “Commission on Presidential Debates,” a private nonprofit corporation which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic and Republican parties — one reason we’re unlikely to ever see any Third Party contender included in this “closed shop” operation.

    If the two branches of the Incumbent Republicrat Party decided the candidates should wear Roman togas and be questioned by a chimpanzee with a Ouija board, it’s not clear to me how any branch of the federal government would have standing to interfere.

    (The Federal Elections Commission was established in 1974 to supervise federal campaign FINANCE — in which role it violates the First Amendment in ways that require most politicians to spend an inordinate amount of time soliciting multiple small bribes instead of a smaller number of large ones, a dubious improvement.)

    Now — as is often the case — this modest bit of research (a few minutes at Wikipedia,. Gary) actually raises more interesting questions. The private Commission on Presidential Debates is headed by former head of the Republican National Committee Frank Fahrenkopf (who’s been involved since the inception in 1987), and by former White House press secretary Michael D. McCurry.

    Mr. Trump’s supposed guarantee of fair treatment comes from this outfit being “50 percent Republican.”

    But we all know there are strong elements of the GOP establishment that wanted “Anybody But Trump.” I believe members of the Bush family have actually vowed to vote for Hillary Clinton in preference to Trump. The reason is obvious.

    There’s really not much difference between the Bush-McCain Republicans and the Clinton-Obama Democrats when it comes to globalism, multiculturalism, certain United Nations agendas, taking lots of loot from the Saudis, and the Mussolini-like hand-in-glove operation of the U.S. government in combination with certain big banks and other businesses. Trump, as a populist “wild card” who hasn’t been vetted through the political culture, appears to be very frightening to this gang.

    Mr. Fahrenkopf, a Nevada native, is a founder of the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization which promotes democracy abroad. But America was never intended to be a democracy, since the Founders were deeply suspicious of mob rule. We’re a Constitutional Republic. East Germany was a “democracy.”

    Mr. Fahrenkopf’s firmest known allegiance, meanwhile, is to the American Gaming Association, the lobbying group for Nevada casinos, where he served as president through 2013. While including the standard caveat that its ratings “should not be read or construed as an endorsement” (non-profits aren’t supposed to endorse political candidates), that organization’s 2016 Casino Gaming Primary and Caucus Voter Guide ( https://www.americangaming.org/sites/default/files/NV_CasinoVoterGuide.pdf ) gave Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders “green lights” for their “support of gaming” (meaning casinos), while awarding “red lights” for “opposition to gaming” to Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, and a “yellow light” to Donald Trump . . . despite the fact Trump is the former owner of three casinos in Atlantic City.

    The only rationale given for this yellow “warning light” are some quotations from Mr. Trump, bragging that he “did really well” by selling off his Atlantic City properties when he did, since all the casinos there have since gone bankrupt. But how would that make him “anti-gaming”?

    Donald Trump already seems to sense he’s entering hostile territory in these debates — that he faces not a single opponent but rather a “tag team” including the supposedly neutral moderators.

    What we’ve seen here demonstrates that he’s not paranoid; he’s right. If he continues to enter this lion’s den, he’d better have his own people pre-check all the microphones, all the lights, all the lecterns. Heck, I’d check to make sure they don’t have a duck on a string ready to drop down next to him on cue, the way Groucho Marx used to do.

    (For the record, I also wish he’d disavow this “stop-and-frisk” nonsense, and soon. I’m not even black, and it sure sounds to me like a “green light” for cops to harass people for “walking while black.” I know he’s not likely to get MANY black votes, but WHAT is he thinking? Trump meantime claims on his official Web site to be in favor of interstate recognition of the right to concealed carry. What on earth does he think cops hope to find when they “frisk” a black man?)

    — V.S.

Comment:

RSS 2.0" title="Subscribe to this posts comments via RSS 2.0">RSS subscribe