Greg Gutfeld: The three most important lies about this election

Gutfeld: Life will go on no matter who wins the election

Below are three untruths about Tuesday's election:
1. THE ELECTION WAS ABOUT THE OUTSIDER
Not really. It was about culture. We know this for a fact: if you replaced Trump with Rubio, Kasich or Cruz, you'd still get the SAME attacks from “Funny or Die,” Bill Maher, Jay Z, Lady Gaga, and so on.
The culture enveloped within the liberal industrial complex deems any opposition to be evil. So really, the rebellion wasn't about insiders vs. outsiders -- it was about a rejection of decades of liberal fascism expressed through identity politics, balkanized grievances, racial politics, attacks on traditional institutions and anti-exceptionalism.
The Trump phenomenon was a thumb in the eye of liberal complacency. It was the first time in my memory that a Republican gave the same treatment back to the Democrats. That caused this new fretting over polarization. There was no polarization when only one side (the Dems) was the bully.
No one spoke of polarization when the left demonized a decent man like Mitt Romney. But when you have a candidate like Trump hit back, now you have polarization. This should have been a gift for Republicans -- but it wasn't.
Where Trump and his mouthpieces went wrong was turning this into an attack not on leftism, but on the establishment -- which lumped real Republicans, ideological conservatives, hard working grass roots activists, and even noted military heroes into the same box as Hillary, Obama, Hollywood and the Harvard faculty.
Sorry Trumpets -- those people who were winning Republican state seats and governorships for decades -- they weren't the enemy. They were on your side -- and they were slandered by simpleminded shouters.
The fallout: a lower, less enthusiastic turnout among Republicans.
And a last point about this non-establishment vs. establishment myth: it gave a phony path for opportunists to abandon the principles they had previously pretended to cherish. A so-called conservative who demonized you for not being religious or right wing enough now dropped to his knees for the perfect RINO.  Suddenly… principles didn't matter!
The best example of this charlatanism: any evangelical leader who spent decades chastising his flock (and non-flock alike) for immorality was suddenly out stumping for Trump.
2. THE MEDIA'S IN THE TANK FOR (FILL IN NAME OF CANDIDATE)
No, the media is in the tank for ratings. Remember, Trump got more free media than all the candidates combined.
Every network loved him, because he made them money by getting them eyeballs -- which helped pave the way for his nomination.
So as you complain about the unfairness of the coverage against Trump now remember that without the media, you wouldn't even be having that conversation. Instead you'd be wondering about how big the margin will be in the Rubio win.
And yes, there were reporters who tried to curry favor with the Clinton campaign in hopes of gaining access. But is that any worse than a newspaper spending hundreds of thousands of dollars purchasing stories in order to kill them?
The Wall Street Journal reported that the National Enquirer paid a Playboy Playmate six figures for her story of her affair with Trump (while he was already married to Melania). In a practice called, "catch and kill,” the paper, it’s alleged, bought the story to protect Trump by buying and burying it.  When we bring up media collusion there's one hell of an example.
We covered another, flimsier example of "fixing" that implicated Hillary -- involving a guy named Jeff Rovin. But what of this Playmate story by our own beloved Wall Street Journal?  This "catch and kill” explains one glaring oddity:  as the Enquirer generated salacious stories about Trump opponents like Hillary and Ted Cruz, it seems to have missed the big stories on Trump. For a paper that prides itself on scoops, the Enquirer was absent on the Trump front. 
We talk about the candidates’ flaws -- but what of ours? Team sport ideology has compromised principles -- as we accept certain actions that would have repulsed us before. Loyalty these days seems a replacement for principle. This operates on the analogy that people consider a political party a "home." I don't.  My home is my actual home.
There are lots of people whose jobs depend on Trump winning on Tuesday. There are a lot of people whose jobs depend on Hillary winning. This is why you have to take any opinion not tethered to facts with a grain of poop.  The exceptions to this amorality: the people who were honest to a fault, and were willing to lose a paycheck. Think Jonah Goldberg. Kevin Williamson. Ben Shapiro. Think of everyone of who didn't sacrifice principles for more appearances on TV.
But look -- there’s a bright side for breathless TV chatter boxes: you will benefit from your adversary winning!
If Trump wins, the left will do great.  If Hillary wins, so will the right. Fact is it's just easier to scream at the enemy than it is to support your own embarrassment.
3. THE WORLD IS ENDING
It's not. Or if is ending, it has nothing to do with this election.
If Hillary wins, or if Trump wins -- it's not as big a deal as the people say it is.
When JFK was assassinated? Yes, that was a BIG deal.  When Nixon resigned?  That was a BIG deal. But despite the horror and shock from those events -- we all got on with life. We still went to work. We fed the kids. We mowed the lawn. So lighten up with the apocalyptical BS.  No one is going to change your life as much as the people around you who love you and care about you.
And remember, the easiest thing to stoke, is anger. And if you're a conservative, and you get off on anger, then you're not a conservative at all.
Conservatives by nature reject the easy lure of emotion. We decry impulsiveness -- it's why we're seen as stiff and humorless. When in fact, we're full of wisdom brought on from life experience.
It's a good thing when we let a little emotion in but to let it govern your decisions is wrong.
And remember, liberals: Trump is a centrist. Cruz was way more to the right. And he got rejected!
Trump also thrives on acceptance. He needs love -- and will likely abandon his most rightwing talking points (because he already has those guys), to court YOU, the respected liberal.
So if Trump wins, all you leftists will be in the driver's seat. You'll get more from him than from Hillary.
And remember, conservatives: Hillary is hawkish. She's also she's out of steam -- hobbled by scandal, distrust and dislike. She might be of little impact at all -- just happy to sit in meetings, nod a lot, then watch “Madame Secretary” on Netflix through the early evening. She won't care who hates her, because it's a forgone conclusion.
So if Trump wins, he becomes more liberal, and if Hillary wins, she becomes more conservative. Trump ran to the right of his internal vision; Hillary ran toward Bernie Sanders to save herself.  Once they take the oath, they will change.
And we'll read about it online. Then walk the dog.
Greg Gutfeld currently serves as host of FOX News Channel's (FNC) The Greg Gutfeld Show (Saturdays 10-11PM/ET) and co-host of The Five (weekdays 5-6PM/ET). He joined the network in 2007 as a contributor. Click here for more information on Greg Gutfeld. 

State Department contractors detail how Clinton and her team ignored security rules

State Department whistleblowers speak out about Clinton

EXCLUSIVE: Two State Department contractors, with decades of experience protecting the United States' most sensitive secrets, are speaking out for the first time about Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and how the rules for government security clearance holders did not seem to apply to Clinton and her team.
“The State Department was her oyster and it was great for the [Clinton] foundation and great for the Clintons to be able to have such a great position," Dave Whitnah told Fox News.
Whitnah said he worked within the State Department's Office of Security Technology which is responsible for cameras and alarms and sweeping for bugs. Whitnah said everyone understood the secretary of state is the primary target of foreign intelligence services.
“The number one person would be the secretary of state and their communications," Whitnah explained. "You can think of the Iran negotiations, nuclear negotiation, negotiations with Russia, talks with Russia. You know, anything to do with foreign policy."
Whitnah emphasized that tens of millions of dollars were spent on technical security for Clinton that apparently was disregarded as her team traveled around the world on official U.S. government business.
"It was unfathomable that [her BlackBerry] would be used for anything other than just unclassified communication," Whitnah said. Clinton’s devices were not certified as secure by the State Department. As for her use of a non-secure BlackBerry, Whitnah stressed that email can be intercepted and, “Even if turned off, it’s still a listening device so that’s why you take out the batteries.”
As Clinton was sworn in as secretary in January 2009, government contractor Amel Smith said he was also working at the department and: "State Department rules are clear. I helped write those rules."
Smith says his 30 years of experience includes serving in the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne, before becoming a counter-intelligence and counter-espionage investigator at State tracking down breaches of classified materials. He reviewed some of the FBI witness interviews from the Clinton email investigation with Fox News, and questioned those who claimed not to have the proper training in handling sensitive information.
"I hear things like, well, I forgot, um, I don't know that I was trained, I don't know this. You know -- every single person that had access to that information when it was sent is in violation," Smith emphasized.
The FBI witness interviews also show secure facilities for classified information -- known as SCIFs -- were specially built for Clinton in her in Washington, D.C., and Chappaqua, N.Y., homes. Doors that were supposed to be locked were left open.
"If you've got an uncleared person in there, it's automatically a compromise," Smith said.
Another FBI interview summary said there were personally owned desktop computers in the secure facilities at Clinton's homes, yet she told the FBI that she did not have a computer of any kind in these facilities.
"If somebody said they're there, then they probably were there, and you know, the reason you would deny it was because you probably didn't have approval," Smith said.
Having unapproved computers in a SCIF would automatically call for a security investigation.
Asked for his reaction to Clinton's claim that nothing she sent or received was marked classified, Whitnah called that assertion a “misrepresentation.” Fox News was first to report in June that at least one of the emails contained a classified information portion marking for "c" which is confidential. FBI Director James Comey later said in July when he recommended against criminal charges that a handful of Clinton emails contained classified markings.
But more than 2,100 emails with classified information, and at least 22 at the “top secret” level, passed through Clinton's unsecured private server. Asked how it happened, Smith said, "Personally, there had to have been somebody moving classified information from C-LAN, C-LAN again is Secret, Confidential only, and JWICS. JWICS is where all top secret information is."
After new emails were found in the Anthony Weiner sexting case belonging to his estranged wife Clinton aide Huma Abedin, the FBI reopened the Clinton email investigation. On Sunday, Comey said the emails did not change his recommendation against criminal charges because his investigators did not find intent to move classified materials outside secure government channels
"Whether it's the private email server, whether it's this private laptop. If there's classified -- one document on there -- that's classified, it's a violation. Somebody violated [the] law," Smith said. "Throw all the politics out the window, what we're talking about is the defense of this nation."
Asked about Smith and Whitnah, who filed a complaint against the State Department, a department spokesman said they were not direct hires -- adding that the head of diplomatic security told the FBI that Clinton was "very responsive to security issues."

Patrick Caddell: The real election surprise? The uprising of the American people

For more than two years the American people, in a great majority, from left to right, have been in revolt against the political class and the financial elites in America. It is a revolt with historic parallels, most closely resembling the Jacksonian revolution of the 1820s. It is an uprising. It is a peaceful uprising of a people who see a country in decline and see nothing but failure in the performance of their leadership institutions. And they have signaled their intent to take back their country and to reclaim their sovereignty.
Unfortunately, the analysts, the pollsters and most importantly the commentariat of the political class have never understood, and in fact are psychologically incapable of understanding what is happening. And for the entire cycle of this presidential campaign they have failed to grasp what was happening before their eyes – for it runs counter to everything they believe about themselves.
In truth, they are suffering from cognitive dissonance  believing in their righteous superiority and are not capable of realizing that it is they who have become the adversary of the American people. And therefore they have been wrong, in this entire election cycle, every step of the way.
For them, American politics only began yesterday. They know little history and have no appreciation of the collective consciousness of the American people. Whether it is the campaign of Bernie Sanders, who came within a hair’s breadth of knocking out the coronated nominee of the Democratic establishment or on the other side, the emergence of the total outsider Donald Trump, the most improbable candidate of all. In truth, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, sucked from the same trough even if it was from opposite ends. But the critical point that is missed, by almost everyone, was that neither Sanders nor Trump created this uprising. They were chosen vehicles – they did not create these movements, these movements created them.

In less than a day we will know how far this revolt has come. But, make no mistake, whatever the outcome, this revolt is not ending, it is merely beginning.

In less than a day we will know how far this revolt has come. But, make no mistake, whatever the outcome, this revolt is not ending, it is merely beginning.
Several years ago, I began, with my colleagues at Armada, an ongoing, in-depth research project on what has become known as the “Candidate Smith” project. A good friend of mine, Lee Hanley, who sadly just passed away, volunteered to begin this project with only one charge: that we explore my hypothesis that something profound was happening in the collective consciousness of the American people.
What we learned in our in-depth research was as astonishing as it was unexpected. It became clear from this really deep public opinion inquiry that American politics has entered an historic paradigm. What is emerging in what had been assumed to be the static political system was about to be reconfigured in ways and that we still do not know fully. But one thing is certain: the old rules of politics are collapsing and a new edifice is emerging.
The conventional wisdom that America is absolutely divided into warring tribes is a tired falsehood. Overall, in the attitude structure of the American people, the elements of this new paradigm are commonly shared by upwards of 80 percent of the population – from the Occupy Wall Street movement on the left to the Tea Parties on the right. The political battleground is no longer over ideology but instead is all about insurgency.
The larger atmosphere is dominated by three overriding beliefs:
First, the American people believe that the country is not only on the wrong track but almost 70 percent say that America is in actual decline. The concept of decline is antithetical to the American experience.
Second, for more than three centuries, the animating moral obligation of America has been the self-imposed obligation that each generation passes on to its children a better America than they themselves inherited. This is what makes us Americans. In Armada’s polling we found that a majority of Americans believe that they are better off than their parents were. But a great majority says that THEIR children will be worse off than they themselves are today. This is the crisis of the American Dream. And it is no surprise that a majority of Americans agree that if we leave the next generation “worse off” that there will still be a place called “the United States” but there will no longer be an “America.”
Third, when asked whether or not everyone in America plays by the same rules to get ahead or are there different rules for well-connected and people with money, a staggering 84 percent of voters picked the latter. Only 10 percent believed that everyone has an equal opportunity.
These over-arching attitudes provide the framework for today’s political revolt.
Unfortunately, I suspect, if you asked these questions of the political, financial and media elite they would have a very different response.
From the time I was a teenager and a self-starting pollster I have had an acute interest in the phenomenon of political alienation.  In our research, the current level of alienation that now grips the American electorate is staggering and unprecedented.
Here are some of our latest results among likely voters from early October 2016:

1.  The power of ordinary people to control our country is getting weaker every day, as political leaders on both sides, fight to protect their own power and privilege, at the expense of the nation’s well-being. We need to restore what we really believe in – real democracy by the people and real free-enterprise. AGREE = 87%; DISAGREE = 10%

2.  The country is run by an alliance of incumbent politicians, media pundits, lobbyists and other powerful money interests for their own gain at the expense of the American people. AGREE = 87%; DISAGREE = 10%

3.  Most politicians really care about people like me. AGREE = 25%; DISAGREE = 69%

4.  Powerful interests from Wall Street banks to corporations, unions and political interest groups have used campaign and lobbying money to rig the system for them. They are looting the national treasury of billions of dollars at the expense of every man, woman and child. AGREE = 81%; DISAGREE = 13%

5.  The U.S. has a two-track economy where most Americans struggle every day, where good jobs are hard to find, where huge corporations get all the rewards. We need fundamental changes to fix the inequity in our economic system. AGREE = 81%; DISAGREE = 15%

6.  Political leaders are more interested in protecting their power and privilege than doing what is right for the American people. AGREE = 86%; DISAGREE = 11%

7.  The two main political parties are too beholden to special and corporate interest to create any meaningful change. AGREE = 76%; DISAGREE = 19%

8.  The real struggle for America is not between Democrats and Republicans but between mainstream American and the ruling political elites. AGREE = 67%; DISAGREE = 24%

These numbers and many, many more from our research paint the true outlines of the emerging political paradigm and the insurgency that it has ignited. In fact, it is the last question above that is agreed to by “only two-thirds” of the American people. Despite everything we are told day and night – that political battle in America is between Democrats and Republicans – two thirds of the American people believe that the battle lines are drawn between mainstream America and its ruling Political Class. THIS is the battle of 2016 and beyond.
These are findings that the reader has likely never been told. For they reflect the legitimate dissent of the American people from the actions and leadership of their establishment institutions. This is something the political class and mainstream media refuse to recognize much less acknowledge.
Befitting the emerging new paradigm, 2016 has already been an election like none we have ever known. But it is not without some parallels to another election.
In 1980, America was gripped with a foreign policy crisis, there hostages being held in Iran, inflation was exploding and the electorate was very unhappy. The country had two candidates for president: the incumbent – President Jimmy Carter and Republican challenger Ronald Reagan. For the first time in polling history both candidates, Carter and Reagan, were viewed negatively by the American people -- although their negatives were nowhere near the level of Clinton and Trump’s unpopularity. While the shock of Vietnam and Watergate had helped propel an unknown peanut farmer to the presidency, there was nowhere near the level of alienation and discontent that now grips America.
I was Jimmy Carter’s pollster and strategist in 1980 and I know, more than anyone, about what really happened. The entire Carter campaign was premised on painting the controversial Ronald Reagan as too risky to be president and too dangerous to entrust with nuclear weapons.
Exactly a week before Election Day there was a fatal presidential debate (that I wanted to avert) which gave Ronald Reagan his chance to make his case. It shook up the election.
The coalescing of voters around Carter began to break down. Within a couple of days Reagan had established a small lead over President Carter.
On the Saturday before the election the race had rebounded into a tie or slight Carter lead. And then it all fell apart.
My polling for the campaign told the story. By Sunday night President Carter was 5 points down and by Monday night the margin had exploded to 10 points down.
The uniqueness of 1980 is this: In the history of American polling this was the only presidential election that entered the last weekend close and finished in a landslide. The only one.
The question on the table now is: could 2016 be the second such election? If it is, it won’t be for Hillary Clinton.
The political class and the mainstream media have a narrative that Trump’s late surge is the result of an intervention by FBI Director James Comey. That narrative, like every one they’ve had over this cycle, couldn’t be more wrong. The momentum of the election was already moving toward Trump before Comey’s announcement to reopen of the Clinton email investigation. That event, like the presidential debate in 1980, tended to accelerate what was already in motion.
No two elections are really the same, whatever similarities they share. And neither are 1980 and 2016.
Here are a couple of differences – In 1980 there was no early voting. Without thinking through the consequences, this reform has resulted in millions of ballots being cast long before the campaign culminates. And that is almost surely an edge for Hillary Clinton and the better organized Democratic Party.
While both elections in 1980 and 2016 feature an American public that attitudinally wants real change there are differences that have already been noted: Many polls show that by just about 2 to 1 voters do not want to continue the policies of President Obama. In 1980 disapproval of Carter’s job performance did not extend to the personal feelings Americans had for Carter and the deep respect they had for his integrity.  (And of course, in both elections, Americans saw the country headed in the wrong direction.)
As suggested before, the alienation and discontent of the American electorate is way beyond that of 1980.
In 1980 the mainstream media was far more even-handed in its coverage and prided itself on journalism and not partisanship.
As I look at some of the deeper polling results, the questions I have been able to inject into the Breitbart/Gravis polling questions of recent days, may be in the end, instructive. As with Jimmy Carter in 1980, Hillary Clinton is far more likely to be viewed as qualified to be president and possessing a better presidential temperament.
But the results of the latest poll are worth pondering: Here are the most interesting questions and answers.   First, voters were asked to agree or disagree with following question:
For years, the political elites have governed America for their own benefit and to the detriment of the American people – this election is the best chance in our lives to take back our government. AGREE = 63% (with 46% strongly agreeing); DISAGREE = 31%
Voters were then asked the same two questions of each candidate: Which is closer to your opinion if (Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump) wins: the political elites and special interests win; the political elite and special interests lose.
By 65 percent to 35 percent voters said that if Hillary Clinton wins the political elites WIN.  And by an opposite margin, the majority of voters said that by 57 percent to 43 percent the elites LOSE if Trump wins.
Significant numbers of Clinton’s own voters believe that her win is a victory for the unpopular elites and special political interests.
So the question is, if these attitudes are salient in the voters’ minds as they vote on Tuesday it could produce the biggest surprise of all in 2016.
But regardless of who wins on November 8 this uprising of the American people has just begun.
Patrick Caddell is a Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor. He served as pollster for  President Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden and others. He is a Fox News political analyst and co-host of "Political Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel.

Comey's closing move sparks new fury with the presidency at stake today

Kurtz: FBI flips again as voters go to the polls

So the November surprise is that the October surprise didn’t count.
That’s not quite true, but captures the dizzying end to the 2016 campaign, which saw James Comey again announce that Hillary Clinton is under criminal investigation nine days before the election, and then exonerate her less than 48 hours before the voting begins.
Which raises the question of whether he should have gone public in the first place, given that the new “evidence”—not reviewed at the time—turned out to be mostly duplicate and personal emails.
It’s not much of a bumper sticker, but I guess Clinton can claim to be the only candidate cleared twice by the FBI.
Comey’s move undercuts Donald Trump’s claim that Clinton’s election could spark a constitutional crisis, but not his overall rhetoric about a culture of corruption. Yet the damage has been done, fueling arguments by Comey’s critics that he unfairly politicized the last stretch of the campaign.
Comey’s Oct. 28 letter to Capitol Hill transformed the campaign, put Clinton on the defensive, energized Trump and had some impact on the polls, which were already tightening. I said at the time that we just didn’t know whether the new cache of emails—which weirdly wound up on Anthony Weiner’s computer, via Huma Abedin—would be incriminating or a nothing-burger.
There’s even a school of thought that Comey’s second letter late Sunday doesn’t help Clinton because it brings the focus back to the email scandal just when she’s trying to make a closing argument.
The Clinton camp is obviously relieved. And once again, we have partisan reactions on both sides.
Trump had been ripping Comey’s July decision not to seek an indictment against Clinton as evidence of a “rigged system.” When the FBI chief made the new inquiry public, Trump praised him for “guts.” Now he is questioning how the bureau could have reviewed 650,000 emails in such a short period of time.
Newt Gingrich, a major Trump ally, says the FBI boss caved: “Comey must be under enormous political pressure to cave like this and announce something he can't possibly know.”
On the other side, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman rips into Comey:
“The election was rigged by James Comey, the director of the F.B.I. His job is to police crime — but instead he used his position to spread innuendo and influence the election. Was he deliberately putting a thumb on the electoral scales, or was he simply bullied by Republican operatives? It doesn’t matter: He abused his office, shamefully.”
Washington Post editorial writer Stephen Stromberg is also critical:
“If you have ever watched a procedural crime drama, you probably recognize the words, ‘the jury will disregard.’ It is the instruction judges give jurors to ignore inadmissible testimony after it has already been offered in open court. Of course the jury, composed of human beings, cannot forget what it has already heard — even if they try. The integrity of the proceedings have already been damaged.”
There’s also chatter about the awkward relationship that Clinton would have with Comey, who serves a fixed 10-year term and can only be removed for cause, if she wins.
For now, as the candidates wrap up their mad dash to far-flung rallies, Comey’s open-and-shut pronouncements are baked into the cake. That is, along with a separate inquiry into the Clinton Foundation, “Access Hollywood,” the sexual misconduct allegations by a dozen women, “basket of deplorables,” and charges by each nominee that the other is unfit for the White House and would lead us into war.
An incredible melodrama, with the presidency at stake. Oh, and control of the Senate as well. The curtain is finally coming down on this one.
Until Wednesday, when the media will be consumed by sound and fury over the outcome of the election and the prospects for the 45th president—whoever he or she may be.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz. 

Hillary's #1 aide Huma Abedin: Undeniable ties to terrorists

Huma Abedin DNC 2016 She wrote an open letter to Clinton supporters calling herself "a proud Muslim"

She wrote an open letter to Clinton supporters calling herself "a proud Muslim"

Chelsea Clinton's Wedding Cartoons

Trump presses into Democrat territory in final stretch

Clinton vs. Trump: Closing arguments

Donald Trump is moving into Democratic territory in the final days of his improbable White House bid, hoping forays into Minnesota and Michigan on Sunday and Monday will give him enough support from still-undecided voters for a come-from-behind victory against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
“Hillary doesn’t come here. … Don’t vote for her,” Trump said at a rally Sunday in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which has not voted for a Republican presidential nominee in 44 years.
“The reason I’m here is because I know what’s going to happen in two days. We are going to win the great state of Minnesota and the White House. … We are going to be great for Minnesota.”
Beyond his attacks on Clinton, Trump made his larger case in Minnesota by warming residents about the spread of radical Islamic terrorism and the rising costs of ObamaCare, which Clinton supports and that Trump has vowed, if elected, to repeal and replace.
“We will not allow what has been happening to the great state of Minnesota to happen any longer,” Trump said. “We will make America great again.”
Polls show Trump closing Clinton’s lead in the final days of the race and having some momentum going into Election Day, on Tuesday.

Predictions Map

See the Fox News 2016 battleground prediction map and make your own election projections. See Predictions Map →

The announcement by FBI Director James Comey on Sunday that the agency has concluded without charges a 10-day probe into recently-discovered Clinton emails while she was secretary of state was a blow to the Trump argument that Clinton, if elected, would assume the White House under federal investigation.
The Minnesota event was one of five that Trump would host Sunday.
Clinton made three campaign stops Sunday -- in Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Hampshire.
However, she was in Michigan on Friday and will return Monday.
President Obama will also be in Michigan on Monday, to headline a rally at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Clinton was up by nearly 12 percentage points in the state in late-October, but her lead has been cut to less than 5 points over the past 16 days, according to the RealClearPolitics polls average.
A Fox News national poll released Friday shows Clinton leading Trump by 2 percentage points, 45-to-43 percent, after being ahead by double-digits in some polls just a few weeks ago.
Trump has led only once since winning the GOP primary this spring -- by 1 percentage point, in late-July, after the Republican National Convention.
Top Clinton strategist Joel Benenson disagreed Sunday with the argument that the campaign has had to redouble its efforts in states like Colorado, Michigan, New Mexico and Virginia.
“We’re playing offense in every state,” he told Fox News.
Benenson also said that returning to Michigan was always in the plans, describing it as a “game day” state because it has no early voting.
“We have to make sure we get there in the last few days, keep people ginned up, getting them out to vote,” he said. “That's what you're seeing in some of these states.”
Benenson also suggests that a late fundraising surge has allowed for the final-hour TV ads in those states.
Trump, a first-time and outsider candidate, started Sunday in Iowa, then flew to Minnesota and Michigan before finishing in battleground states Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Michigan, which Trump will visit again Monday, has not elected a Republican nominee since the 1988 election.
The Virginia race appeared all but lost to Washington Republicans, considering that last month they began reallocating resources. However, Trump and running-mate Mike Pence have returned in the closing days, as the race with Clinton tightens.
“Our campaign is literally expanding the map,” Pence told “Fox News Sunday.” “We’re on offense, and the Clinton campaign is literally on defense trying to shore up blue states around the country.”
Estranged from much of the Republican establishment that he has vowed to dismantle if elected, Trump, with the exception of Pence, has essentially campaigned alone, though Trump’s children where active in get-out-the vote efforts this weekend.
“I don’t mind being an outsider,” Trump said Sunday in Iowa, another battleground state.
Comey said Sunday in a letter to Congress that there is no evidence in the newly discovered emails to warrant criminal charges against the Democratic presidential nominee.
Clinton's campaign, furious at Comey's handling of the review, welcomed Sunday's announcement.
"We're glad this matter is resolved," communications director Jennifer Palmieri told reporters.
As of late Sunday, Clinton had yet to mention the issue on the campaign trail.
Trump arrived at the Minnesota rally moments after Comey's latest letter went public.
He made no direct mention of the FBI's decision and continued to insist --without evidence -- that Clinton would be under investigation during her potential presidency.
Pence said at a rally in North Carolina: “The FBI last summer concluded that Hillary Clinton having classified documents on that private server was extremely careless.  And I guess today, I don’t know if you heard, today they announced that they had not changed that conclusion. But you know, mishandling classified information is a crime.”
The new review involved material found on a computer belonging to Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former congressman and estranged husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
While Comey was vague in his initial description of the inquiry, he said Sunday that the FBI reviewed communications "to or from Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state."
As the campaign's final weekend drew to a close, more than 41 million Americans had already cast their ballots in early voting.
During remarks at a black church in Philadelphia on Sunday morning, Clinton urged voters to choose "unity over division" as she sought to close a caustic presidential campaign on an uplifting note. She warned that President Obama's legacy is on the line, part of her strategy to shore up black voters who may be less enthusiastic about her than the president.
"If we come together with the common vision, common faith, we will find common ground," Clinton declared.
Clinton then headed to New Hampshire with Khizr Khan, the Gold Star father who delivered a stinging indictment of Trump at the Democratic convention. Her high-wattage allies also fanned out across the country, including Obama, who was joined by musical icon Stevie Wonder at a rally in Florida. NBA star LeBron James joined Clinton in Cleveland, Ohio.
Trump's campaign manager Kellyanne Conway told reporters Sunday that Trump planned to keep up the breakneck campaign pace through Election Day. After voting in New York Tuesday morning, Trump was expected to return to Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina and New Hampshire later in the day, Conway said.

Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials

Clinton ordered maid to print out top secret information

Marina Santos

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government emails and documents — including ones containing classified information — from her house in Washington, D.C., e-mails and FBI memos show. But the housekeeper lacked the security clearance to handle such material.
In fact, Marina Santos was called on so frequently to receive e-mails that she may hold the secrets to E-mailgate — if only the FBI and Congress would subpoena her and the equipment she used.
Clinton entrusted far more than the care of her D.C. residence, known as Whitehaven, to Santos. She expected the Filipino immigrant to handle state secrets, further opening the Democratic presidential nominee to criticism that she played fast and loose with national security.
Clinton would first receive highly sensitive emails from top aides at the State Department and then request that they, in turn, forward the messages and any attached documents to Santos to print out for her at the home.
Among other things, Clinton requested Santos print out drafts of her speeches, confidential memos and “call sheets” — background information and talking points prepared for the secretary of state in advance of a phone call with a foreign head of state.
“Pls ask Marina to print for me in am,” Clinton emailed top aide Huma Abedin regarding a redacted 2011 message marked sensitive but unclassified.

Clinton aide says Foundation paid for Chelsea’s wedding, WikiLeaks emails show

Clinton Foundation the best wedding gift for Chelsea?

Former President Bill Clinton’s top aide wrote in 2012 that Chelsea Clinton used Clinton Foundation resources “for her wedding and life for a decade” and a top Foundation donor was responsible for “killing” unfavorable press coverage – all as an internal Foundation audit uncovered numerous conflicts of interest and “quid pro quo benefits,” according to emails released Sunday by WikiLeaks.
Doug Band, founder of global strategies company Teneo and Bill Clinton’s personal assistant since the 1990s, wrote the Jan. 4, 2012, email to future Hillary Clinton presidential campaign chair John Podesta and two other Clinton aides after receiving word that Chelsea had told “one of the [President] bush 43 kids” and others about “an internal investigation of money within the foundation.” Band wrote such chatter was “not smart.”
“The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents….,” Band wrote. “I hope that you will speak to her and end this[.] Once we go down this road….”
EMAIL DETAILS HOW TOP AIDES MADE EX-PRESIDENT CLINTON RICH
The FBI reportedly is looking into The Clinton Foundation, although the extent and focus of the investigation is unclear. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, had previously said some of the “personal” emails she deleted from her secret, homebrew server – the subject of another FBI probe – were related to Chelsea’s wedding.
Band’s email, which was revealed after Podesta’s Gmail account was hacked and subsequently uploaded to WikiLeaks, came at a time of turmoil and upheaval within The Clinton Foundation. Aside from the internal audit, previous emails show a prolonged effort to untangle Teneo from the Foundation. When Band launched the company in summer 2011, he was still employed by the Foundation and Bill Clinton was listed as a Teneo adviser.

Predictions Map

See the Fox News 2016 battleground prediction map and make your own election projections. See Predictions Map →

But after much haggling, Clinton’s and Band’s roles were clearly delineated: Band continued on as a personal aide to Clinton and Clinton became a Teneo client. During the back-and-forth that produced the final document spelling out each of the men’s roles, Band on Nov. 12, 2011 wrote an 11-page memo outlining how Teneo was created and how it had helped to enrich Clinton and the Foundation. In that draft of the memo, Band wrote he had “sought to leverage my activities, including my partner role at Teneo, to support and to raise funds for the Foundation.”

Related Image

Expand / Contract

President Bill Clinton, left, walks with aide Doug Band. (Georgetown.edu)

“I am sure I have done so imperfectly,” he added.
In another section of the memo, which was later deleted, Band wrote about billionaire hedge fund manager Marc Lasry as a “good example of the complex relationships a friend/supporter can have within the foundation.” Chelsea Clinton worked for Lasry, Lasry held Foundation fundraisers and Band was a paid adviser for Lasry’s firm, Avenue Capital, an investment company whose holding American Media Inc. publishes The National Enquirer.
But fundraisers and jobs weren’t Lasry’s lone contribution to Team Clinton.
“He has been helpful on a number of fronts, including … responding favorably to our requests to use his plane for Foundation and the Clintons’ personal purposes, killing potential unfavorable stories in the Enquirer [of which he owns a controlling share of the debt]…” Band wrote.
Less than a month after Band’s Teneo memo went out, lawyers from Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett LLP, the firm contracted to run the internal Foundation audit, emailed a draft of a governance memorandum and recommendations to Podesta, who was serving as a special adviser to the Foundation, and Bruce Lindsey, then the Foundation’s CEO.
The audit draft noted substantial issues, including a Conflict-of-Interest Policy that had not been implemented, conflicts that were not disclosed in a timely fashion and board members not following the policy when they became aware of conflicts.
“In addition, some interviewees reported conflicts of those raising funds or donors, some of whom may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gifts,” according to the Dec. 5, 2011, draft. Another section of the document noted that “interviewees also mentioned instances in which gifts and payments received by staff had not been properly disclosed.”
There were other problems, including 1,298 “complimentary” $20,000 memberships for the Clinton Global Initiative as opposed to just 500 paid memberships. Of the “complimentary” group, “276 were coded ‘discretionary,’” the audit noted.
“Interviewees informed us that there is no transparency into how the comp list is developed,” the document stated.
The lawyers conducting the audit also noticed problems in the Foundation’s IRS Form 990, the tax return document of an organization that is exempt from income tax. While charitable groups are allowed to pay board members and staff a reasonable salary, none of the reasonable compensation calculations identified by the lawyers were ever done, the 990 form showed. The lawyers also wrote the 990 indicated the Foundation had a written conflict-of-interest policy that was enforced.
“However, we did not find evidence of that enforcement,” the memo stated.
Other problems included a “very small” Foundation Board “comprised solely of ‘insiders’”; unsigned Board minutes that “appear to have been cloned from one year to the next; “material weaknesses” in the “segregation of accounting duties, review of journal entries, audit adjustments and financial statement preparation, and lack of Board meetings.”