White House, Clinton Tied To PR Firm Behind Electoral College Fight

The public relations firm working behind the scenes with the faithless electors is rife with ties to prominent Democrats like President Obama and twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Megaphone Strategies, whose stated mission is to “use PR as a tool to diversify progressive movements,” typically works with progressive causes like Black Lives Matter. The firm is representing the handful of “faithless electors” trying to keep President-elect Donald Trump from winning the Electoral College vote.

The firm was co-founded by Van Jones, the former green jobs czar in the Obama White House who later resigned after it was revealed he signed a statement questioning whether the Bush administration had a role in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Jones now works as a CNN commentator.

Electoral College prepares to meet under old rules, new controversy

The members of the Electoral College will meet on Monday to decide the 45^th president of the United States and, for the second time in less than 20 years, they will do so amid a controversy over the results of November’s general election.
While President-elect Donald Trump picked up 306 electoral votes on Election Day – well over the 270 needed to clinch the election – Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton’s lead in the popular has risen to 2.8 million over Trump as the last remaining postal votes are counted.
This disparity – along with claims by so-called “faithless electors” that they won’t vote for Trump – has made an already confusing electoral process even more convoluted.
To help readers understand the process and what’s at stake, FoxNews.com has prepared a cheat sheet about the Electoral College.
The Electoral College

Related Image

Expand / Contract

The Electoral College meets every december, but it doesn't have a football team. (Associated Press)

• Who are the members of the Electoral College: There are 538 electors – representing the nation's 435 Representatives, 100 Senators and three non-voting representatives from Washington D.C. Electors cannot be federal officials and are usually chosen by the winning candidate’s political party among the party faithful. All states, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, have chosen electors on a "winner-take-all" basis since the 1880s, but there is no federal law requiring the electors to vote for the candidate who won their state.
• What does the Electoral College Process look like: The process begins after November’s general election, when state governors prepare a “Certificate of Ascertainment” that lists all of the presidential candidates, their respective electors, who won the state and which electors will represent the state at the meeting of the electors in December. At the meeting, the electors cast their votes for president and vice president on separate ballots, with the votes recorded on a Certificate of Vote. The state’s Certificates of Vote is then sent to Congress – as well as the National Archives –where votes are counted in a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6.
• Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College: The Electoral College was basically started as a compromise by the drafters of the Constitution as some wanted Congress to choose the president, while others wanted direct election by the people. The beneficiaries of the Electoral College in the nascent days of the United States were the southern slave states which were concerned that the country’s more populous industrial centers would dominate less populous rural regions.
• Where does the Electoral College meet: There is no Electoral College campus. There are no dorm rooms that house the electors or frat parties for them to go to on weekends. Instead electors meet in their respective state capitals to cast their votes for president and vice president.
• When does the Electoral College meet: Electors always meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. While the procedures vary slightly state by state, the basic process: reading of Certificate of Ascertainment, attendance, choosing a chairman, choosing tellers, voting, collecting and sorting the votes before placing them in special mahogany boxes to be sent to Congress.

The Faithless Elector

Related Image

Expand / Contract

In this Dec. 9, 2016, photo, President-elect Donald Trump speaks to supporters during a rally, in Grand Rapids, Mich. In claiming that he scored “a massive landslide victory” in last month’s presidential election, Trump turned history upside down. In fact, his winning margin in the Electoral College is on the other end of the historical spectrum, far closer to the narrowest win in history than to the widest. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya) (Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

While the Electoral College vote is normally just a procedural step that gets overshadowed by the President-elect’s cabinet choices (the exception being 2000, with George W. Bush, Al Gore and the Florida recount), this year with Clinton winning the popular vote and the divisiveness of the election, there have been a number of electors who have said they might not cast their vote for the candidate who won their state.
Adding to the concerns of these faithless electors are assertions by the Obama administration that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally authorized the hacking of Democratic officials' email accounts in the run-up to the presidential election to help Trump's campaign.
When news broke late last week of the CIA's conclusion that Russia likely sought to influence the U.S. election on behalf of Trump, Pell and nine other electors — all but one of them Democrats — quickly crafted and published an unprecedented letter to U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper demanding a briefing.

More on this...

• Anti-Trumpers trying to sow chaos in Electoral College

• White House, Clinton Tied To PR Firm Behind Electoral College Push

• Hysterical Liberals Call for End of Electoral College

Their letter, now with dozens of signatures, described the Electoral College as a deliberative body whose members have more than an "empty or formalistic task" to summarily cast their votes.
Despite Harvard professor – and former Democratic presidential candidate - Larry Lessig's claims earlier this week that 20 Republican Electoral College voters are considering flipping to vote against Donald Trump, a survey of electors taken by The Associated Press appears to suggest that there’s very little likelihood of derailing Trump's presidency in the Electoral College.
Only 19 of the 44 times the Electoral College has met have there been any faithless electors – and most of those involved only one elector. The most faithless electors ever came in 1832 when 30 electors from Pennsylvania refused to support the Democratic vice presidential candidate, Martin Van Buren and two National Republican Party electors from the state of Maryland refused to vote for presidential candidate Henry Clay and instead abstained.
Despite the loss of 30 votes, Martin Van Buren was elected as the vice president and Andrew Jackson president after receiving over 75 percent of the electoral votes.

No record of 'faithless elector' Chris Suprun as a 9/11 first responder

9/11 Record Of Republican ‘Faithless Elector’ Called Into Question

DALLAS – The Republican elector who has gotten national attention for refusing to vote for Donald Trump at the Electoral College on Dec. 19 was apparently not a first responder on September 11, 2001 as he has stated for years and has a questionable career history, according to an investigation by WFAA.
Chris Suprun, 42, portrays himself as a heroic firefighter who was among the first on the scene after the third plane flew into the Pentagon on 9/11.
In a heavily-publicized editorial this month for the New York Times, Suprun stated that as a member of the Electoral College he will not cast his ballot for Trump because the president-elect “shows daily he is not qualified for the office.”
The Republican “faithless elector,” who made headlines across the country when he wrote a blistering op-ed pledging not to vote for President-elect Trump in the Electoral College, is now under scrutiny himself after his claim to have been a firefighter on 9/11 has been questioned by a local news outlet.
Christopher Suprun, a Republican elector in Texas, wrote a piece for the New York Times on Dec. 5 called “Why I Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump.” In it, Suprun cites his past as a firefighter on 9/11 as one of the reasons for not voting for Donald Trump on Dec. 19, despite Texas voting comfortably for Trump on Nov. 8.
“Fifteen years ago, as a firefighter, I was part of the response to the Sept. 11 attacks against our nation. That attack and this year’s election may seem unrelated, but for me the relationship becomes clearer every day,” Suprun wrote.
In the piece, he calls on fellow Republican electors to vote their conscience and deny Trump the 270 votes he needs to win the White House, and to back a Republican alternative such as Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who has publicly distanced himself from such efforts.
“The election of the next president is not yet a done deal. Electors of conscience can still do the right thing for the good of the country. Presidential electors have the legal right and a constitutional duty to vote their conscience,” Suprun wrote. “I pray my fellow electors will do their job and join with me in discovering who that person should be.”
Yet, as the move to deny Trump the 270 votes has gained momentum and media coverage, Suprun’s past has come under scrutiny.
Dallas ABC affiliate WFAA reported that Suprun’s LinkedIn page claims that he was part of Manassas Fire Department in Sept. 2001, but found that he was not part of that Fire Dept. until October, and cited an anonymous first responder who knew Suprun, who contradicted his claims.
“He claimed to be a first responder with the Manassas Park Fire Department on September 11, 2001 and personally told us stories ‘I was fighting fire that day at the Pentagon.’ No, I was on a medic unit that day at the Pentagon and you make a phone call to Manassas Park and you find out that he wasn’t even employed there until October 2001,” the source told the outlet.
Even if Suprun had been hired by Manassas Park before 9/11, the fire chief there told WFAA that they did not respond to the Pentagon that fateful day.
“It’s no different than stolen valor for the military,” the source told WFAA.
Suprun responded to the allegations in a statement Friday:
“You’re right, I wasn’t in New York on 9-11,” he said [although WFAA did not make such a claim.] “I was a part of the response to the Pentagon attacks, as a member of the Dale City fire department in northern Virginia.”
He explained further in response to a question at an “Ask Me Anything” on Reddit.
“That story exhibits a reckless disregard for the truth. I never claimed to be a first responder on 9-11 with the Manassas Park Fire Dept. I was a volunteer firefighter at the time for the Dale City Fire Dept. when I responded to the attacks at the Pentagon,” he said.
Suprun’s claim is backed up in part by a story in Philly.com in 2012, which reported on a talk Suprun gave for the Never Forget foundation. In that, Philly.com reports him claiming in that talk that he was indeed part of the Dale City Volunteer Fire Department.
However, that account does not present him as a firefighter, as he claims to be in his Times op-ed and his Reddit answer, but as a volunteer paramedic. His account does not have him fighting fires, but administering first aid in a nearby parking lot, before being deployed to a recreation center, where he treated first responders.
Calls to Dale City Fire Dept. from FoxNews.com were not immediately returned. Follow up questions to Suprun’s agent seeking to clarify his role that day were also not returned.
It was not the only question WFAA raised in regards to Suprun’s record.
On his LinkedIn profile, Suprun says he is presently a paramedic with Freedom EMS in Dallas, but WFAA reports that no such company exists. A spokeswoman for Air Methods ambulance service, where Suprun’s LinkedIn also claims he works, told the outlet he is not employed there either.
Electors make their decision on Dec. 19. Suprun is so far the only elector to publicly express his intent to change his vote from Trump. It would take 37 votes to deny Trump the votes needed, which would then send the question to the House of Representatives.
Trump would likely still win among the Republican-heavy legislature, but rogue electors hope that by presenting a moderate Republican, they can convince them to snatch the White House away from the billionaire.

Abedin Cartoons

Wikileaks founder Assange on hacked Podesta, DNC emails: 'Our source is not the Russian government'

Julian Assange: Our source is not the Russian government

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange denied Thursday that hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta were stolen and passed to his organization by Russian state actors.
"Our source is not the Russian government," Assange told "The Sean Hannity Show."
"So in other words, let me be clear," Hannity asked, "Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?"
"That's correct," Assange responded.
Assange's assertion contradicts the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which concluded in October that "the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails [sic] from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations."
In addition to the hacked emails from the DNC and Podesta, Assange admitted that Wikileaks received "received about three pages of information to do with the [Republican National Committee]  and Trump [during the campaign], but it was already public somewhere else."
Late Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Russian hackers had tried and failed to access the RNC using the same methods as the DNC hackers.
Assange had previously denied that the DNC and Podesta emails had came from any government. He has steadfastly refused to identify the source of the messages.
"We’re unhappy that we felt that we needed to even say that it wasn’t a state party. Normally, we say nothing at all," Assange told Hannity. "We have ... a strong interest in protecting our sources, and so we never say anything about them, never ruling anyone in or anyone out.
"And so here, in order to prevent a distraction attack against our publications, we’ve had to come out and say ‘no, it’s not a state party. Stop trying to distract in that way and pay attention to the content of the publication.’"
Assange added that the U.S. government, corporations and even private citizens are vulnerable to a cyberattack like the one on the DNC and Podesta.
"Everything is almost completely insecure now," he said. "Computer systems have become so complex that it is not possible to understand all the parts, let alone secure them. It’s just impossible."

Abedin claims she never received FBI warrant for Weiner emails

Can't get rid of the roaches, spray they go away but keep coming back.

Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin told a Manhattan federal judge in a court filing Thursday that neither she nor Anthony Weiner ever received FBI search warrants for emails found on her estranged husband’s computer — raising questions about whether FBI warrants for the emails were ever issued, and if so to whom.
In the letter, Abedin’s lawyer said she is unable to comment on a Los Angeles lawyer’s request for FBI warrants tied to her emails, because “the government has never provided her with a copy of the warrant it reportedly obtained to search certain emails.”
“We understand that Mr. Weiner has likewise not been provided with a copy of the material,” said the letter from lawyer Karen Dunn.
Abedin’s letter is tied to a request by E. Randol Schoenberg, a genealogist and lawyer based in LA, who has asked a Manhattan federal judge to help him get to the bottom of FBI Director Jim Comey’s late-October surprise announcement that emails tied to the agency’s probe into Clinton’s email server were found on Anthony Weiner’s computer during the FBI’s probe into his sexting with an underage teen.
Schoenberg, known for recovering artwork stolen by the Nazis, wants Judge Kevin Castel to make the warrants public to ensure the FBI had proper cause to investigate the emails. Schoenberg’s letter suggested urgency in getting to the bottom of the warrants before the “impending vote of the Electoral College” on Dec. 19 to finalize the presidential election.

The First 100 Days: Trump vows to roll back energy industry regs

America’s energy policy is about to change – big league.
Unlike President Obama – who prioritized energy regulations and handouts as part of an incentive system to curb global warming – President-elect Donald Trump says he will focus instead on making America energy independent.
How significantly U.S. energy policies will change remains to be seen. But several campaign promises provide a roadmap:

• Trump has said he will roll back regulations that damage the coal industry. That could mean ignoring Obama’s carefully negotiated Paris climate accord and tearing up his controversial Clean Power Plan, both of which dramatically restrict U.S. carbon emissions.
• Trump stated the U.S. has enough oil to last 285 years. It is “there for the taking,” he said. That could mean opening up areas currently off limits to offshore oil drilling, including the Pacific, Atlantic and parts of Alaska. 
• Trump told voters the U.S. has enough natural gas reserves to “power America’s energy needs for the next 110 years.” He supports natural gas fracking on federal lands, something Obama did not.
• Unlike Obama, who was pressured by environmental allies to oppose most fossil fuel projects, Trump supports both the North Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines.   
• On wind and solar, Trump said, “I’m all for alternative forms of energy” but also called it “just an expensive way to make tree huggers feel good about themselves.” While it is unlikely renewables will receive the favored status they did under Obama, Trump seems more likely to remain neutral on that front. 

In the alternative energy industry, companies are hoping Trump sees the economic benefit.
“We would just like the Trump administration to understand that wind is big. It's of scale, it's cost competitive, it's clean and renewable,” said Steve Lockhart, of TCI Composites, a wind turbine blade manufacturer in Iowa. “The wind industry employs 88,000 people today, 21,000 in the manufacturing sector, over 500 factories in forty-three states, so there is tremendous employment that is generated from this industry.”
Ten states now get more than 30 percent of their electricity from renewables, making it unlikely Trump would try to interfere in their power generation. States also have taken the lead by requiring utilities to get an increasing amount of their power from renewables, including Texas, where Energy Secretary nominee Rick Perry encouraged wind energy.
Rob Bishop, R-Utah, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, says it will be up to Trump to help rewrite America’s energy blueprint – in part, he hopes, by opening up federal lands to more development. Trump also will have to fight or negotiate with Democrats and the environmental lobby to navigate changes in the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Protection Act to allow for more drilling.
“I am excited and I am nervous at the same time because it's not going to be as easy as some people think,” Bishop said.
One of the more difficult efforts will be reviving the coal industry as Trump has pledged. Coal towns in key states like Pennsylvania and Ohio came out big for the president-elect. The problem is not only have many utilities moved on -- signing long-term energy contracts with new providers – but coal is losing market share to natural gas, which is cleaner and cheaper.
Nevertheless, in the small mining town of Hotchkiss, Colo., people are hopeful.
“It is not just the coal itself, it is the downstream value to our economy, to our people to our community,” said Mayor Wendell Koontz.
Koontz used to work at the Oxbow mine. It closed earlier this year along with another nearby site. Koontz saw 1,200 coal jobs disappear in one year, leaving dozens of businesses in the town of 900 empty.
Eight years ago, coal provided half of America’s electricity. Today, it is 31 percent and falling.
Asked if this trend is market-driven or tied to politics, Mike Ludlow, president of Oxbow mining, said: “The shut-down of a lot of coal plants and the loss of market is due to regulation that restricted emissions from coal fired plants.”
Surveying what’s left of the huge mine, he said, “It is a combination of that and cheap natural gas.”

Obama says US needs to respond to Russian cyberattacks -- 'and we will'

Fox News Poll: Russian hacking did not affect election

President Obama said Thursday that the U.S. needs to "take action" in response to cyberattacks on Democratic officials during the recent presidential campaign, hours after his administration insisted -- without offering proof -- that President-elect Donald Trump "obviously knew" of the breaches, and suggested that Russian President Vladimir Putin had personally authorized them.
"I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections ... we need to take action," Obama said in an interview scheduled to air Friday on National Public Radio. "And we will — at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be."
Earlier Thursday, Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters during the daily White House briefing that "Mr. Trump obviously knew that Russia was engaged in malicious cyber activity that was helping him, [and] hurting [Democrat Hillary] Clinton ... "These are all facts that are not in dispute."
Earnest pointed out that Trump had encouraged Moscow during a news conference to find missing emails from Clinton's private server. Trump has said he was joking.
"I don't think anybody at the White House thinks it's funny that an adversary of the United States engaged in malicious cyber activity to destabilize our democracy," Earnest said. "That's not a joke."
Earnest, without mentioning Russian President Putin by name, also said "only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities," repeating the words from an October U.S. intelligence assessment.
Obama's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, connected the dots further, saying it was Putin who was responsible for the Russian government's actions.
"I don't think things happen in the Russian government of this consequence without Vladimir Putin knowing about it," Rhodes said on MSNBC.
Trump fired back Thursday evening, calling Earnest "foolish" during a "Thank You" rally in Hershey, Pa.
"I don't know if he's talking to President Obama," Trump said of Earnest, without addressing the hacking controversy directly. "You know, having the right press secretary's so important. Because he is so bad, the way he delivers a message ... The president is very positive, but he's not positive. And I mean, maybe he's getting his orders from somebody else? Does that make sense? Could that be possible?"
The White House officials' comments only escalate the feud between Trump allies and Democratic figures over Russia's alleged hacking.
U.S. intelligence officials have linked the hacking to Russia's intelligence agency and its military intelligence division. Moscow has denied all accusations that it orchestrated the hacking of email accounts of Democratic Party officials and Clinton's campaign chief, John Podesta, and then leaked them to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks.
But lawmakers seeking a briefing this week on potential conflicts in the record about Russia's role were rebuffed, fueling GOP concerns on Capitol Hill about what the intelligence says.
U.S. officials have not contended that Trump would have been defeated by Clinton on Nov. 8 if not for Russia's assistance. Nor has there has been any indication of tampering with the vote-counting.

The Kremlin flatly rejected the claim of Putin's involvement, with Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissing it Thursday as "laughable nonsense."

The dispute over Russia's role is fueling an increasingly public spat between Obama's White House and Trump's team that is threatening to spoil the delicate truce that Obama and Trump have forged since Election Day.

Although the president and president-elect have avoided criticizing each other publicly since Trump's win, their aides have been more openly antagonistic. Kellyanne Conway, Trump's senior transition adviser, said it was "breathtaking" and irresponsible that the White House had suggested Trump knew Russia was interfering to help his campaign.
Trump and his supporters insist the Democrats' outrage about Russia is really an attempt to undermine the validity of his election victory. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a Trump ally, called it "disgraceful" as he spoke to reporters amassed in Trump Tower after meeting with the president-elect.

"Right now, certain elements of the media, certain elements of the intelligence community and certain politicians are really doing the work of the Russians," King said.
There has been no specific, persuasive evidence shared publicly about the extent of Putin's role or knowledge of the hackings. That lack of proof undercuts Democrats' strategy to portray Putin's involvement as irrefutable evidence of a directed Russian government plot to undermine America's democratic system.