Things Democrats Wish They Could Remember About Donald Trump


Failure to Disclose Russian Donors

Remember when Donald Trump failed to disclose Russian donors to his charitable foundation before coming into office?

Actually, Hillary Clinton did that before becoming Secretary of State (as reported by the New York Times).

Inordinate Pay for a Moscow Speech

Remember when Donald Trump gave a speech in Moscow and was paid $500,000.00?

Oh, yeah. That was what Bill Clinton did while Hillary was Secretary of State, as reported by National Review.

A Pledge to Strengthen Russia

Remember how Donald Trump said that “Our goal is to help strengthen Russia” on Russian national TV?

Again, that was Hillary Clinton, trying to explain her poorly-translated “reset” button to Vladimir Posner, as reported by Nationl Review.

Russian Business Partners Raise $35 Million from Russian Government

Remember Donald Trump going into business with Russian partners and the company received $35 million from the Russian government?

Nope, that was Hillary campaign manager John Podesta, as reported by CNN.

Transfer of US Uranium to Russian company

Remember how Donald Trump arranged for a Russian firm to receive 20% of United States uranium reserves in exchange for millions to the family charitable foundation?

That was Hillary Clinton, as reported by the New York Times.

Protected by Two Departments of US Law Enforcement

Remember how the head of the FBI and the Justice Department worked to provide Donald Trump cover?

That was Hillary Clinton to whom James Comey (as reported by the New York Times) and Loretta Lynch (as reported by Cybercast News) sought to provide political cover.

Did Attorney General Lynch provide cover for Hillary Clinton?


She protected Clinton.

Comey says, “The subject is classified.”

In a 3 May 2017 Cybercast News Service article, Comey’s refusal to comment on an e-mail concerning how the Attorney General favorably treated one presidential candidate should be raising some questions.

“Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) raised questions but received no answers from FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday, when Grassley pointed to an April 22 New York Times report saying that Comey believed Attorney General Loretta Lynch gave Hillary Clinton ‘political cover’ during the presidential campaign.

‘The subject is classified,’ Comey said in response to Grassley’s questions.

The New York Times reported that Comey’s ‘misgivings’ about Lynch were fueled by the discovery last year of a document ‘written by a Democratic operative that seemed — at least in the eyes of Mr. Comey and his aides — to raise questions about her independence.’

Grassley told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, ‘The email reportedly provided assurances that Attorney General Lynch would protect Clinton by making sure the FBI investigation, quote, ‘didn’t go too far.’

Grassley asked Comey, ‘How and when did you learn of this document? Also, who sent it and who received it?’

‘That’s not a question I can answer in this forum, Mr. Chairman, because it would call for a classified response,’ Comey replied. ‘I have briefed leadership of the intelligence committees on that particular issue, but I can’t talk about it here.’

You can expect me to follow up on that point,’ Grassley said. And he continued:

‘What steps did the FBI take to determine whether Attorney General Lynch had actually given assurances that the political fix was in, no matter what? Did the FBI interview the person who wrote the email? If not, why not?’

‘I have to give you the same answer — I can’t talk about that in an unclassified setting,’ Comey responded.

‘OK, then you can expect me to follow up on that,’ Grassley said again.

Grassley then told Comey he had asked the FBI to provide the email in question to the Judiciary Committee before the start of Wednesday’s hearing: ‘Why haven’t you done so, and will you provide it by the end of this week?’ he asked.

‘Again, to react to that, I have to give a classified answer, and I can’t give it sitting here,’ Comey replied.

(Read more at Cybercast News Service)

While I am thankful that the New York Times did report on the e-mail, this story is not receiving the attention that it deserves. The government has no business favoring one candidate over another.

Lawless

Loretta comes out as a political hack

Furthermore, a 3 May 2017 RedState article corroborates the previous article by noting:

The NY Times piece about James Comey and how the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server shaped the election is fascinating reading. People will hold it up as “proof” Comey was in part, responsible for Hillary Clinton’s loss but as I wrote previously, the charge doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

Lost amid all of the hyperventilating about Comey is a revelation proving Loretta Lynch, instead of fulfilling her duties as Attorney General, was more interested in giving Hillary Clinton, political cover.

In September of that year, as Mr. Comey prepared for his first public questions about the case at congressional hearings and press briefings, he went across the street to the Justice Department to meet with Ms. Lynch and her staff.

Both had been federal prosecutors in New York — Mr. Comey in the Manhattan limelight, Ms. Lynch in the lower-wattage Brooklyn office. The 6-foot-8 Mr. Comey commanded a room and the spotlight. Ms. Lynch, 5 feet tall, was known for being cautious and relentlessly on message. In her five months as attorney general, she had shown no sign of changing her style.

At the meeting, everyone agreed that Mr. Comey should not reveal details about the Clinton investigation. But Ms. Lynch told him to be even more circumspect: Do not even call it an investigation, she said, according to three people who attended the meeting. Call it a ‘matter.’

A “matter.”

It aligns with Hillary’s earlier lie where she said FBI involvement in her email server was a “security review” rather than a criminal investigation.

A national security prosecutor mocked Lynch’s viewpoint:

As the meeting broke up, George Z. Toscas, a national security prosecutor, ribbed Mr. Comey. “I guess you’re the Federal Bureau of Matters now,” Mr. Toscas said, according to two people who were there.

Hillary used the IRS to intimidate a minion for her family foundation


Hillary’s Minion’s try to take on the tactics of Minion Lerner

A 25 April 2016 Daily Caller article indicates that Hillary Clinton’s minions started playing from the playbook of Barack Obama and his minion Lois Lerner.

“Hillary Clinton’s Department of State aides allegedly threatened a South Asian prime minister’s son with an IRS audit in an attempt to stop a Bangladesh government investigation of a close friend and donor of Clinton’s, The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group learned.

A Bangladesh government commission was investigating multiple charges of financial mismanagement at Grameen Bank, beginning in May 2012. Muhammad Yunus, a major Clinton Foundation donor, served as managing director of the bank.

Sajeeb Wazed Joy, son of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and permanent U.S. resident, recalled the account of the threatened IRS audit to TheDCNF. The allegations mark the first known instance in the U.S. that Clinton’s Department of State used IRS power to intimidate a close relative of a friendly nation’s head of state on behalf of a Clinton Foundation donor.

Wazed told TheDCNF it was ‘astounding and mind boggling’ that senior State Department officials between 2010 and 2012 repeatedly pressured him to influence his mother to drop the commission investigation.

The commission report was released in early 2013.

‘They threatened me with the possibility of an audit by the Internal Revenue Service,’ he said. ‘I have been here legally for 17 years and never had a problem. But they said, ‘well, you know, you might get audited.’

‘They would say over and over again, ‘Yunus has powerful friends’ and we all knew they were talking of Secretary Clinton. Everybody knew it was Mrs. Clinton,’ Wazed told TheDCNF.

The Prime Minister originally disclosed in general terms the pressure exerted on her son at a February reception in Munich.

‘Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has said her son Sajeeb Wazed Joy had to face pressure from the US State Department to keep Muhammad Yunus as the Grameen Bank managing director, the Dhaka Tribune reported.

‘Hillary Clinton phoned me and exerted the same pressure. Even the U.S. State Department summoned my son Joy three times and told him that we would face trouble,’ Hasina added.

Hasina said State Department officials told Joy that Clinton would not take the matter lightly.

‘Convince your mother,’ she recalled Joy quoting officials.

However, Hasina never provided details of the ordeal her son faced until his interview with TheDCNF.

The World Bank also decided to rescind a $1.2 billion loan to Bangladesh while the IRS was pressuring Joy in 2012. The money was requested in order to build a key bridge near the capital city of Dhaka. The World Bank leveled bribery charges against two Canadian officials, but a Canadian court later acquitted both individuals.

Former Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dipu Moni, who twice met with then-Secretary of State Clinton, told TheDCNF it was apparent there were links between the World Bank loan cancellation and Yunus. Moni now is chairwoman of the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs.

‘Whether there was any abuse by the U.S. Government or the secretary of state, that I cannot say,’ Moni said. ‘I can only say we saw two facts: One was the communications from the State Department, and then the other one was the withdrawal of World Bank’s loan.’

But she was more direct about Yunus’ role in the World Bank cancellation.

‘Professor Yunus obviously tried to punish or tried to retaliate and punish the government of Bangladesh, especially [Prime Minister] Sheikh Hasina,’ she said. ‘He knew how important the Padma [bridge] was for our economy, for our people’s government, and it would revive the whole of south of Bangladesh.’

‘Obviously, he tried to use that to get out of the situation he was in, and he wanted to punish the government,’ she said.

Wade claimed he received threats from all levels of the State Department.

‘The threats came from all levels. It came from the U.S. Embassy in Bangladesh to pretty senior officials within the State Department.’

Wade regularly met many State Department officials as he lived near the nation’s capital. He considered many to be friends and colleagues, but the tone and substance of the discussions radically changed beginning in 2010. “

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Along with Hillary’s Russian uranium deal, isn’t this the type of wheeling and dealing that Hillary was denying during the campaign? Doesn’t this validate everything that Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump were saying about her?

A NYU play accidentally proves why Trump won


In a play, Trump and Hillary are flipped across the gender divide

As a result, new details become evident

As reported by Amer Athey in a Camput Reform 9 March 2017 article,

“An experiment designed to reveal gender bias by reenacting the presidential debates with the candidates’ genders reversed found that Hillary Clinton would have been even less likeable as a man.

Maria Guadalupe and Joe Salvatore, two professors at New York University, planned to demonstrate the alleged gender bias Clinton faced in the 2016 election by acting out the presidential debates with Trump as a woman and Hillary as a man, reports NYU News.

The goal of the ‘Her Opponent’ project was to prove that people would not have accepted Trump’s aggressive behavior had it come from a woman, and that Hillary’s debate style would be much more likable if she were a man.

The professors and audiences of the mock debates, however, were ‘unsettled’ to discover that the opposite was true—Trump became more likable as a woman and Hillary became even less likable as a man.

To isolate the gender variable to the greatest extent possible, the actors portraying the candidates sought to emulate their debate performances exactly, down to gestures and intonation, though it was necessary in some instances to tweak the language to reflect the gender reversal.”

‘We both thought that the inversion would confirm our liberal assumption—that no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate,’ Salvatore explained. ‘But we kept checking in with each other and realized that this disruption—a major change in perception—was happening. I had an unsettled feeling the whole way through.’

Salvatore also related that several audience members felt they finally understood how Trump won after watching the gender-swapped debate.”

(Read more at Campus Reform)

To further illustrate this point, consider the video provided by The Guardian and their video subsidiary Guardian Wires.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

A victory for equality under the law is cast as bullying by the left


Judicial Watch press release on the 27 December 2016 ruling

On 27 December 2016, Judicial Watch provided the following press release:

“Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding today’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a case that would require Secretary of State John Kerry to seek the help of the attorney general in recovering additional Hillary Clinton emails:

The courts seem to be fed up with the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce the rule of law on the Clinton emails.  Today’s appeals court ruling rejects the Obama State Department’s excuses justifying its failure to ask the attorney general, as the law requires, to pursue the recovery of the Clinton emails.  This ruling means that the Trump Justice Department will have to decide if it wants to finally enforce the rule of law and try to retrieve all the emails Clinton and her aides unlawfully took with them when they left the State Department.

The appellate ruling reverses a decision in which the District Court declared “moot” a Judicial Watch’s lawsuit challenging the failure of Secretary of State John Kerry to comply with the Federal Records Act (FRA) in seeking to recover the emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other high level State Department officials who used non-“state.gov” email accounts to conduct official business (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. John F. Kerry (No. 16-5015)). According to the FRA, if an agency head becomes aware of “any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal . . . or destruction of [agency] records,” he or she “shall notify the Archivist . . . and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of [those] records.”
An appellate panel found:

Appellants sought the only relief provided by the Federal Records Act—an enforcement action through the Attorney General. But nothing the Department did (either before or after those complaints were filed) gave appellants what they wanted. Instead of proceeding through the Attorney General, the Department asked the former Secretary to return her emails voluntarily and similarly requested that the FBI share any records it obtained.  Even though those efforts bore some fruit, the Department has not explained why shaking the tree harder—e.g., by following the statutory mandate to seek action by the Attorney General—might not bear more still. It is therefore abundantly clear that, in terms of assuring government recovery of emails, appellants have not ‘been given everything [they] asked for.’  Absent a showing that the requested enforcement action could not shake loose a few more emails, the case is not moot.

In May 2015 Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the State Department failed to take action following a letter to Kerry ‘notifying him of the unlawful removal of the Clinton emails and requesting that he initiate enforcement action pursuant to the FRA,’ including working through the Attorney General to recover the emails.  Judicial Watch’s lawsuit subsequently was consolidated with a later lawsuit by Cause of Action Institute.  This ruling reverses a January 2016 decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissing the case and remands it.”

When liberals talk about any action taken in response to Hillary’s illegal server, her handling of classified information, or any other related phase of this mess, they want to refer to prosecution and investigation as “harassment” (refer to the part of this post that links to Mother Jones).  Odd how liberals seem to want exempt the political class from the law.  If anyone finds fault with the Trump administration, will the same standard remain in place?

Of course, I don’t want Republicans to be as openly corrupt as Democrats.  Truthfully, I would like to see all politicians held to a high standard.

The Hill reports on appeals court reopening cases centering on Hillary’s emails

In a 28 December 2016 article by The Hill, all parties to the lawsuit come to the fore.

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Tuesday reversed a lower court’s ruling that the State Department’s review of Clinton’s emails was sufficient — and that no intervention by the Justice Department was needed.

Watchdog groups Judicial Watch and Cause of Action filed separate suits in 2015 seeking to force Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Archivist David Ferriero to refer the email issue to the Department of Justice to file a federal records suit to recover the emails.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg had previously ruled that state’s efforts to recover the documents — tens of thousands of which Clinton turned over voluntarily in 2014 — were sufficient and threw out the cases.

But the three-judge appeals court panel on Tuesday said that State had not done enough.

‘Even though those efforts bore some fruit, the Department has not explained why shaking the tree harder — e.g., by following the statutory mandate to seek action by the Attorney General — might not bear more still,’ D.C. Circuit Judge Stephen Williams, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote in the court’s opinion. ‘It is therefore abundantly clear that, in terms of assuring government recovery of emails, appellants have not ‘been given everything [they] asked for.

‘Absent a showing that the requested enforcement action could not shake loose a few more emails, the case is not moot.’ “

(Read more at The Hill)

Thank heavens that some within Obama’s courts find more allegiance to the law than they do to the Democrat party.

OneNewsNow gets a statement from Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch

Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch spoke with OneNewsNow, as shown by a 30 December 2016 article.

“Judicial Watch maintains that it has won a major court ruling from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a case that would require Secretary of State John Kerry to seek the help of the Attorney General in recovering Clinton’s additional emails.

Chris Farrell, who serves as director of Research and Investigation at Judicial Watch, is confident that the email scandal is not going away anytime soon.

‘We’re going to get to the bottom of this,’ Farrell assured. ‘It doesn’t matter whether the public’s attention has shifted to something else, [and] it doesn’t matter because Mrs. Clinton wasn’t elected. That’s not what we’re asking about. Those records belong to the American public – and we’re going to fight to get them back.

Farrell also insists that all of these questions that are being asked in this civil proceeding could reveal information that incoming Attorney General Jeff Sessions may be compelled to act on.

‘The national security crimes that Mrs. Clinton committed, those of the circle around her people – like Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills – there’s a national security crime involved,’ Farrell argued ‘There [are] serious fundraising questions concerning the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative – their supposed charities which are really just money-laundering operations and influence-buying rackets.’ “

(Read the rest at OneNewsNow)

One does have to wonder how many felonious hands are in this soup of illegal servers, mishandled state secrets, and other criminal activity.  Will Hillary be rooming with Huma, Cheryl, and a number of other Democrat operatives?

Hyperbole by leftists at Mother Jones

In a piece published on Mother Jones titled: Judicial Watch Wants to Salt the Earth Over Hillary Clinton’s Corpse, one writer concludes his article in a way that would have everyone believe that Judicial Watch (and the coopted and corrupt Justice Department) should just let poor Hillary alone now that she has forever lost the last seat of power she can ever lose.

” Judicial Watch was founded for the purpose of destroying Bill Clinton, and then switched effortlessly to a new mission of destroying Hillary Clinton. It took more than 20 years, but they finally won. Victory is theirs. Bill Clinton has been out of office for years and Hillary Clinton will never be president of the United States.

But they just can’t stop. Maybe there are more emails! Somewhere there’s a smoking gun! There just has to be. I swear, 20 years from now, on the day after the funeral of whichever Clinton lives the longest, Judicial Watch will be filing lawsuits against their estate demanding more emails.”

So there it is: the party that tried to bury it’s Dixiecrat past by painting itself as the hippie-dippy representative of the common man has changed again. Now it is the home of the above-the-law Establishment-crats.

Hillary Drills Down on Defeat in Electoral College


A record four electors change their votes from Hillary — Three more try

In quite a turn-around from what had been expected by the mainstream media, Hillary Clinton has found a way to garner more defeat from this election. As reported in a 19 December 2016 MartketWatch article, four electors successfully changed their vote from Hillary Clinton. An additional two attempted to change their vote, but were unsuccessful.

“The 2016 presidential election continues to defy expectations as ‘faithless electors’ emerged among Democrats refusing to support Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

In the run-up to the vote of the Electorial College, all eyes had been on whether any Republican electors would refuse to vote for Donald Trump. There had reports of last-ditch lobbying asking electors to switch from Trump to Clinton.

Instead, it has been Democratic electors who were balking.

In Washington state, three Democratic electors voted for Colin Powell and one for Faith Spotted Eagle, who has been fighting the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota, instead of Clinton.

In Minnesota, elector Muhammad Abdurrahman didn’t vote for Clinton and was replaced by an alternate who did. According to the Los Angeles Times, Abdurrahman was a delegate for Bernie Sanders at the Democratic National Convention.

In Maine, elector David Bright tried to vote for Sanders but was rebuffed and ended up voting for Clinton, according to the Associated Press.”

Only in Colorado – a Clinton elector tries to vote for Kasich to get Republicans to revolt

Through a 19 December 2016 report from the Denver Post, we learn of a screwy plan to unseat Trump … by having a Democrat vote for Kasich.

Nine Colorado presidential electors on Monday cast their votes for Hillary Clinton, winner of the general election in the state, but only after one broke ranks and was replaced.

In what usually is a ceremonial affair that rubber stamps the popular vote in all 50 states, Monday’s meeting of Colorado’s Electoral College delegates was derailed moments after it began. Attorneys phoned in a judge in a last-ditch effort to unbind electors from the popular vote and allow them to vote as they pleased.

By the time votes finally were cast at about 12:45 p.m. — 45 minutes after the ceremony was scheduled to begin — it was clear that the broader national effort to block Donald Trump from being elected was destined to fail.

But Micheal Baca, a Democratic Colorado elector who was among the leaders of that effort, cast a vote for Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich, anyway — just moments after he took an oath to vote for Clinton. He was one of six so-called “faithless electors” across the country Monday.

The scene at the Colorado capitol dissolved into a chorus of boos and shouts as the tally was announced and officials moved to replace Baca, as allowed under procedures outlined in a court hearing last week.

It will be interesting to see how Obama and Hillary blame this on the Russians.  Following are tweets primarily from papers local to the defections (both successful and not).

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsOne relevant Bible verse

For the past month, Hillary has done everything to nullify the election. Therefore, this is fitting.

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. (Galatians 6:7-9 NASB)

Christians should not take part in illegality


Christians should not clandestinely break laws

Admittedly, it is my firm conviction that nobody should be shackled with the Johnson Amendment.  However, if we are to scrub this law from the books, then we must follow Dr. M.L. King’s example.  Break it openly, suffer the results, and point out how it violates the Constitution and natural law. Therefore, I could hardly contain my disappointment in fellow Christians who (though probably well-meaning and wanting to extend special help to those in need) stooped to Satan’s methods when purporting to work for God’s church.

Mack:
(in car)
So, prayerfully, you’ll go in and just hit straight Democratic ticket.
 
Mack:
(at table)
He could possibly make the check to you. You cash the check and just bring the cash … Yeah, yeah
 
Reporter: So we would want to keep all this on the DL (down low) then? We wouldn’t want … This isn’t something that we could, we would, do press or …
 
Johnson: Absolutely not.

We’ve got people to get on school buses and go to Indianapolis and the state houses and we just need you to show up. They didn’t even know what they were going down there for, all they know is the pastor asked them.
 

Mack: It really comes back to anything this city, or in this area in Gary, Hammond, and Chicago and the church. It’s going to be the driving force for anything that happens. We put politicians in office.
 
Narrator: Our journalists met Reverend Marlon Mack of Sweet Home Missionary Baptist Church in Gary, Indiana on the night of the state’s primary election in May. He was attending a victory for local Democrats.
 
Reporter: Getting the, you know, the bodies from point A to point B, from the pews to the polls.
 
Mack: We make our vans available, we do voter registrations in our churches. Get people ready so we make our vans  available to take people to polling places. We have training people to help people fill out absentee ballots.  All of those types of things within our churches …

It really does sort-of depend on what community you’re in.  You’re going to see that more in economically marginalized communities or minority communities, where basically the church is all they have.
 

Narrator: We posed as political consultants and Reverend Mack was more than happy to tell us about his political influence.  We scheduled a meeting with Reverend Mack and a friend of his (Reverend Marion Jackson) to see what they would be up to on election day.
 
Johnson: We’ve got people to get on school buses and go to Indianapolis and the state houses and we just need you to show up. They didn’t even know what they were going down there for, all they know is the pastor asked them. We support Bayh. We actually do support him. I’ve been on him for years. I’ve known him and I know he’s a good man. Some other things he’s done since he’s been in office. So nobody has to persuade us to vote for him. The thing is, I keep repeating this: “Get out people to the polls.” If we get out people to the polls, they know who to vote for. It’s not going to be: “Oh, who do I vote for” because we’re going to tell them who to vote for. We will. We won’t get up and just announce it, but everybody knows. Like everybody in my church, they know who I’m voting for, they know who my candidate is and most church congregations take the pastor’s lead.
 
Reporter: So it’s also a matter of the door itself … who you guys let. So it’s not technically an endorsement but the fact that they say, okay, the pastor. And that not a 501C (violation).
 
Johnson: Well, it’s an endorsement.
 
Narrator: IRS code provides that 501 (c) 3 organizations cannot “Participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of/in opposition to any candidate for public office.”  Pastors and church staff should not be using church resources to engage in political campaigns.
 
Reporter: So, how do you plan to get people to the polls then this year, as of right now?
 
Mack: I mean bottom line is, hey, we need you to do this.
 
Johnson: We mobilize people. We go pick our people up.
 
Mack: Yeah, we need you to go. We need you to do this. We know we aren’t supposed to tell you who to vote for, but we’ll tell you why you should vote for this person and why it matters.
 
Johnson: My thing is this, when I make my announcement, we had church yesterday, what I do is tell people who I am going to vote for. I say, “I’m voting for Hillary Clinton” and that’s automatically telling my congregation to vote for Hillary Clinton.
 
Narrator: Reverend Mack and Reverend Johnson told us many times that they were sure their community would follow their lead at the polls as long as they had the funds.
 
Mack: We have church vans. We have churches that make their vans available.
 
Reporter: Sp you can use money for gas?
 
Mack: That’s right. And pay drivers.
 
Johnson: The drivers and then if they wanted to stop and get …
 
Mack: They have to feed a few people.
 
Reporter: So the drivers aren’t volunteers?
 
Johnson: They are volunteers …
 
Reporter: But you can get more if you had bus drivers?  You pay them, you get more?
 
Johnson: See, we’re still working with an impoverished area. If I tell a guy, “I need you to drive all day,” he’ll say “Well, pastor, look.  I can give you a couple of hours, but I need to do something else, you know. I’m trying to make it.” But if I tell them I can have you drive all day and this is what I’m going to be able to give you for driving all day. And plus I’ll give you something to eat.
 
Mack: Even that could possibly work because just in case we do need to get people to our church before they go to the polls, load up on them. We may have something inside the church that we can say, now listen, when you go to the polls … This is what’s at stake, this is what we need to do. We need to make sure that this person has our best interest at heart. This person supports this and that doesn’t help us. And, you know, and just have doughnuts and coffee, even if it’s just that.
 
Johnson: Pizza, chicken, it’s like a rally, it’s a campaign rally before you go out. It’s really like a full fledged campaign rally in individual churches.
 
Reporter: So people … they’re hungry, they can’t spend a day, they need to go out and get resources and food for themselves.
 
Johnson: But if you have some of that stuff for them they aren’t going anywhere. They going to do exactly what you direct them to do.
 
Narrator: They were hoping that our journalists would connect them with a donor to fund their “get out the vote” efforts. And there was a very specific way they wanted the donation to be made.
 
Johnson: It’s got to be passed confidential through the pastor.
 
Reporter: So let me understand just from the, how it would happen transactionally.
 
Mack: He could possibly make the check to you. You cash the check and just bring the cash. Or he could make the check to a particular church and then it works out as a charitable donation, mainly because it looks like he just gave a donation to the church. … But if he writes it to the church, then it’s just a donation to the church.
 
Reporter: Because then there might be a, oh you got a check, how did you spend the money? It would have to make sure it went to the church.
 
Johnson: Yeah, there would be a paper trail.  The simplest way would be, so you don’t have to worry about anyone of that, he would make the check to you guys. You guys would cash it and give it to us as a charitable donation to the church.
 
Reporter: And that could be anonymous.
 
Johnson: Right, anonymous. A charitable donation will never get you into any trouble either and it won’t get us in any trouble. Let’s say some Republican decides he wants to find out and then we’ve got this check trail.
 
Mack: He writes a check to the church, okay, why is he writing a check to a church in Gary, Indiana? As opposed to just giving, writing a check to you guys whom he has a professional relationship, which could simply be consulting fees.
 
Reporter: So we would want to keep all this on the DL (Down Low) then? We wouldn’t want …
 
Mack: Yeah, yeah.
 
Reporter: This isn’t something that we could, we would do press or …
 
Johnson: Absolutely not.
 
Narrator: And what was wrong about the payments being made public?
 
Johnson: See, then you open us up with, let me tell you what happens if you do that, … Then some Republicans come araound, we would have to do the same thing, because we would be seen as being biased towards the Democratic Party. So this eliminates that, you wouldn’t put us in a position where we would have to work with people like Trump. Or some other people that we don’t really support, our people don’t support them. But we would have to just go through the motions, like we did with you guys.
 
Mack: I mean literally, we can have twenty vans roll up.
 
Johnson: And you see all these vans rolling to the polls. With the name of the church and the pastor’s name on the side. And they know that the pastor’s providing that. They know who they’re voting for. They know who they’re supporting.
 
Narrator: It’s Election Day and we decided to send some journalists to Gary, Indiana to see if we could be told who to vote for.
 
Reporter: Are you Reverend Mack?
 
Mack: Yeah.
 
Reporter: Oh, hi. My dad is from Georgia and he’s actually voting for Trump that’s why I’ve been so on the fence about it.
 
Mack: Why?
 
Reporter: He says that he likes his business experience and that he says what he means all the time I guess, I don’t know.
 
Mack: That’s not always a good thing. If someone’s impulsive and they act on their feelings. For Christ’s sake this guy’s gonna have the nuclear launch codes – he’s gonna wake up “screw Iran!” and starts a war. That’s not always a good thing. We need leadership who does have the courage to stand for their convictions but also has the self-control to think beyond their immediate actions.
 
Reporter: So should I just vote straight ticket Democrat?
 
Mack: That would be nice … you’re heading to the polls and don’t really have a lot of information to deal with issues … that would be probably the best bet. So, prayerfully, you’ll go in and just hit straight Democratic ticket.
 
Narrator: I guess you wouldn’t want anyone making a mistake and voting for the person of their own choice