Assuming these "rogue-Electors" from the Electoral College get a briefing on the "Russian election-hack" from the CIA, and assuming the Electors have a few working brain cells, and assuming they care, here are the top 11 questions they should ask the CIA presenter:

Questions One through Three (repeated with enthusiasm and fervor): Are you just going to feed us generalities and tell us you can't detail specifics because that would compromise your methods and personnel? We can read the generalities in the Washington Post, whose owner, Jeff Bezos, chief honcho at Amazon, has a $600 million contract with the CIA to provide cloud computing services, so he and the Post and the CIA are in bed together.

Question Four: We need a precise distinction here. How did "Russia hacked the DNC, Hillary, Podesta, and Weiner emails and fed the emails to WikiLeaks who released them" suddenly morph into "Russia hacked the election vote"?

Question Five: The security systems that protected the DNC, Hillary, Podesta, and Weiner emails were so feeble a child could have gotten past them in a few minutes. Why should we assume high-level Russian agents were involved?

Voters should focus upon the corruption exposed by these leaks, not the country or people suspected of uncovering such data

Let's assume for a moment that nobody within the Clinton campaign or DNC sent WikiLeaks thousands of emails, or enabled hackers to infiltrate networks associated with Hillary Clinton. Assuming Russia is trying to influence our elections, and Putin actually favors Trump over Clinton, why would this dynamic exist? Would the neoconservatives openly backing Clinton have gone to war to prevent Russia from invading Georgia and Ukraine?


While establishment Democrats blame Russia, there's no talk about why Clinton would be better than Trump against Putin. There's certainly no talk about the FBI's assessment Hillary Clinton was "extremely careless"and "negligent" with the handling of classified intelligence. Most alarming to people who've devoted their heart and soul towards electing Bernie Sanders, progressive media seems just fine with ignoring the DNC's bias against Vermont's Senator. I explain in this YouTube segment why Democrats have ignored Bernie Sanders being cheated during the Democratic Primary.

Nobody wants Russia to hack American networks or influence our elections. However, voters should focus upon the corruption exposed by these leaks, not the country or people suspected of uncovering such data. Bernie Sanders competed against an opponent who benefited from the DNC contacting Chuck Todd to ensure favorable media coverage ("Chuck, this must stop"), as well as conduct joint fundraisers and even devise anti-Bernie narratives. The Democratic Primary was run by people who were never impartial, although Debbie Wasserman Schultz assured voters the DNC would remain neutral.

The German state is prepared to take "fake news" to the next level and prosecute website operators with espionage.

From Deutsche Welle:

German lawmaker Patrick Sensburg, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), said in an interview with DW on Tuesday that the government needs to consider "ratcheting up the statutory offenses" against fake news producers and "take action against the people who run these websites."

Several German politicians have called for legal measures to combat the growing phenomenon online, with Deputy Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel of the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) saying "we must stand together" against fake news and "social [media] bots."

Officials at FBI headquarters instructed its New York field office to continue its corruption investigation into the Clinton Foundation following the election of Republican candidate Donald Trump, according to a former senior law enforcement official.

The instructions ordered agents to "go forward" with their ongoing inquiry into the Clinton Foundation which is focusing on issues of corruption and money laundering, according to the source.

"There were no instructions to shut it down, to discontinue or to stand down on the investigation, but to continue its work," the former official told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview.

He said he received this information about a week ago and that the order originated from the bureau's headquarters in Washington, D.C. well after the Nov. 8 election. He did not know who at FBI Headquarters issued the order.

Although Hillary Clinton managed to raise a whopping billion dollars during her presidential campaign — that's billion with a 'B' — what's quite clear is that someone, somewhere had made assurances to her that she was going to win without even really having to try because there was no ground campaign in states like Michigan where it mattered.

What do I mean by that?

Check out how supporters showing up at Hillary's campaign offices offering to canvass neighborhoods handing out literature or yard signs were actually turned away empty handed:

After a stunning election loss, the knives appear to be out in Clintonworld.

"Maybe I'm just pissed off, but I really don't give a shit about what happens to Huma to be honest with you," one close adviser to Hillary Clinton told me recently. He was irked, in particular, at Abedin's seemingly superfluous breach of decorum during a post-election event. On the day after Hillary Clinton's stunning loss to Donald Trump, this person said, Abedin appeared within the rope line while Clinton greeted her morose and woebegone supporters. "You're staff, O.K.?" this adviser continued. "Staff is staff. You're not a principal." (A spokesperson for the Clinton campaign notes that Abedin was seated alongside the rest of the campaign's senior leadership team that morning. Abedin declined an interview request.)

In the bizarre month since Clinton's loss, few people besides the candidate herself have seen their fortunes overturned as significantly as has Abedin, 40, the glamorous and charismatic former vice-chair of the campaign. For two decades, Abedin has been a fixture inside Clinton's inner circle; she began her career as a college-aged White House intern and rose to become Clinton's deputy chief of staff at the State Department. As a former adviser to Bill Clinton once put it to me, over time Abedin morphed into "a mini Hillary" herself. She wasn't merely an aide, but rather an amalgamation of adviser, best friend, confidante, and perhaps even surrogate daughter. Abedin "inspires loyalty, and she's loyal back," one Clinton aide told Amy Chozick in her widely read dissection of Clintonworld for The New York Times Magazine, in 2014.

If the western world cared for Syria as much as CNN and the BBC appear to, heaven would reign here on Earth. Every waking hour of every day the tears of British, American, and European media publishers cascade over us. Those "White Helmets", the humanitarian saints, the word wielding White House spokespeople immerse us in their humanity. And their humanity is a sinful joke.

For nearly four years now I've watched this sardonic drama unfold. A Nobel Peace Prize laureate turns the dogs of war loose. Morals and ideals are upended like dancing bowling pins. Liars blame truthtellers for the chaos we see, and those of us who embrace a moderate stance get labeled as trolls, traitors, fakes or worse. Proven criminals and elitist warmongers roam everywhere, and somehow we've evolved to accept it all. Madness is the only word that comes close to describing American policy these days, but the most maddening thing is the hypocrisy and arrogance. BBC! Every time I see the letters under a headline I cringe.

According to CNN, the Syrian Army is executing the families of Free Syrian Army rebels. With western world leaders up in arms over so-called "Fake News", the Cable News Network is sourcing an "activist" named Mohammad Basbous, and a suspect media network called the Aleppo Media Center. With its Twitter account suspended, its Facebook broadcasting clear jihadist propaganda, this writer wonders at how CNN even considered this source. The YouTube channel features videos from Aleppo with soundtrack elements reminiscent of the film The Last Samurai. Bleeding children filmed like method actors, distraught mothers wailing, the angelic White Helmets workers salvaging what they can, the AMC channel shows the Al Nusra side of things without apology. Embedded within this propaganda though, the reality of a lie is readily seen. Scant days before the Syrian Army takes over a neighborhood, brave captains of the rebel uprising proclaim one small victory after another in the face of demonic attacks by Assad and Russia. If the Syria coverage were seen in a carnival tent it would be more convincing.

Stocks of top US automakers crashed on Tuesday after China promised to penalize an unnamed American car manufacturer for monopolistic behavior. General Motors shares fell 3.77 percent, while Ford declined almost two percent.

According to the director of the National Development and Reform Commission Zhang Handong, Chinese investigators found an unnamed American car producer instructed distributors to fix prices from 2014.

"We are unaware of the issue," said Mark Truby, Ford's chief spokesman for its Asia-Pacific operations.

"GM fully respects local laws and regulations wherever we operate. We do not comment on media speculation," the company said.

According to Reuters, the penalty comes after a government crackdown on antitrust violations by foreign car producers. Targeted firms include Audi, Daimler, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota and Nissan.

Amid a violent crackdown on a popular uprising, Bahrain paid CNN to get favorable coverage, says a former reporter who believes her documentary on the protests there was censored by the network. Former CNN journalist Amber Lyon made the documentary more than six months ago. It was aired domestically in the US, but never made it to CNN international, raising claims that the management pulled the plug on the story. RT spoke to Lyon to get the full story of what happened.

RT: You feel your documentary should have been aired internationally. Why?

Amber Lyon: I've created a lot of documentaries for CNN that didn't air internationally. Most I feel should've been aired internationally because seasoned, decades-long employees have approached me after it wasn't aired and told me this should've been aired on CNN International and told that they felt that something strange was going on and that I should investigate it. And that's where it was uncovered that we felt that this documentary was censored, because Bahrain was actually a paying customer for CNN. Bahrain is paying CNN to create content that shows Bahrain in a favorable light. Even though CNN says its content is editorially independent Bahrain can affect that - what we've seen with that documentary not airing and also with the constant struggle I had at CNN to get Bahrain coverage, accurate coverage of the human rights abuses on-air while I was there.

RT: CNN prides itself as a bastion of excellent journalism and impartiality, but in this case have they let themselves down?

AL: What CNN is doing is they are essentially creating what some people have termed "infomercials for dictators." And that's the sponsored content that they are airing on CNN International that is actually being paid for by regimes and governments. And this violates every principle of journalistic ethics, because we're supposed to be watchdogs on these governments. We are not supposed to allow them to be a paying customer as journalists. And that's the issue here - that CNN is feeding, then, this propaganda to the public and not fairly disclosing to the public that this is sponsored content.

Trump's pick for national security adviser, Michael Flynn, is under fire after the Washington Post reported he "inappropriately shared" classified data with foreign military in Afghanistan. However, the report has been deemed biased and lacking details.

Retired US Army Lieutenant General Flynn came under scrutiny in 2010 after an unnamed Navy Intelligence specialist accused him - then a Major-General - of leaking secrets to "various" military officers and officials. At the time, Flynn served as US military intelligence chief in Afghanistan.

A number of US Army documents, obtained by the Washington Post, show that the informant shared "United States classified information" while in Afghanistan "without proper authorization." As the case remains classified, the Army's Judge Advocate General pressed by the Post's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, released only four pages of the "secret" investigation.

Following the informant's tip, the head of US Central Command "initiated" a "thorough" probe. Titled AR 15-6, it was conducted by "a properly appointed official," who found no misconduct in Flynn's actions. According to the papers, it was established that "the sharing of classified information was not done knowingly and there was no actual or potential damage to national security."

The Department of Defense Inspector General also reviewed the investigation and "concurred" with the findings. "The Commander, CENTCOM review the AR 15-6 investigation and noted the efforts to properly cleanse the foreign officer's read-books. He further stated that there was no evidence of senior officer misconduct, rather there was keen attention to mission accomplishment in a coalition, combat environment," the documents read. Hence, no actions were taken against Flynn. Neither has the probe affected his promotion to Lieutenant General as no "legal objections to the nomination" were found by Office of the Secretary of Defense and General Counsel of the Department of Defense either.