Posts Tagged ‘Barack Hussein Obama’

Donald Trump’s DACA Deal with Schumer and Pelosi’s Dream Act

Donald Trump’s DACA Deal with Schumer and Pelosi’s Dream Act

Donald-Trump's-Amnesty-DACA-Deal-with-Chuck-Schumer-and-Nancy-Pelosi's-Dreamer-Act1. What is DACA?

DACA is short for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was immigration policy that initiated by Jihadi Hussein Obama, as part of an executive order (after failing to pass legislation), that allowed illegal aliens as minors to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and to be eligible for a work permit. As of 2017, approximately 800,000 individuals—referred to as Dreamers after the DREAM Act bill—were enrolled in the program created by DACA. However, it is estimated that the actually number of illegal aliens is at least 3 times larger, or at least 2.4 millions, as many of the illegal aliens have refused or yet enrolled in the program. If this number is allowed to become US citizens and sponsor their family members over to United States, the total number would be at least 6 times larger than 2.4 millions, or 20.4 millions, as the average family size in Mexico, South, and Central America is around 6. with new 20.4 million Democrat voters, it is almost certain that the Republican Party will never win another election again, ever. The policy was established by the Obama administration in June 2012 in order to provide prosecutorial discretion to federal agencies with limited resources.

In November 2014 Jihadi Hussein Obama announced his intention to expand DACA to cover additional illegal immigrants. But multiple states immediately sued to prevent the expansion, which was ultimately blocked by the courts. The United States Department of Homeland Security rescinded the expansion on June 16, 2017, while continuing to review the existence of the DACA program as a whole. The DACA policy was rescinded by the Trump administration on September 5, 2017, but full implementation of the rescission was delayed six months to give Congress time to decide how to deal with the population that was previously eligible under the policy.

2. Eligibility

To be eligible, illegal immigrants must

a. Have entered the United States before their 16th birthday and prior to June 15, 2007

b. Be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012 (i.e., born on June 16, 1981 or after)

c. Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time;

d. Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States

e. Be physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS

f. Not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor or three other misdemeanors, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety

The program does not provide lawful status or a path to citizenship, nor does it provide eligibility for federal welfare or student aid.

In August 2012, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that as many as 1.76 million people could be eligible for DACA. Of those, 28% were under 15 and would have to wait until reaching that age to apply. In addition, roughly 20% did not meet any of the education criteria, but could become eligible by enrolling in a program before submitting their application. 74% of the eligible population was born in Mexico or Central America. Smaller proportions came from Caribbean and South America (11%), Asia (9%), and the rest of the world (6%).

3. Expansion

In November 2014, jihadi Hussein Obama announced changes to DACA which would expand it to include illegal immigrants who entered the country prior to 2010, eliminate the requirement that applicants be younger than 31 years old, and lengthen the renewable deferral period to two years. The Pew Research Center estimated that this would increase the number of eligible people by about 330,000.

DACA and its proposed expansions were challenged in court but only one challenge was upheld. One of these challenges was filed on August 23, 2012 when ten agents from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sued Janet Napolitano, the then-Secretary of Homeland Security. The plaintiffs claimed that following the new lenient deportation policies established by DACA required them to violate the law. Almost a year later, judge Reed O’Connor from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the lawsuit by ruling that it was not within his court’s jurisdiction to decide on what essentially was a dispute between federal employees and their employer, the U.S. government. Nonetheless, in his decision to dismiss the case, the judge reiterated his view that DACA was inherently unlawful. The plaintiffs then filed an appeal but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal on procedural grounds.

The first challenge against the DACA expansions was filed by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio on November 20, 2014. In the lawsuit, Arpaio claimed that DACA and its expansions were “unconstitutional, arbitrary and capricious, and invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act as, in effect, regulations that have been promulgated without the requisite opportunity for public notice and comment.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia promptly dismissed the lawsuit ruling that Arpaio did not have standing. That decision was upheld unanimously by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on August 14, 2015. Arpaio then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, but on January 19, 2016, the court denied that request.

In December 2014, Texas and 25 other states, all with Republican governors, sued in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas asking the court to enjoin implementation of both the DACA expansion and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (a similar program).

The challenge that was upheld was filed on December 2014 by Texas and 25 other states—all with Republican governors. The group of states sued to enjoin the implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA)—another immigration policy—and the DACA expansions announced by the Obama administration. In the lawsuit, the states claimed that, by expanding DACA, the president failed to enforce the nation’s immigration laws in contravention to Article Two of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the states claimed that the president unilaterally rewrote the law through his actions.

As part of that challenge, In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the expansion from going into effect while the case, Texas vs United States, proceeds. After progressing through the court system, the appeals court ruled 2–1 in favor of enjoining the DACA expansion. When the Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia’s untimely death left an 8 justice court, which then ruled equally divided (4–4) for and against the injunction. Procedural rules of the Court in the case of a tie would mean that no opinion would be written, no precedent would be set by the Supreme Court in the case, and that the appellate court’s ruling would stand. After progressing through the court system, an equally divided (4–4) Supreme Court left the injunction in place, without setting any precedent.

The court’s temporary injunction did not affect the existing DACA. At the time, individuals were allowed to continue to come forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA under the guidelines established in 2012.

4. Ronald Reagan’s Amnesty Act of 1986 effectively turned red state California blue




5. Plan to end DACA

While running for president, Donald Trump said that he intended to repeal DACA on “day one” of his presidency.

Donald Trump used Angel Moms during his Presidential campaign for Election in 2016. Sep 1, 2016.


Donald Trump used Jamiel Shaw Sr. during his Presidential campaign for Election in 2016. July 11, 2015.


Donald Trump used Jamiel Shaw Sr. during his Presidential campaign for Election in 2016. July 18, 2016.


Donald Trump met with immigration crime victims at White House. Jun 28, 2017.


Donald Trump constantly mentioned building the wall in the southern border as his main campaign promise.

On February 14, 2017, a CNN report on the detention of 23-year-old Daniel Ramirez Medina in Northwest Detention Center, Tacoma, Washington following his arrest in his father’s Des Moines, Washington home, observed that “The case raises questions about what it could mean” for the 750,000 Dreamers, who had “received permission to stay under DACA.” On March 7, 22-year-old Daniela Vargas of Jackson, Mississippi, another DACA recipient was detained by ICE, further raising speculation about President Trump’s commitment to Dreamers and questioning whether immigrants who speak out against the administration’s policies should fear retaliation. Vargas was released from LaSalle Detention Center on March 10, 2017, and Ramirez Medina’s release followed on March 29.

On June 16, 2017, the United States Department of Homeland Security announced that it intended to repeal the executive order by the Barack Obama administration that expanded the DACA program, though the DACA program’s overall existence would continue to be reviewed.

On September 5, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the program is being repealed. Sessions said that the DACA-eligible individuals were lawbreakers who adversely impacted the wages and employment of native-born Americans. Sessions also attributed DACA as a leading cause behind the surge in unaccompanied minors coming to the United States from Central America. Trump said that “virtually all” “top legal experts” believed that DACA was unconstitutional. Fact-checkers have said that only a few economists believe that DACA adversely affects native-born workers, that there is scant evidence that DACA caused the surge in unaccompanied minors, and that it is false that all “top legal experts” believe DACA to be unconstitutional.

Sessions added that implementation will be suspended for six months; DACA status and Employment Authorization Documents (“EAD”) that expire during the next six months will continue to be renewed. DACA recipients with a work permit set to expire on or before March 5, 2018 will have the opportunity to apply for a two-year renewal if their application is received by USCIS by October 5, 2017. In a followup statement, Trump said “It is now time for Congress to act!” The approximately 800,000 immigrants who qualified enrolled in DACA will become eligible for deportation by the end of those six months. A White House memo said that DACA recipients should “use the time remaining on their work authorizations to prepare for and arrange their departure from the United States.”

6. DACA Deal

After Democratic Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced that Donald Trump agreed with their DACA deal to give illegal aliens amnesty, as part of the Democrats-sponsored Dream Act (acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act), without fulfilling his campaign promise of funding and building the Southern border wall. Understandably, Trump base feels duped, betrayed, and furious. Undoubtedly, many of his strongest supporters express utter dismay and disappointment. Some even call for his impeachment.

Mike Cernovich explains Donald Trump’s running game on his own supporters over his not keeping campaign promise of ending DACA and building the Southern border wall.

Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity seemed to suggest Trump had been duped by Pelosi and Schumer, but that if he capitulated, it would be “over” for him.

Breitbart News’ website — run by Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon — blasted out headlines like “Trump Caves on DACA, Wants ‘Quick’ Amnesty for 800K Illegal Aliens” and “Families of Illegal Alien Murder Victims Confused, Angered by Possible DACA Deal.” It also highlighted a trending topic on Twitter: #AmnestyDon.

On Breitbart’s daily Sirius XM show, Tea Party Patriots leader Jenny Beth Martin said that if a deal does go through, Trump is no different from his despised former rival.

Angry Donald Trump supporters burn their MAGA hats in response to Trump’s betrayal and blatantly braking campaign promises over amnesty and the border wall.


“We voted for Donald Trump because we wanted something different than what Hillary Clinton was gonna give this country … and the deal that we heard coming out of the White House … it’s what we would expect Hillary Clinton to give us,” Martin said.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, one of the most outspoken anti-immigration members of Congress, immediately blasted the reports of a deal on DACA on Twitter Wednesday night, saying that if that reports were true, the president had lost all credibility.

King said that if there was deal, it would be a total rebuke to his base. “I know the people that were strong Trump supporters, that were on his bandwagon early on. They came on board because, build a wall, enforce the border, enforce immigration law, no amnesty ever. And if they see amnesty coming out of the White House, then that’s the one thing that will crack his base,” King said. “They are loyal Trump supporters, but the most important plank in that platform is the rule of law. And if that’s blown up here in these negotiations, whether that’s his intent or not, then they’re not going to have a leg to stand on when they press others to defend our president.”

Ultimately, the specter of a deal on immigration with “Chuck and Nancy” — after caving last week on the debt ceiling and government funding, over the objections of GOP congressional leaders — seemed to be the final straw for many.

“This is not what we voted for,” conservative radio host Laura Ingraham said on her program. “We voted for someone who could do a good deal for the American man and woman.

However, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders immediately denies the agreement with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, seemingly due to overwhelmingly strong negative reaction from Trump’s base opposing DACA Deal with the Dreamer Act.

Amid the backlash, Trump insisted to reporters, “We’re not looking at citizenship. We’re not looking at amnesty. We’re looking at allowing people to stay here.”

However, Donald Trump is not the only one having to deal with the fallout from his base with the looming compromise of DACA Deal, as Nancy Pelosi also had to deal with her constituents, many of whom are ungrateful and self-entitled illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America.

Corrupt Congressional Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) surrounded & shut down by her own constituents & monsters, the shockingly ungrateful, self-entitled, and obnoxious juvenile illegal aliens aka DACA “Dreamers”.



Minimum threshold: Age of arrival.
Conditional status: Earned HS diploma or GED in US.
Permanent status: Post-secondary degree, serving in U.S. military, or continuous employment in U.S. for a specified time duration.

Senate Bill 2017 gives amnesty to more illegal aliens than House Bill 2017, and both give amnesty to more illegal aliens than House Bill 2010. The swamp creatures (RINOs and Democrats) increasingly give Americans and legal immigrants worse deals, even worse than Obama’s initial plan, as incredible as it is.


7. Chain Migration

Should President Trump follow through on a deal where nearly 800,000 illegal aliens are allowed to remain in the United States and eventually obtain U.S. citizenship, research shows it would create a flood of four to six million chain migrants coming to the United States.

Latest data from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) shows that 618,342 illegal aliens from Mexico currently have DACA status. If they were amnestied into the U.S., it would give them the opportunity to bring adult parents and relatives to the U.S.

“There will be chain migration. There always has been in amnesties,” says Center for Immigration Studies Policy Director Jessica Vaughan.

According to Princeton University researchers Stacie Carr and Marta Tienda, for every one new Mexican immigrant to the U.S., an additional 6.38 Mexican nationals come to the U.S. through family-chain migration.

Based on the Princeton research, the 618, 342 illegal aliens from Mexico who are covered by DACA would be able to bring upwards of four million additional relatives and family members to the U.S. in the years to come.

If the remaining estimated 180,000 DACA recipients brought in three family members each after being amnestied, it would result in additional 540,000 immigrants. Should the remaining 180,000 DACA recipients bring four family members each to the U.S., it would result in more than 700,000 new immigrants.

But if the remaining roughly 180,000 DACA recipients were to bring the same number of family members as Mexican DACA recipients are expected to bring to the U.S., it would result in nearly 1.2 million more legal family-based immigrants coming to the country.

On top of the legal chain migration that could occur following a DACA amnesty by Trump, there is also the potential for a massive border surge, like the one that occurred following former President Obama’s creation of the DACA program.

As the Migration Policy Institute has observed, previous border surges from amnesty programs have brought hundreds of thousands across the U.S.-Mexico border:

While the flow of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs) has been climbing steadily since 2012, a dramatic surge has taken place in the last six months, with the Rio Grande Valley in South Texas as the principal place of entry. The Border Patrol there has converted entire stations to house unaccompanied minors and families.

According to the Border Patrol, apprehensions of unaccompanied children increased from 16,067 in fiscal year (FY) 2011 to 24,481 in FY 2012 and 38,833 in FY 2013. During the first eight months of FY 2014, 47,017 such children were apprehended by the Border Patrol. If the influx continues apace—and it shows no signs of slowing—the administration predicts that by the end of the fiscal year on September 30, totals could reach 90,000.

Ninety-eight percent of unaccompanied minors currently arriving at the border are from Honduras (28 percent), Mexico (25 percent), Guatemala (24 percent), and El Salvador (21 percent). This breakdown represents a significant shift: prior to 2012, more than 75 percent of UACs were from Mexico

8. Compromise

Possible outcome:

a. Green card without voting rights, i.e., work permit without citizenship without chain migration.

b. Limited amnesty without voting rights nor chain migration in exchange for funding for border wall.

c. A combination of the above.

YouTube joins Alt-Left Antifa terrorists to suppress Free Speech

YouTube joins Alt-Left Antifa terrorists to suppress Free Speech

YouTube censorship1. New Rules:

Recently YouTube published new rules to suppress Freedom of Speech in its ‘Official Blog’ by increasing the amount of censorship on content they found to be “controversial” even if it didn’t break any laws or violate the site’s user agreement.


Tougher standards: We’ll soon be applying tougher treatment to videos that aren’t illegal but have been flagged by users as potential violations of our policies on hate speech and violent extremism. If we find that these videos don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes. We’ll begin to roll this new treatment out to videos on desktop versions of YouTube in the coming weeks, and will bring it to mobile experiences soon thereafter. These new approaches entail significant new internal tools and processes, and will take time to fully implement 

Early intervention and expanding counter-extremism work: We’ve started rolling out features from Jigsaw’s Redirect Method to YouTube. When people search for sensitive keywords on YouTube, they will be redirected towards a playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages. We also continue to amplify YouTube voices speaking out against hate and radicalization through our YouTube Creators for Change program. Just last week, the U.K. chapter of Creators for Change, Internet Citizens, hosted a two-day workshop for 13-18 year-olds to help them find a positive sense of belonging online and learn skills on how to participate safely and responsibly on the internet. We also pledged to expand the program’s reach to 20,000 more teens across the U.K.

What does this mean to users? Under the guise of “fight terror content online,” the move was nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to censor conservative speech to give their opponents an upper hand. Furthermore, the new censorship rule negatively affect not only the content creators but also YouTube user who merely searches for keywords that YouTube deems ‘questionable’, for whatever reason, as he or she will be promptly redirected to propaganda videos intended to “directly confront and debunk” whatever ‘questionable’ content that user was looking for. In other words, this is not just censorship, it’s active brainwashing. Indeed, YouTube, owned by Google, wants to control not only what information one creates, but also what information one consumes. It’s not only 1984 Big Brother’s, it’s 1933 (Nazi propaganda) and 1940 (Soviet propaganda) combined.

According to a post on YouTube’s official blog, videos will now be subject to the rule of the mob. If enough users flag a video as “hate speech” or “violent extremism,” YouTube may impose restrictions on the content even if it breaks none of the platform’s rules.

We’ll soon be applying tougher treatment to videos that aren’t illegal but have been flagged by users as potential violations of our policies on hate speech and violent extremism. If we find that these videos don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes.

YouTube has also rolled out a “trusted flagger” program, in which 15 “expert NGOs and institutions” to help them identify hate speech and extremism on their platform.

Among these organizations are the No Hate Speech Movement, a left-wing project pushed by the Council of Europe, as well as the Anti-Defamation League, an organization whose president has been accused of “manufacturing outrage” by the World Jewish Congress.

YouTube is also planning to artificially alter its search results so that searches for “sensitive” topics on YouTube no longer return the most popular videos, but a “playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages.”

The platform also plans to artificially promote videos created via its “Creators for Change” program,  which, in YouTube’s words, features creators who are “using their voices and creativity to speak out against hate speech, xenophobia and extremism.”

We’ve started rolling out features from Jigsaw’s Redirect Method to YouTube. When people search for sensitive keywords on YouTube, they will be redirected towards a playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages. We also continue to amplify YouTube voices speaking out against hate and radicalization through our YouTube Creators for Change program. Just last week, the U.K. chapter of Creators for Change, Internet Citizens, hosted a two-day workshop for 13-18 year-olds to help them find a positive sense of belonging online and learn skills on how to participate safely and responsibly on the internet.

YouTube framed its blog post around fighting “terror content,” yet their announcement also strays into areas that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism, like the company’s diversity efforts. The blog post boasts about YouTube’s involvement with the  “Creators for Change workshop” in which “creators teamed up with Indonesia’s Maarif Institute to teach young people about the importance of diversity, pluralism, and tolerance.”

YouTube’s “Creators for Change” program is filled with progressives who, in YouTube’s words, are “tackling social issues and promoting awareness, tolerance and empathy on their YouTube channels.” Yet Laci Green, MTV’s famous feminist sex educator, one of Time Magazine’s 30 most influential people on the internet, and one of the most successful feminists on YouTube is nowhere to be found.

YouTube uses a combination of machine learning and volunteer “experts” to flag that needs review. It also plans to implement “tougher standards” for videos that are controversial but do not violate the site’s terms of service.

YouTube says it isn’t going to remove the borderline content entirely, but will instead place these videos in a purgatory state preventing them from being monetized or promoted. To facilitate these changes, YouTube will be artificially altering its search algorithms to prevent offensive topics from discovery.

We’ll soon be applying tougher treatment to videos that aren’t illegal but have been flagged by users as potential violations of our policies on hate speech and violent extremism. If we find that these videos don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes.

Victims of Alt-Left Antifa terrorists

According to YouTube, the system, while largely automated, will mix in human reviews in the form of its already established “Trusted Flagger” volunteer program that works with over 15 institutions to deal with extremist content, including the Anti-Defamation League.

The ADL recently released a list naming members of the “alt-right” and the “alt-lite,” the latter of which included controversial YouTube personalities like Gavin McInnes, Mike Cernovich, and Brittany Pettibone. Curiously, the ADL is selective in what it chooses to label as “extremism.” It does not have violent far-left ideologies like Antifa and militant leftist organizations like Redneck Revolt on its radar.


YouTube demonetize & censors Infowars broadcaster Paul Joseph Watson.


YouTube demonetize & censors Conservative Mark Dice.


YouTube demonetize & censors Donald Trump supporters Diamond & Silk.


YouTube demonetize & censors YouTube personality Phillip DeFranco.

2. Who are YouTube and Google supporting?

YouTube and Google are supporting Alt-Left Antifa terrorists, leftists, liberals, Islamofascists, and Democrats. These are the unholy alliance as its fascist members all share the common goal of suppression of the freedom of speech by all means necessary, including violence, destruction, assassination and mass murdering for political and religious reasons, toward dominating if not overthrowing the current democratically elected government.

Donald Trump supporters Diamond & Silk censored by YouTube.

3. Google supports Democrats (since at least 2008)

The Groundwork, Quartz reporters Adam Pasick and Tim Fernholz note, is the third Schmidt-funded startup run by former Obama campaign staffers. The other two, Civis and, emerged out of Obama’s campaign, but the Groundwork is different because Schmidt backed it before the Clinton campaign even got underway. It’s already giving her campaign a leg up on the competition.

Should Schmidt’s company continue to provide the primary digital firepower for the Clinton campaign, he will be able to wield a degree of influence far beyond what normal wealthy donors might achieve by making maximum campaign contributions or pouring money into a super PAC. “That’s the beauty of the Groundwork,” write Pasick and Fernholz. “Instead of putting money behind a Super PAC that can’t coordinate with the campaign, a well-connected donor like Schmidt can fund a startup to do top-grade work for a campaign, with the financial outlay structured as an investment, not a donation.”

Google already permeates our digital lives – from e-mail, to advertising, to transportation – Google is everywhere. Other campaigns by Bernie Sanders or Republican contenders almost certainly will not be able to match the connections Schmidt brings nor draw the same caliber of engineers to the rough-and-tumble campaign work that Schmidt can.

Google has been relying on cronyism to overhaul the patent system. Google is doing this through an extensive network of political appointees working inside the Obama Administration – and they are pushing an overhaul that would help stifle America’s top innovators. They’ve given political contributions to politicians that further their ends – like President Obama. Google employees donated about $800,000 to each of his campaigns.

And Obama gives back. Google only received a slap on the wrist after the Federal Trade Commission investigated its practice of favoring its own products in Google searches. And when the Federal Communications Commission was on the verge of implementing net neutrality through Title II regulation, Google received improper access to the plan and convinced the FCC to tweak it in the company’s favor.

Google has already received plenty of favorable treatment under the Obama Administration. In 2012, the company emerged unscathedfrom a Federal Trade Commission antitrust investigation into its practice of favoring its own products in Google searches. And earlier this year, Google was given improper access to the FCC’s final decision to embrace net neutrality through Title II regulation and secured a last-minute tweak to the FCC’s new rules.

Given how many former executives at Google worked in the Obama Administration, this was hardly surprising. Former Google patent attorney Michelle Lee, for instance, now serves as the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, a move that is sure to benefit Google’s innovative technological endeavors. The country’s chief technology officer (CTO) Megan Smith spent more than a decade at Google as a Vice President. Alan Davidson, formerly a top Google lobbyist, was recently hired by the Commerce Department for a new position, “director of digital economy,” that seems suspiciously tailor-made for his connections. And the list goes on. This has granted Google special access to the White House – access that far exceeds other companies of similar financial clout and influence.

It’s easy to see how helping elect the next president could help a tech company: “With tech policy an increasingly important part of the president’s job—consider merely the issues of NSA surveillance and anti-trust policy, not to mention self-driving cars and military robots—helping to elect yet another president could be incredibly valuable to Schmidt and to Google,” write Pasick and Fernholz.

A Hillary Clinton presidency would mean Google could continue the crony business model it began under the Obama administration, and Eric Schmidt knows it.

Schmidt also requested a meeting with Bill Clinton in February 2015. “[I]t is about the business [Schmidt] proposes to do with the campaign,” Tina Flournoy, Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, wrote. “He says he’s met with HRC.” “Yup,” Podesta replies. “I’ve talked to him too. Robby is in touch with his team.”

Flournoy also mentioned that Google was lending its corporate jet to fly the Bill Clinton to Africa that summer as part of a Clinton Foundation trip, with the two joking about previous times that it had broken down.

4. Eric Schmidt advises then endorses Hillary Clinton

Wikileaked emails show that Google’s Eric Schmidt drew up a campaign plan a year before she announced she was running for president. Schmidt sent a detailed plan to Cheryl Mills, who had served as Clinton’s chief of staff when she was secretary of state, in April 2014, a full year before the Democratic politician announced her bid for the White House.

Schmidt outlined Hillary’s campaign plan, including where she should base her campaign headquarters (New York City), and as it later turned out, Hillary Clinton did exactly just that.

Schmidt suggested that Hillary Clinton’s campaign be based out of New York or Chicago, but not Washington, D.C. ‘Its important to have a very large hiring pool (such as Chicago or NYC) from which to choose enthusiastic, smart and low paid permanent employees… DC is a poor choice as its full of distractions and interruptions,’ he wrote in the memo, emailed to Mills.

She then passed it along to John Podesta, whose emails were hacked and made public by Wikileaks.

The note was also addressed to Robby Mook, who became Clinton’s campaign manager, and David Plouffe, a veteran of President Barack Obama’s campaign, who now works for Uber.

In October 2014, at least six months prior to Clinton announcing her run for the presidency, a draft memo on digital strategy written by Mook for Hillary Clinton discusses “Eric Schmidt’s company Groundwork,” then a ten-person team developing a dynamic sign-up page and donation tool to be deployed by the campaign when it launched more than six months later. It suggests that campaign staff were eager to have control over their own core technology.

Indeed, an attachment to the email written by Teddy Goff, a former Obama campaign Digital Director now working for the Clinton campaign, appears to discuss “Working relationships with Google, Facebook, Apple, and other technology companies.” Goff further states that the Clinton campaign has “begun having discreet conversations with some of these companies.”

The memo also includes some of Goff’s suggested starting points for the digital campaign to undertake, which are listed as:

  • Raising lots of money;
  • Creating and distributing excellent content, for both supportive and persuadable audiences,on social and paid media and in videos; and
  • Recruiting, engaging, and organizing volunteers and prospective volunteers.

Throughout the memo, Goff repeatedly refers to “Eric Schmidt’s group,” at one point saying, “I have been kept apprised of the work being done by Eric Schmidt’s group and othersworking directly and indirectly with your team. [emphasis added] On the whole, I am comfortable with where we stand and confident in our roadmap to launch day and beyond.”

Schmidt’s team seemed to be quite crucial in the development of Clinton’s online campaign, with Goff saying, “We have instructed Eric’s team to build the most important products in their portfolio—specifically, the back-end of the website, the ability to accept donations (along with associated features, most importantly the ability to store credit card information), and the ability to acquire email addresses—first.”

The Washington Free Beacon proposes that the Eric Schmidt-backed startup known as The Groundwork is the group in question. To date, The Groundwork, who’s website consists simply of a pyramid-like logo, has been paid approximately $600,000 by the Clinton campaign.

Google have previously been accused of manipulating search results in favor of Clinton, while WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has outright claimed that Google is “directly engaged” in the Clinton campaign. With recent revelations that Sheryl Sandberg worked to organise meetings between Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and the Clinton campaign, it seems that many Silicon Valley elites are attempting to align themselves heavily with the Democratic presidential nominee.

Schmidt publicly endorsed Clinton in June, 2016.

5. The Groundwork

The Groundwork was formed as a Delaware LLC with Schmidt’s backing two months later, in June 2014. As Schmidt advised, its offices were in Brooklyn, blocks from the building that would eventually house Clinton’s campaign headquarters. The company’s leader. Michael Slaby, had been one of Obama’s top digital staffers in 2012.

Slaby hired top engineers from companies like Netflix and Google to build the unsexy but critical back-end infrastructure for signing up supporters and collecting donations, with plans to market the platform to corporate clients through the Groundwork’s parent company, Timshel, also backed by Schmidt.

“There are a lot of people who can write big checks,” Slaby told Quartz last year. “Eric recognizes how the technology he’s been building his whole career can be applied to different spaces. The idea of tech as a force multiplier is something he deeply understands.”

Slaby would not be the only talent that Schmidt helped bring to the campaign. The campaign’s influential chief technology officer, Stephanie Hannon, is a veteran Google engineer. Civis, another company founded by former Obama staffers and funded by Schmidt, has provided some media analytics for the campaign.

Clinton met with Silicon Valley start-up titan’s on the heels of a speech she gave at the New School. Schmidt then wanted her to have a close-door meeting (press not allowed) the heads of Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, Instacart, Munchery, and others, to clarify her previously made statements that made her sound anti the ‘sharing economy’. In other words, Schmidt wanted her to full the full backing of Silicon Valley, and not just of Google, explained Stephanie Hannon, Clinton’s chief technology officer and former Google’s employee.

Aaron is a significant supporter and has maxed out primary contributions,’ the email said of Aaron Levie, the CEO, co-founder and chairman of the storage space start-up Box.

When Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told an open government conference in 2015 that “Google was now Hillary’s secret weapon,” he was undoubtedly referring to The Groundwork, a stealthy startup funded by Google Chairman Eric Schmidt that’s providing consulting services to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The Groundwork was building digital infrastructure like the Obama campaign did in 2012, laying “the groundwork’ for personalized, data-driven electioneering in 2016.

While Schmidt has said that he would not work in a Clinton administration, he did not only support her presidential campaign, he directly supervised her campaign staff, just like he did with the Obama administration, with a number of former employees serving in top positions, from U.S. Chief Technology Officer Megan Smith to the head of the U.S. Patent Office, Michelle Lee who suddenly retired in June 2017 without warning. The chief technology officer of Clinton’s campaign, Stephanie Hannon, was also hired from Google.

Assange was not the first person to raise concerns about a search algorithm stealing the presidency. Harvard Law professor Jonathan Zittrain has explored how Google or Facebook could influence an election by customizing search results or news, swinging undecided voters to one side or another.

Based on private emails from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, and revealed by WikiLeaks, a relationship between Hillary Clinton with Eric Schmidt dating back to at least 2008 showed that Google loaned its jet to members of Clinton’s campaign staff on several occasions.

According to a February 2015 email to Podesta from Tina Flournoy — who serves as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff — Google planned to lend its company jet for a trip to Africa. Podesta wrote, “FYI. They are donating the Google plane for the Africa trip.”

It’s not clear what trip they’re talking about, but the email chain also said that Schmidt wanted to meet “WJC,” shorthand for “William Jefferson Clinton.” Given the timing, they may be talking about Bill Clinton’s nine-day trip in May 2015 to Tanzania, Kenya, Liberia and Morocco. The annual trek to Africa included a group of 20 donors and supporters, several of whom were “expected to give generously” to the Hillary Clinton campaign, according to Politico.

Both Podesta and Flournoy wrote that the Google plane has a bad habit of breaking down. While Podesta said it would be a “nice way to travel,” both of them mentioned issues with the plane in the past.

“Yes, until it breaks down in Ethiopia — as it did the last time we used it,” Flournoy wrote.

Podesta responded: “Funny, the only time I was on it, it broke down in Rwanda and we had to fly Ethiopian Airlines home.”

The emails also say that Schmidt had met with Hillary Clinton and spoken with Podesta.

In April 2014, Schmidt sent Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills a detailed plan for the 2016 campaign, writing “If we get started soon, we will be in a very strong position to execute well for 2016.” The plan laid out ideas for the campaign, like where it should be headquartered and who should be hired.

In an email to Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook the same month, Podesta wrote that Schmidt seemed eager to be a part of an exploratory committee and “clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn’t seem like he wanted to push others out.” Podesta wrote that Schmidt was “ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc.” and was “more deferential on structure than I expected.”

Podesta encouraged Mook and Mills to meet with Schmidt to discuss his involvement with the campaign. According to Podesta, Schmidt pressed Podesta to look for young coders “preferably in outer borough NYC” and thought Northern California was too expensive for any kind of Clinton campaign home base.