The Dale Jackson ShowPrep for October 5th, 2016…

  • 7:00 AM – 7 Things You Should Be Talking About Today
  • 8:00 AM – Hate at 8!!
  • 9:00 AM – 7 Things You Should Be Talking About Today
  • 9:20 AM –’s Cameron Smith
  • 9:55 AM – What in the World with WAAY 31’s Meredith Wood
  • 10:00 AM – Top Ten Tweets at Ten
  • 10:30 AM – Dale’s Mother


The latest document released on The Clinton Foundation is too good to be true

A new posting from the hacker alias Guccifer 2.0 purported to be documents stolen from the Clinton Foundation appears to be a hoax.

Guccifer 2.0 — believed to be a misinformation campaign operated by Russian intelligence — posted an 860-megabyte file on Tuesday afternoon that he claimed was donor information he hacked from Clinton Foundation servers.

A sampling of the posted documents include a spreadsheet of big bank donations, a list of primarily California donors, an outdated spreadsheet of some Republican House members — and a screenshot of files he claimed to have obtained, one of which was titled “Pay to Play.”

But there are a number of red flags that suggest the documents are in fact from a previous hack on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), not a new hack on the Clinton Foundation.

A spot check of some of the people on the donor list against FEC filings found that they all lined up with DCCC contributions.

The Clinton Foundation discloses its donors, and many of the alleged donors published by Guccifer 2.0 do not appear to have given to the organization.

One spreadsheet was allegedly created by a Kevin C. McKeon at DCCC in 2009. There was a Kevin McKeon that worked at DCCC at that time.

The Clinton Foundation says it has no evidence it was the victim of an attack — and denied that any of the file folders depicted exist on Foundation systems.

“We still have no evidence Clinton Foundation systems were breached and have not been notified by law enforcement of an issue,” Clinton Foundation officials said. “None of the folders or files shown are from the Clinton Foundation.”

The hacker or hackers known as Guccifer 2.0 has previously leaked apparently legitimate documents from breaches at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the DCCC.

But last month he published a spate of files he claimed were stolen from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that in fact appeared to be repurposed from the DCCC hack.

Those documents also appeared to be consistent with what Guccifer 2.0 would have found on the DCCC server. Only one document concerned Pelosi, a “year in review” memo about fundraising numbers — the kinds of donation statistics that would likely be shared with the DCCC.

Guccifer 2.0 claims to be a lone Romanian hacker, but the near totality of the intelligence and security communities take as fact that Guccifer 2.0 is a cover identity for Russian intelligence.

CNN badgers Eric Trump on Russian ties, he answers their questions multiple times

Eric Trump ended up in the hot seat on CNN tonight over his father’s tax returns and potential business ties to Russia following the VP debate.

Dana Bash, Wolf Blitzer, andJohn King all confronted Trump on whether 1) his father has paid income taxes in the past few years, and 2) whether he’s actually seen those returns.

Trump’s son insisted that “we pay a tremendous amount of taxes” and his father has paid income taxes in the last few years.

Tim Kaine attacking his dad on his alleged Russian business ties really bothered Trump, who called it “nonsense” and “garbage.”

The “reporters” did not care. His answers were irrelevant.

You know who has clear ties to Russia?

Hillary Clinton.

When Hillary Clinton was questioned about the deal, she said she had no reason to intervene in the decision. But Raphael Williams of Circa reports that memos contained on WikiLeaks show Clinton was warned about Russian attempts to flex its muscle in uranium markets. And members of Congress also sounded the alarm.

The State Department had obtained a “strategy paper” from Rosatom, the Russian company seeking to purchase Uranium One. The strategy paper alarmed U.S. diplomats because it confirmed fears that Russia was moving to control the long-term supply of nuclear fuel, shut Westinghouse out of the market, and extend Moscow’s influence over Europe.

The resulting diplomatic cable lays out what Williams calls “a clear warning from career U.S. officials about why expanding Russia’s control of uranium markets was bad for the United States and for its allies in Europe.”

In addition, members of Congress pointed to the dangers of the Rosatom deal. Sen. John Barasso said it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” Rep. Peter King said it “would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States.”

Clinton, then, had ample reason to intervene in the decision. But doing so would have been inconsistent with the interests of those who were donating so generously to her Foundation.

Despite the warnings from her own diplomats and from Congress, Clinton let the deal go through.

Who were the winners in the transactions that began with Bill Clinton’s visit to Kazakhstan and ended when the U.S. approved the Uranium One-Rosatom deal? The Russians, obviously, but not just them.

Frank Giustra won big. So did the Clintons who raised tens of millions, if not more, in this saga. Even Kazakhstan came away with something, though whether it contemplated Russia controlling its uranium is another matter.


Wednesday, October 5
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
North Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson WRAL-TV/SurveyUSA Clinton 46, Trump 44, Johnson 5 Clinton +2
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton LA Times/USC Tracking Clinton 43, Trump 47 Trump +4
Tuesday, October 4
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Rasmussen Reports Clinton 42, Trump 41, Johnson 9, Stein 2 Clinton +1
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein NBC News/SM Clinton 46, Trump 40, Johnson 9, Stein 3 Clinton +6
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton LA Times/USC Tracking Clinton 43, Trump 47 Trump +4
Nevada: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson UNLV/Hart Research (D) Clinton 44, Trump 41, Johnson 8 Clinton +3
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Franklin & Marshall Clinton 47, Trump 38, Johnson 5, Stein 0 Clinton +9
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Monmouth Clinton 50, Trump 40, Johnson 5, Stein 2 Clinton +10
North Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson Elon Clinton 45, Trump 39, Johnson 9 Clinton +6
Tennessee: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Middle Tn. State Univ. Trump 50, Clinton 38, Johnson 5, Stein 1 Trump +12
Oregon: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Hoffman Research (R) Clinton 45, Trump 33, Johnson 8, Stein 3 Clinton +12
Illinois: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein The Simon Poll/SIU Clinton 53, Trump 28, Johnson 5, Stein 2 Clinton +25
Monday, October 3

Roy Moore challenges his suspension…

If you can’t follow the law on qualifying for office, do we want you in office?

Election results in Adamsville were brief.

Mayor Pam Palmer beat Christopher Allen James like a second-hand bass drum to keep her grip on city hall. Incumbent Glenn Minyard doubled up on a challenger to keep his council seat, and Johnathan Charles Click got 61 percent of the vote — it was only 73 votes — to take a council seat.

None of the other seats were contested.

Simple, right? Just ho-hum election in a ho-hum town.

Nope. Because at least five other people in Adamsville in western Jefferson County set out to qualify to run for office. They went to the city clerk to file paperwork. They walked away believing they’d qualified to run, as guaranteed by the constitution, the spirit of fairness and the American Way.

And on the day after the qualifying deadline – a day after it was too late and the point was moot – they all got notes in the mail saying they’d been disqualified.

Oops. Sorry Charleys, you can stick all the campaign signs you bought where the sun don’t shine. You can exercise your civic rights anytime you like, but you can’t run here.

Just like in Autaugaville. Or Selma. Or Thorsby. Or Troy.

Candidates for office – including Yohance Owens, Dana Brown, Nathaniel Byrd, Loretta Herring and Tammi Taylor in Adamsville – were denied a chance to run for office because they – like 113 others who wanted to run across the state – failed to meet requirements to run.

At least 80 of them were booted off the ballot because they did not file their ethics reports simultaneous with qualifying to run, as required by a new state law.

Of course the thwarted candidates believe the game was rigged, that they were not told all they needed to know when they qualified. Officials with the Alabama Secretary of State’s office acknowledge it looks a little fishy in Adamsville, but in the end the law is unfortunately clear.


Quit whining.

%d bloggers like this: