Laws Are For Other People.

Good grief.

Part III of the undercover investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as a duck.

Several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations.

“In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.”

It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.”

It was earlier this year when people wearing Donald Duck costumes started showing up at Donald Trump events all over the country. Brad Woodhouse is the president of Americans United for Change (AUFC) and he worked with Robert Creamer, Scott Foval, and DNC Rapid Response Coordinator Aaron Black to launch their “Donald Ducks” campaign.

In the video, the operatives go on to explain their plot.

“Let me tell you something. I think she [Hillary Clinton] has the right instinct on this. This thing is resonating, but that story is not exactly what you want to hear about how presidential decision-making happened,” said Woodhouse.

However, the originator of the Donald Ducks scheme was supposed to remain secret.

Robert Creamer goes on to add, “I was actually on a plane to go to London last week — Christina Reynolds [Deputy Communications Director for Hillary for America] calls saying, ‘I have good news and bad news. The good news is the candidate would like to have a mascot following around the duck — I mean, Trump.’”

Creamer then says, “If the future president wants ducks, we will put ducks on the ground.”

Hillary Clinton and the DNC wanted the Donald Ducks agitators at Trump and Pence campaign events. The direct involvement of the campaign and the Democratic National Committee with Americans United for Change and activists wearing Donald Duck costumes smacks strongly of illegal coordinated campaign expenditures.

Federal campaign law experts have told us “the ducks on the ground are likely public communications for purposes of the law. It’s political activity opposing Trump, paid for by Americans United for Change funds but controlled by Clinton and her campaign.”

Laws are for other people – not the Clintons.

12 Responses to “Laws Are For Other People.”

  1. Lars says:

    And the whining gets louder…..

    Any dimwit who didn’t complain about CARLY does not have much credibility now.

    I would suggest focusing on cleaning up the Cocoa Beach City Commission instead.

    • Hometown says:

      Lars – Agreed, we should focus on cleaning up the CB Commission by removing the incumbents as our top local priority. But this post does make me wonder how we ended up with a presidential candidate who has actually violated laws (numerous times) and not been prosecuted. You or I would be in jail if we did half of what Clintons have done. At a minimum someone should have had a special prosecutor look into these claims to get to the bottom of it. I get nervous when the Director of the FBI basically says, yep she broke the law but I don’t recommend she be prosecuted. I don’t so much call that whining as demanding our government do their job for a change.

  2. Lars says:

    So you would be all for prosecuting Bush and Cheney as war criminals? As a matter of fact, the Director of FBI did actually say that no crimes had been committed. He said the emails had been handled poorly.

    If Mrs. Clinton is as crooked as some claim, she has to be the most successful crook in history. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent investigating her, including over a hundred million of US tax payer money, and nothing has been found to charge her with.

    It has also been found that most of this kind of accusations only exist within an information bubble. Maybe those inside the bubble should start to look outside of it?

    The reality of the situation is that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the 45th US President, in large part because the GOP nominated a deeply flawed candidate, and once she takes office, she will be POTUS. It is up to real Americans to accept that. You may disagree with her policies and by all means do so. Just get off your Fantasy Island, where she is not legit.

    • AAfterwit says:


      I just want to make sure that you are trying to say that Clinton is crooked because of Buch and Cheney? THAT’S your reasoning? Suffer from BDS much?

      As a matter of fact, the Director of FBI did actually say that no crimes had been committed. He said the emails had been handled poorly.

      As a matter of fact, Comey said no such thing.

      Here’s what he did say in part:

      Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.


      In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

      To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

      Comer admits laws were broken and that others who do the same thing face prosecution as others before and since Clinton have faced prosecution for their acts.

      You can try and make up your own reality, but the facts are the facts.

      …….and nothing has been found to charge her with.

      Once again, you are wrong. There has been things that she could have been charged with, but because of her husband and the administration, she has not been charged.

      It has also been found that most of this kind of accusations only exist within an information bubble. Maybe those inside the bubble should start to look outside of it?

      Says the person who doesn’t know or understand what Comey said.

      It is up to real Americans to accept that.

      Funny, I thought being an American was irrespective of who was in the White House. But then again, from thoseswho suffer from BDS and went through a time when “dissent was patriotic,” it is no wonder that your hypocrisy surfaces again as it did previously.

      I would suggest focusing on cleaning up the Cocoa Beach City Commission instead.

      Are you saying that we don’t have the ability to concentrate on multiple things or that you can’t?

      Have a great night.

      A. Afterwit.

  3. Lars says:

    Who occupies the White House is important and it makes a difference. If, for instance, you would put Donald Trump there, not only should your intelligence and morals be questioned but also your citizenship, since you would fail that test. There is ample evidence to support that and just hating Hillary Clinton would not excuse it.

    • AAfterwit says:


      I am shocked, shocked I tell you that you don’t even own up to you own misstatements and assertions now that you have been shown that they were and are false. I mean, who would have ever guessed that a rabid supporter of Clinton would not do the right thing?

      It is another ridiculous assertion that voting for Hillary is a vote of intelligence and morals given her past and the newly released Wikileaks which show the depth of her corruption and lack of morals to be below that of Trump. I have long said that this election is not about who one likes, or who one likes the least, but rather who one despises the least.

      As for questioning ones citizenship, once again it is amazing that you think that a person who doesn’t vote for the crook you like somehow should lose their citizenship. Your attitude is more akin to that of countries led by despots and tyrants. Maybe you are more happy in such a system and country where one supports crooked leaders without question, but luckily for the rest of us, we don’t live in such a country. True Americans don’t want to live in such a country and the fact that you do says more about you than anything.

      Have a good day.

      A. Afterwit.

  4. Hometown says:

    I am tired of being lied to by politicians from both sides of the aisle. Trump seems to be the candidate who might try to get rid of some of the corruption in Washington. He’s definitely not the smooth talking politician as evidenced by some of his past statements but that’s a good thing in my opinion. Most importantly, I like his list of conservative Supreme Court nominees and it scares me to death who Hillary would appoint.

    Well, at least we can all agree on getting rid of the incumbents on the CB commission at the local level and that’s a great start..

  5. Lars says:

    As Tip O’Neill once said: All politics is local. It is indeed a good thing that many want to clean up City Hall here in CB. I have some friends from Sweden visiting right now and they have commented on how nice our town is and how manageable the traffic is.

    I don’t think you have to worry about what new Justices will be chosen for the Supreme Court by Mr. Trump. Even if he was able to nominate some, which he won’t, it is unlikely the Senate would give its advise and consent.

    Those who consider themselves conservatives should worry a lot over the stain he has now affixed to their ideology. It will not go away any time soon. With the expected appearance of Trump TV, it will linger.

    I once asked Ben Malik about his party affiliation and he said he was a Republican, but not one of the “crazy” ones. Now we know that he was not quite truthful.

    • AAfterwit says:


      You should worry about the ideologies of the people that Clinton and Trump would appoint the Supreme Court. Trump has said that he would appoint justices that would be true to the Constitution. Hillary has indicated that she would appoint justices that would restrict the freedoms of Americans. Hillary has decried the free speech case of Citizens United. Her response to the Heller gun control decision in the last debate shows that not only is the supposed lawyer out of touch on the decision, she lied about the law itself.

      Like most liberals, Hillary seeks to restrict the freedoms of others while being above the law themselves.

      How bad is it?

      An article by Michael Goodwin in the New York Post compares the treatment of Richard Nixon and Hillary Clinton.

      He concludes with this:

      From start to finish, it is obvious that the FBI gave Clinton special treatment. The failure to empanel a grand jury and issue subpoenas, the granting of five immunity deals to her aides, and the agreement to destroy potential evidence all lead to the conclusion that Comey bent the rules to make sure Clinton was cleared.

      Rabid Clinton supporters comfort themselves by insisting that those who do not denounce Donald Trump are unpatriotic or worse. But you don’t have to be a Trump supporter to fear that Clinton’s election would be tantamount to approving her chronic dishonesty in public office, and would open the door to an era of corruption unprecedented in modern times. (emphasis ours)

      Gee, it is almost as if Goodwin read your screeds here on this blog.

      However, he is right. The thing that people need to remember about the Nixon episode is that he was treated fairly, impartially and in a manner that was not above the law.

      No one can say that when it comes to Hillary Clinton. The investigations themselves were shams and put politics above the law.

      That doesn’t bode well for the republic.

      A. Afterrwit.

      PS – as for Malik, he is no more a person with Republican and conservative values than Trump. After all, one of his best buds John Byron has advocated liberals and democrats lying to say they are Republicans in order to pick up votes. Birds of a feather and all that, you know.

  6. Lars says:

    According to many Republicans, when Bill Clinton was elected, it would end the Republic. The same was said when Barak Obama was elected.

    It didn’t happen. When you live by a crystal ball, you sometimes end up eating a lot of broken glass.

    I still maintain that if you are willing to elect someone as unfit for the job as Donald Trump, you are poorly exercising your citizenship. You may not like Hillary Clinton, but she is qualified. As were John McCain and Mitt Romney.

    • AAfterwit says:


      This is getting tiring. You either chose to ignore statements or don’t understand them.

      I never said that the election of Hillary Clinton would end the republic. I have no idea why you would bring that up other than to make another ridiculous statement.

      However, please enlighten us all as to why the republic is not damaged by the election of a crook who not only broke laws designed to protect the security of the country, but has broken numerous election laws in this campaign alone?

      Please tell us how given Clinton a pass on breaking the law that others have been convicted of doesn’t harm the republic?

      As for “poorly exercising your citizenship,” I am pretty sure that voting is not an poor exercise of citizenship. You may want to explain that a little better because it certainly sounds as if you, like Clinton, have no regards for the Constitution, citizens, and the exercise of freedoms.

      As for Hillary’s qualifications, please. Don’t make me laugh. If you think that being a crook and a liar makes one qualified to sit behind the Resolute desk, you have a strange idea of “qualifications.” In fact, I would bet that if someone came to you looking for a job and said that they were a lying crook, you wouldn’t hire them. If they came to you and said they attacked rape victims and sought to “destroy them,” you wouldn’t hire them.

      Yet you feel Hillary is qualified for the big chair.

      That’s laughable.

      A. Afterwit.

  7. Hometown says:

    I believe we need someone who is not just another career politician like HRC ( same goes for McCain and Romney). Hillary has been in politics for 30 years and I can’t think of anything she’s done to improve our country other than be in the middle of scandal after scandal. Just the vast amounts of money flowing into her campaign leads me to believe I can’t trust her. You can’t even click on a Donald trump video without having to watch a Hillary ad first, and all these hacked emails further display her dishonesty. I am not a republican but I will support Trump over Hillary any day. Fortunately, our government was intentionally set up to change and evolve slowly so if we do crater it won’t be the fault of any one individual, however I think we’ve been on the big government track for too long now with government taking over education (common core) and healthcare (Obama care), and the privacy of citizens (patriot act). None of these things have lived up to what the politicians had promised, time to get a non-politician in office. Remember they said a lot of these same things about Reagan and he didn’t do to bad.

  8. […] Even here on RoH we have a commeter who wrote: […]