The Fix Is In: NBC Affiliate Accidentally Posts Election Results A Week Early: Hillary Wins Presidency 42% to Trump’s 40%
Mac Slavo
November 2nd, 2016
SHTFplan.com

ttanooga, Tennessee has inadvertently posted election night results. The results page appears to be similar to what mainstream news networks display on election night, including Presidential and Congressional results, the popular vote count, electoral votes, and percentage of precincts reporting.

The page, a screen shot of which has been sourced from internet archive site The Wayback Machine, is posted below and shows totals for the upcoming Presidential race. It announces Hillary Clinton as the winner.

As Jim Stone notes, the page was pulled directly from the WorldNow.com content management platform utilized by major networks like NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox and appears to be a non-public staging area for news and election results.

Though the results information appears on an FTP server at WorldNow.com, media companies like NBC’s WRCB TV utilize the platform, also know as “Frankly,” to power their news content. This can be verified directly a the WRCB web site by scrolling to the very bottom of the page footer which notes that it is, “Powered By Frankly.”

In addition to national results, Jim Stone has identified another page at the WorldNow.com FTP server that appears to show the State-By-State Presidential election results. This page is also accessible in archive format at WayBack Machine with a line by line breakdown available at Stone’s website.

Of interest is that the State-By-State results indicate a Hillary Clinton win in states like Texas (42% to 40%), Florida (44% to 40%) and Pennsylvania (44% to 40%) which have all been identified as states Clinton must steal to win the election.

Do these latest election “results” confirm that the fix is in and the vote is rigged?

If so, then we are no longer looking at an election where our votes will count, but rather, a selection where the winner is determined by those who count the votes.

Brexit plans in disarray as high court rules parliament must have its say

Government to appeal after judges say article 50 cannot be triggered without MPs’ backing – a major blow to Theresa May

Help fund our journalism by becoming a Guardian Supporter
An EU flag is seen near the Houses of Parliament.
The challengers maintained that parliamentary approval and legislation was required for such a fundamental change. Photograph: Daniel Leal-Olivas/PA

Owen Bowcott and Jessica Elgot

Thursday 3 November 2016 15.42 GMT
Last modified on Thursday 3 November 2016 19.02 GMT

it alone has the power to trigger Brexit by notifying Brussels of the UK’s intention to leave the European Union, the high court has ruled.

The judgment (pdf), delivered by the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, is likely to slow the pace of Britain’s departure from the EU and is a huge setback for Theresa May, who had insisted the government alone would decide when to trigger the process.

The lord chief justice said that “the most fundamental rule of the UK constitution is that parliament is sovereign”.
Moving forward from the high court’s article 50 ruling
Letters: It is highly likely that parliament will vote to leave, but at least the decision will have been reached in something close to a proper process
Read more

A government spokesman said ministers would appeal to the supreme court against the decision. The hearing will take place on 7-8 December.
Live High court says parliament must vote on triggering article 50 - as it happened
Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen, including the high court ruling on whether parliament should get a vote on triggering article 50
Read more

Thomas said: “The court does not accept the argument put forward by the government. There is nothing in the 1972 European Communities Act to support it. In the judgment of the court, the argument is contrary both to the language used by parliament in the 1972 act, and to the fundamental principles of the sovereignty of parliament and the absence of any entitlement on the part of the crown to change domestic law by the exercise of its prerogative powers.”

Unless overturned on appeal at the supreme court, the ruling threatens to plunge the government’s plans for Brexit into disarray as the process will have to be subject to full parliamentary control.

Government lawyers had argued that prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect “to the will of the people” who voted by a clear majority to leave the EU in the June referendum.

But Thomas declared: “The government does not have power under the crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.”

Liam Fox: government ‘disappointed’ with article 50 ruling

The international trade secretary, Liam Fox, said the government was disappointed by the high court decision but added that “the government is determined to respect the result of the referendum”.

The Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, said he was angered by the decision. “I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand … I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke.”

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said: “This ruling underlines the need for the government to bring its negotiating terms to parliament without delay. Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. But there must be transparency and accountability to parliament on the terms of Brexit.”
Will the article 50 ruling stop Brexit? Our panel responds
Jonathan Freedland, Anand Menon, Dreda Say Mitchell, Schona Jolly, Tim Farron, David Lammy
Read more

The Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, said he was delighted by the ruling. “Given the strict two-year timetable of exiting the EU once article 50 is triggered, it is critical that the government now lay out their negotiating to parliament, before such a vote is held,” he said.

By handing responsibility for initiating Brexit over to MPs, the three senior judges – Thomas, the master of the rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales – have ventured on to constitutionally untested ground.

The legal dispute focused on article 50 of the treaty on European Union, which says any member state may leave “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements” – an undefined term that has allowed both sides to pursue rival interpretations.

The decision may undermine the prime minister’s authority in conducting negotiations with other EU states in the run-up to the UK’s withdrawal.

Victorious Gina Miller reacts to article 50 ruling: ‘This case was about process, not politics’ – video

Gina Miller, the lead claimant in the case, said: “It was the right decision because we were dealing with the sovereignty of parliament. It was not about winning or losing. It was about what was right. Now we can move forward with legal certainty.”

Deir Dos Santos, a hairdresser and the other lead claimant, said: “Today’s judgment is a victory for everyone who believes in the supremacy of our parliament and the rule of law. I have never challenged the result of the referendum – in fact I voted for Brexit for the sole reason that I wanted power to be returned from Europe to the British parliament. But I did not think it was right for the government then just to bypass parliament and try to take away my legal rights without consulting parliament first.”
Analysis High court Brexit ruling: what does it all mean?
The high court has decided the government does not have the power to trigger article 50 without consulting parliament, so what happens now?
Read more

John Halford, the solicitor at Bindmans who represented the People’s Challenge group, said: “The oversight, control and democratic accountability needed for decisions on Brexit have to match the consequences of those decisions for UK citizens. That is why our constitution empowers parliament, not the government, to take decisions.”

John Shaw, chair of the organisation Fair Deal for Expats, said: “This is superb news. We were convinced that our case was just. We’re delighted that the court agrees with us. There now needs to be a proper debate about how the rights of expats will be protected.”

The three judges’ ruling was unanimous. It stated: “By making and unmaking treaties the crown [ie the government] creates legal effects on the plane of international law, but in doing so it does not and cannot change domestic law. It cannot without the intervention of parliament confer rights on individuals or deprive individuals of rights.”

At one point the judgment dismisses arguments deployed by lawyers for the government – about whether rights within the EU were conferred by act of parliament or international treaty – as being “divorced from reality”.

The judges said: “The reality is that parliament knew and intended that enactment of the European Communities Act 1972 would provide the foundation acquisition by British citizens of rights under EU law which they could enforce in other member states.

They added that “the claimants are entitled to say that it would be surprising if they could be removed simply through action by the crown under its prerogative powers”.

They concluded: “In our judgment, the clear and necessary implication from these provisions taken separately and cumulatively is that parliament intended EU rights to have effect in domestic law and that this effect should not be capable of being undone or overridden by action taken by the crown in exercise of its prerogative powers.”

Part of the judges’ reasoning was based on legal precedents dating back to the 13th century, in particular the Case of Proclamations. That case involved merchants who were prevented from working in London by proclamation of Henry IV which was found to be in breach of a parliamentary act dating back to 1297. Parliament triumphed and the crown had to withdraw its ban.

Producing in-depth, thoughtful, well-reported journalism is difficult and expensive - but supporting us isn’t. If you value the the Guardian’s coverage of Brexit, please help to fund our journalism by becoming a Guardian Supporter

As a Biafra am very happy to be here,Good morning everyone

Tuesday 18 October 2016 by Davywavy
Man who demanded sovereignty of Parliament outraged by sovereignty of Parliament

Man angry at parliamentary sovereignty

A man who voted for the sovereignty of Parliament is utterly outraged by Parliament wanting to vote on stuff this afternoon.

Simon Williams, whose primary motivation for voting to leave the European Union was to establish the primacy of Parliament over external influence, is hopping mad that Parliament actually would like a say in the process of that departure.

A ruling that both the Houses of Commons and Lords will get a vote on the terms of departure from the EU resulted in Simon’s face turning purple and a succession of intemperate rants in capital letters on several popular Internet sites.

“I voted for Parliament to be able to act unhindered by people telling them what to do, and make decisions that they think will benefit the people of this country,” he told us.

“So why the **** aren’t they doing what I tell them and making decisions I agree with?

“If they put a foot out of line, well, those elected representatives in Westminster don’t understand democracy, that’s for sure.”

When told of Mr Williams’ anger, a Parliamentary spokesman said that if he didn’t like the decisions his elected representatives were making, he should be reminded that they were in the majority and if he couldn’t accept that then he probably doesn’t understand democracy.

Brexit court defeat for UK government

3 November 2016
From the section UK Politics

Share
Media caption Brexit challenger Gina Miller: "This result is about all our futures"

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.

This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal exit negotiations with the EU - on its own.

Theresa May says the referendum - and existing ministerial powers - mean MPs do not need to vote, but campaigners called this unconstitutional.

The government is appealing, with a further hearing expected next month.

As it unfolded: Article 50 court ruling
Kuenssberg: Will this mean early election?
Gina Miller: The woman behind the Brexit challenge
The High Court's judgement in full
Brexit: All you need to know
Court ruling: Your questions answered

The prime minister's spokeswoman said she would be calling President of the EU Commission Jean-Claude Juncker to say she intended to stick to her March 2017 deadline for triggering Article 50.

Amid suggestions that she might try to call an early general election, she added that Mrs May believed "there shouldn't be an election until 2020 and that remains her view".

A statement is to be made to MPs on Monday but the government says it has no intention of letting the judgement "derail Article 50 or the timetable we have set out".

Brexit Secretary David Davis said he presumed the court ruling meant an act of Parliament would be required to trigger Article 50 - so would be subject to approval by both MPs and peers.

But the government was going to contest that view in an appeal, and said the referendum was held only following "a six-to-one vote in the Commons to give the decision to the British people".

"The people are the ones Parliament represents - 17.4m of them, the biggest mandate in history, voted for us to leave the European Union. We are going to deliver on that mandate in the best way possible for the British national interest," he told the BBC.
Media caption David Davis: The British people are sovereign

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn urged the government "to bring its negotiating terms to Parliament without delay", adding that "there must be transparency and accountability to Parliament on the terms of Brexit".

But UKIP leader Nigel Farage said he feared a "betrayal" of the 51.9% of voters who backed leaving the EU in June's referendum and voiced concern at the prospect of a "half Brexit".

BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said the court ruling could mean potentially "months and months" of parliamentary hurdles but said a majority of MPs would be likely to vote for Article 50 - despite having backed the Remain campaign - as Brexit had been supported in the referendum.

Analysis - BBC political correspondent Eleanor Garnier

It is one of the most important constitutional court cases in generations. And the result creates a nightmare scenario for the government.

Theresa May had said she wanted to start Brexit talks before the end of March next year but this ruling has thrown the prime minister's timetable up in the air.

Campaigners who brought the case insist it was about "process not politics", but behind the doors of No 10 there will now be serious head-scratching about what the government's next steps should be.

This decision has huge implications, not just on the timing of Brexit but on the terms of Brexit. That's because it's given the initiative to those on the Remain side in the House of Commons who, it's now likely, will argue Article 50 can only be triggered when Parliament is ready and that could mean when they're happy with the terms of any future deal.

Of course, it will be immensely difficult to satisfy and get agreement from all those MPs who voted to remain. Could an early general election be on the cards after all?

Investment manager Gina Miller, who brought the case, said outside the High Court that the government should make the "wise decision of not appealing".

She said: "The result today is about all of us. It's not about me or my team. It's about our United Kingdom and all our futures."

Government lawyers had argued that prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect "to the will of the people".

But the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, declared: "The government does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union."

The three judges looking at the case found there was no constitutional convention of the royal prerogative - powers used by ministers - being used in legislation relating to the EU.

They added that triggering Article 50 would fundamentally change UK people's rights - and that the government cannot change or do away with rights under UK law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so.

Calling the case "a pure question of law", Lord Thomas said: "The court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the European Union: that is a political issue."
Media captionNigel Farage says he is worried Brexit will be watered down after the High Court ruling

Former attorney general Dominic Grieve told the BBC he believed there was time for the government to get legislation through Parliament before the end of March, should they lose the appeal.

He added: "It will certainly allow the opportunity to debate the issues surrounding Brexit but it is worth bearing in mind that it's a bit difficult to fetter the government as to what it should do after Article 50 is triggered because actually, what the government can deliver ... is entirely dependent on the negotiating position of the 27 other member states... So you can't really order the government to stay in the single market because that may not be something that the government can deliver."

Reacting to the ruling, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox told the House of Commons the government was "disappointed" but remained "determined to respect the result of the referendum".
What the ruling says

It is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution that Kings' or Queens' powers cannot be used by the government via the Royal Prerogative to change or do away with rights under British law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so. The court looked at examples ranging from the 1600s to the 1970s Laker Airways legal battle
Parliament had a vote on the UK joining the European Union back in the 1970s, so there is no convention of the Royal Prerogative being used in legislation relating to the European Union
Allowing MPs a vote on the final Brexit deal at the end of the negotiations would not amount to parliamentary approval because once Article 50 is triggered there is no way that the UK will not leave the EU, and in doing so existing laws will be changed
David Davis points out that MPs voted by six to one for the referendum to be held, but the judgement says that the referendum bill, and background briefings, made clear that the referendum was advisory rather than mandatory. So even though MPs voted for the referendum, the way it was worded did not hand over the authority to trigger Article 50, in its view

But UKIP's Mr Farage said: "We are heading for a half Brexit."

He added: "I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand... I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke."

Labour leader Mr Corbyn said: "This ruling underlines the need for the government to bring its negotiating terms to Parliament without delay. Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. But there must be transparency and accountability to Parliament on the terms of Brexit."

But Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said: "Ultimately, the British people voted for a departure but not for a destination, which is why what really matters is allowing them to vote again on the final deal, giving them the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs."

Addressing suggestions that Mrs May could call a general election before 2020 - when the next election is scheduled to take place under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act - Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: "If you're asking me do I think today's judgement makes a general election more likely than it was yesterday, I think the answer to that is probably yes."

The UK voted by 52% to 48% to leave the European Union in a referendum on 23 June.

The EU's other 27 member states have said negotiations about the terms of the UK's exit - due to last two years - cannot begin until Article 50 has been invoked.

Theresa May faces calls for early general election as Brexit plan left in ruins

Ruling hailed as 'the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs'

Rob Merrick, Jon Stone
@Rob_Merrick

Wonder Woman trailer: Fresh look at Gal Gadot in action as DC heroine
First look at Neil Patrick Harris' Count Olaf in Lemony Snicket
Donald Trump singles out woman reporter at rally - again
Hillary Clinton FBI indictment 'likely', claims Fox News

Theresa May’s plans for triggering Brexit were plunged into chaos today by a sensational High Court judgment that she cannot bypass Parliament.

In a decision that forced Ms May to insist she would not call an early election, three judges ruled the Prime Minister does not have the right to use the Royal Prerogative to invoke the Article 50 notice to leave the EU without involving MPs and peers.

The extraordinary development throws into confusion whether Ms May can stick to her timetable to trigger Article 50 by the end of March – and leave the EU by spring 2019.

Read more

Read more
Nigel Farage hints at revolution if parliament blocks Brexit

On a turbulent day for Theresa May that was branded by many, including leaders in Europe as "humiliating", Downing Street had to dismiss talk of an early general election.

In other developments over the course of a remarkable day:

Theresa May told European leaders that the setback will not derail her plan to begin Brexit talks by the end of March 2017

The Government admitted that an Act of Parliament is likely to be needed to trigger Article 50
It was confirmed the Government would take the ruling to the Supreme Court
Bookies slashed the odds on Brexit not happening
The decision led to a sharp spike in both the pound and the FTSE 250
European leaders responded by calling it a 'humiliation' for the PM
A poll showed the majority of voters would now vote for Remain
Nigel Farage warned of revolution if Parliament tried to block Brexit

If the judgment leads to the Government being forced to push a Bill through Parliament – with numerous chances for it to be amended - there is thought to be virtually no chance of that timetable being achieved.

The Government immediately confirmed it would challenge the ruling at the Supreme Court – probably on December 7 – with speculation the case could end up at the European Court of Justice.

Later, Downing Street moved to dismiss talk of an early general election. With just a narrow majority in the House of Commons and most MPs having backed Remain the ruling by the court presents a new hurdle to the PM – who would be far from certain to get Article 50 through.

However, asked about the possibility of an early election to shore up the Conservatives’ majority, the Prime Minister's official spokesperson said: “No. Our position has been clear that there shouldn’t be an election until 2020 – and that remains the Prime Minister’s view.”

Current polls suggest Ms May would be returned to office with a significantly increased majority as Labour flounders on some of its lowest poll ratings in recent history.

On a remarkable morning, the pound immediately surged on the news, as the markets judged it would make it more difficult – at the very least – for Ms May to pursue a so-called ‘hard Brexit.

And Ladbrokes slashed the odds on a snap general election next year to 2-1, amid a belief that the Prime Minister will turn to the voters if she runs into an impasse at Parliament.

Thursday, November 03, 2016
APC, This Is Not The Change Nigerians Asked For - Rochas Okorocha Joins Wailers

Imo state Governor and Chairman of the APC Governors forum, Rochas Okorocha, has said that APC has not been able to manage its God-given victory very well, one year and several months after the party won the presidential election.

Okorocha said this when he paid a visit to APC members in the Senate. He visited the Senators to seek solutions to the cold relationship between the executive arm of government, the National Assembly and the party

"I am here because I am a stakeholder. I am here as the Chairman of the Progressives Governors' Forum - your friends and colleagues in the struggle. Mr. Senate President, leaders of these great Senate, you may recall a few years ago that we were all in the trenches, in battle, asking for change in the Federal Republic of Nigeria. I recall vividly the role most of you played in that very struggle. We became a government when no one gave us a chance to be so. And shortly, Nigerians believed in us and entrusted us with the responsibility of leading this nation. But one year and several months after, we have not been able to manage this God-given victory very well and it is very worrisome, Mr. Senate President. That Nigerians expects so much from us but yet we seem to be in crisis within ourselves. Not crisis made by the opposition parties but crisis created by ourselves for ourselves and which has kept us in total difficult position that we are not making the headway we need to make as a party. One wonders then what went wrong. Where did we get it wrong? And after these troubles and after the much hope we have given to Nigerians, we still cannot work together as a party, as a family. And I noticed particularly that there is so much bitterness in the system - from the party, from the legislature, from the executive, from the governors - and it seems to me like there is no more platform for us to chant those old songs which we used to sing in the days of struggle for change. One wonders, was this what we were asking for or was this the change we were asking for.

I think Nigerians expect so much from us and at the end of it all. Nigerians will not ask us, how many of each other we have been able to destroy or how many we have been able to bring down. But they will ask us how many plates of food have we put on the table of the common man who elected us. So, I am here Mr. President of the Senate to call for unity among us and our party. And to sheath our sword in whatever form anger has gotten to us. We noticed and we know that we are a party in majority at the National Assembly and we are a party with majority in the number of governors - state houses of assembly - but we notice there is no cordial relationship between the Governors, the Executive and the legislature. And let me reemphasize that in all these arms of government, it is only the legislature with the executive that are the elected members. Not the Judiciary. And Nigerians will hold us responsible as the executive and legislative arms of government. So, we must act quickly to ensure peace reigns among us. I have discussed with the party - that was my first point of call - to seek what we must do to forge a way forward.

The Governors recently met with the President all in a bid to move this party forward and bring about unity. Today, I am before you, the Senate President, number three citizen of this country and I ask you to use your wisdom to bring peace among our party. We need to enjoy that very vibrancy for which the National Assembly has been known for. We need to enjoy those things that PDP used to enjoy when they were a majority in the National Assembly. The APC government must see you as majority in the National Assembly not minority in the house. My Senate President, my Senate President, my Senate President, to whom much is given, much is expected and two wrongs can never make a right. It takes one arm of a relationship to make good the other. I liken my situation to what I see in my own government that it is difficult to succeed as an executive if you do not have the proper support of the legislature.

I will appeal that we make amends where possible to ensure smooth running of the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. And we intend again, to hold a meeting between the executive, the legislature and the governors and the presidency as soon as possible. I may suggest that His Excellency, President Muhammadu Buhari, has also agreed to address the leadership of our party very soon. But before then, I think all the rough edges must be smoothened. So we can truly tell the world that we are the government in power - our government is in the majority. Again, I want to thank you for the time taken to receive me and pray that this very visit would mark a new beginning in our relationship. Thank you"he said

ANY ACT THAT EXPOSES ONE'S COUNTRY TO ESPIONAGE AMOUNTS TO TREASONABLE OFFENSE,AND IN MOST INSTANCES IT IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH SHOULD LAW TAKES IT NATURAL COURSE !

Hillary is just like a kleptomaniac that steals compulsively,she can't stop lying even to herself.She has got a lot of contradictions in her political career most of which have capped her career and peaked lately.It is never the fault of FBI that her shoddy handling of confidential and classified information of her country was uncovered at eleventh hour.And it is when American people needed to know better whom might be their next president.Even as she secretly debugged the controversial email,yet it comes calling.Now,if Hillary believes that she deserves to be a president,then she should acknowledge the fact it is honourable to come clean just as her rival Donald Trump rightly owned up his potty mouth and faced the backlash.

Chimaraoke Obi

It is most improbable that politicians who rig their way through the seat of government will ever consider voters as contributors to their ascension to power,because in this part of the world, politicians delude voters and have their way at will.And for the fact this bunch of weasels have got themselves a predetermined mandate to fleece the people and not to work for them,indeed the situation seems hopeless.
By Chimaraoke Obi.

Since Nigerian Judges failed to jail Buhari, let Buhari jail them – Actor John Okafor
By Fikayo Olowolagba on October 24, 2016@dailypostngr
John-Okafor-Mr-Ibu

Nollywood Actor, John Okafor, otherwise known as Mr Ibu, has said that he is in support of President Muhammadu Buhari’s action against the Nigerian judiciary in relation to the allegations of corruption and judicial misconduct leveled against some judges.

DAILY POST recalls that the DSS, had on October 7 and 8 reportedly arrested some Supreme Court justices, Appeal and High Court judges over corruption allegations.

The actor via his social media said his support was based on the fact that most accused judges have folded their arms and allowed injustice ,corrupt practices persist in the judicial system as a common man is unlawfully detained without being tried and accused or refused bail even when they are found guilty or not.

He said: “I will support Buhari for his action against Nigeria Judiciary. when issue of Buhari’s certificate came up, No judge was serious to prosecute Buhari, when IPOB members were killed, no judge talked about it, when Nnamdi KANU was guiltless, no judge talked about it, When Dasuki was granted Bail even in ECOWAS Court, no Judge talked about it, when Shitte Muslims were killed in Kaduna, no judge talked about it, what about the killings in Nimbo and Agatu? No judge talked about it.

“Margaret was killed in kano while preaching, no judge talked about it, all the arrested Boko Haram members where released by Buhari, No judge talked about it.

“2015 general election? No judge talked about it.

“As Nigerian Judiciary failed to jail Buhari; let Buhari jail them, I give him my 100% Support on this one,” he added.