PDF Archive

Easily share your PDF documents with your contacts, on the Web and Social Networks.

About Share a file Manage my documents Convert Recover Search Help Contact


Search


PDF Archive search engine
Last database update: 05 December at 11:49 - Around 79000 files indexed.

Show results per page

Results for «clinton»:


Total: 200 results - 0.056 seconds

Overall Times 100%

Downtown Dash 5K Overall Times Place 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Last Name Bath Celikoyar Tidey McLawhorn Pate Cone Godwin Simmons Dunn Lane Knowles Turlington Norris Baxter Salazar Hayes Blanchard Huff Perez Oliver Brewen Jackson Yaw Medina Espinosa Kittrell Clifton Blackman Barnhill Simonson Warren Chipman Nance Starling Webster Ferris Pickett Odom Giddens Shafer Sutton Brewen Newton Colvin Shaw Holland First Name Race # City Freddy 31 Clinton Daniel 159 Clinton William 99 Clinton Adrain 120 Clinton Christina 10 Clinton Wes 24 Clinton Chris 5 Clinton Marty 157 Winton Alex 154 Newton Grove Justin 60 Clinton Garrett 116 Clinton Lisa 64 Clinton Parker 135 Clinton Kim 96 Clinton Travis 130 Salemburg Steven 131 Clinton Jacob 75 Clinton Nicholas 115 Fayetteville Nicholas 151 Turkey Jennifer 51 Salemburg Cooper 49 Clinton Austin 140 Fayetteville Jesse 89 clinton Frank 97 Warsaw Esperanza 73 Fayetteville Jesse 128 Clinton Amanda 22 Clinton Ellen 71 Clinton Rebekah 7 Clinton David 72 Clinton Charles 27 Newton Grove Carl 61 Fayetteville Jackie 50 Clinton Erika 18 Clinton Zannah 125 Clinton Marissa 111 Salemburg David 117 Beulaville Carlin 40 Clinton Paul 123 Clinton Max 127 warsaw Carrie 15 Four Oaks Nick 48 Clinton Jessica 112 Clinton Nick 113 Greensboro Robert 149 Clinton Tiffany 66 Elizabethtown State NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC Gender Age male 16 male 23 male 34 male 42 female 26 male 26 male 40 male 26 male 28 male 25 male 22 female 50 male 11 female 13 male 24 male 24 male 15 male 26 male 48 female 32 male 12 male 14 male 20 male 31 female 31 male 28 female 26 female 30 female 25 male 47 male 30 male 54 female 35 female 38 female 23 female 18 male 33 male 13 female 41 male 15 female 25 male 14 female 23 male 26 male 23 female 29 Time 19:08 19:10 20:48 21:09 21:44 23:21 23:29 23:45 23:50 23:57 23:58 24:02 24:07 24:10 24:17 24:18 24:19 24:22 24:23 24:24 24:37 24:38 24:41 24:43 24:51 24:57 25:00 25:17 25:22 25:26 25:28 25:35 25:36 25:37 25:39 25:45 26:02 26:08 26:30 26:31 26:32 27:05 27:10 27:11 27:15 27:19 Downtown Dash 5K Overall Times 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Taylor Pittman Chipman House Baxter Jenkins Whitted, Jr.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2012/10/15/overall-times/

15/10/2012 www.pdf-archive.com

Arranged by State District (1) 99%

Partisan Voting Index Districts of the 115th Congress The Cook Political Report Arranged by State/District Districts of the 115th Congress Page 2A.2 Sta CD Member Elected AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AK AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AR AR AR AR CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 BYRNE, BRADLEY (R) ROBY, MARTHA (R) ROGERS, MIKE (R) ADERHOLT, ROBERT (R) BROOKS, MO (R) PALMER, GARY (R) Sewell, Terri (D) YOUNG, DON (R) O’Halleran, Tom (D) MCSALLY, MARTHA (R) Grijalva, Raul (D) GOSAR, PAUL (R) BIGGS, ANDY (R) SCHWEIKERT, DAVID (R) Gallego, Ruben (D) FRANKS, TRENT (R) Sinema, Kyrsten (D) CRAWFORD, RICK (R) HILL, FRENCH (R) WOMACK, STEVE (R) WESTERMAN, BRUCE (R) LA MALFA, DOUG (R) Huffman, Jared (D) Garamendi, John (D) MCCLINTOCK, TOM (R) Thompson, Mike (D) Matsui, Doris (D) Bera, Ami (D) COOK, PAUL (R) McNerney, Jerry (D) DENHAM, JEFF (R) DeSaulnier, Mark (D) Pelosi, Nancy (D) Lee, Barbara (D) Speier, Jackie (D) Swalwell, Eric (D) Costa, Jim (D) Khanna, Ro (D) Eshoo, Anna (D) Lofgren, Zoe (D) Panetta, Jimmy (D) VALADAO, DAVID (R) NUNES, DEVIN (R) MCCARTHY, KEVIN (R) Carbajal, Salud (D) KNIGHT, STEVE (R) Brownley, Julia (D) Chu, Judy (D) Schiff, Adam (D) Cardenas, Tony (D) Sherman, Brad (D) Aguilar, Pete (D) Napolitano, Grace (D) Lieu, Ted (D) Becerra, Xavier (D) Torres, Norma (D) Ruiz, Raul (D) Bass, Karen (D) Sanchez, Linda (D) ROYCE, ED (R) Roybal-Allard, Lucille (D) Takano, Mark (D) CALVERT, KEN (R) Waters, Maxine (D) Barragan, Nanette (D) WALTERS, MIMI (R) Correa, Lou (D) Lowenthal, Alan (D) ROHRABACHER, DANA (R) ISSA, DARRELL (R) District Summary Arranged by State/District PVI R+15 R+16 R+16 R+30 R+18 R+26 D+20 R+ 9 R+ 2 R+ 1 D+13 R+21 R+15 R+ 9 D+23 R+13 D+ 4 R+17 R+ 7 R+19 R+17 R+11 D+22 D+ 5 R+10 D+21 D+21 D+ 3 R+ 9 D+ 8 EVEN D+21 D+37 D+40 D+27 D+20 D+ 9 D+25 D+23 D+24 D+23 D+ 5 R+ 8 R+14 D+ 7 EVEN D+ 7 D+16 D+23 D+29 D+18 D+ 8 D+17 D+16 D+35 D+19 D+ 2 D+37 D+17 EVEN D+33 D+12 R+ 9 D+29 D+35 R+ 3 D+15 D+13 R+ 4 R+ 1 Rank 75 69 66 5 53 13 373 143 221 238 329 29 83 141 386 90 262 60 172 44 62 122 381 266 130 379 375 259 146 299 243 376 429 433 398 372 311 391 384 387 383 270 166 88 285 240 288 346 385 404 364 301 357 347 424 367 253 427 355 241 418 328 157 409 423 214 342 331 206 234 2016 Winner Margin Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Clinton Trump Trump Clinton Clinton Trump Trump Trump Clinton Trump Clinton Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Clinton Clinton Trump Clinton Clinton Clinton Trump Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Trump Trump Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Trump Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton (29) (32) (33) (63) (33) (44) (41) (15) (1)# (5) (30) (39) (21) (10) (48) (21) (16) (35) (11) (31) (33) (19) (45) (13) (15) (45) (44) (11) (15) (18) (3) (48) (77) (79) (59) (45) (21) (53) (53) (51) (47) (15) (9) (22) (20) (7) (21) (38) (50) (61) (43) (21) (39) (41) (73) (41) (9) (76) (40) (9) (70) (28) (12) (62) (71) (5) (38) (32) (2)# (8) Trump 63 65 65 80 64 70 28 51 47 44 32 66 56 52 22 57 38 65 52 62 64 55 23 40 53 24 24 40 55 37 45 22 9 7 18 24 36 20 20 22 23 39 51 58 36 43 35 28 22 17 26 37 28 27 11 27 43 10 27 43 13 33 53 17 12 44 28 31 46 43 Partisan Voting Index Cook Political Report Pres Clinton Cong 34 33 32 17 31 26 70 37 46 49 62 27 36 42 71 36 54 30 42 31 31 36 68 53 39 69 68 51 40 55 48 70 85 86 77 69 57 74 73 73 70 55 42 36 56 50 57 66 72 78 69 58 67 68 84 68 52 86 67 51 82 61 41 78 83 49 66 62 48 51 TD CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR 2012 Winner Margin Romney Romney (24) Romney (26) Romney (26) Romney (51) Romney (29) Romney (50) Obama (46) Romney (14) Romney (3) Romney (2)# Obama (25) Romney (36) Romney (29) Romney (21) Obama (45) Romney (25) Obama (5) Romney (25) Romney (12) Romney (34) Romney (26) Romney (16) Obama (42) Obama (11) Romney (18) Obama (42) Obama (41) Obama (4) Romney (14) Obama (18) Obama (4) Obama (38) Obama (72) Obama (79) Obama (51) Obama (38) Obama (19) Obama (46) Obama (39) Obama (45) Obama (45) Obama (11) Romney (15) Romney (25) Obama (11) Romney (2)# Obama (10) Obama (28) Obama (44) Obama (57) Obama (33) Obama (17) Obama (33) Obama (24) Obama (69) Obama (37) Obama (3) Obama (72) Obama (32) Romney (4) Obama (65) Obama (25) Romney (15) Obama (58) Obama (71) Romney (12) Obama (25) Obama (23) Romney (12) Romney (7) 62 63 62 75 64 74 27 55 50 50 37 67 64 60 27 62 47 61 55 66 62 56 27 43 58 27 28 47 56 40 47 30 13 9 24 30 39 26 29 27 26 44 57 62 43 50 44 35 27 21 32 41 33 37 14 31 48 13 33 51 17 36 57 20 14 55 36 38 55 52 Trump Obama Net% 37 36 37 24 35 25 73 41 48 48 61 31 35 39 72 37 51 36 43 32 36 40 69 54 40 70 69 51 42 58 51 68 84 88 74 68 59 72 68 71 71 55 42 36 54 48 54 63 70 77 65 57 65 61 83 67 51 85 65 47 82 62 41 78 85 43 61 60 43 46 1 2 3 5 0 -5 1 -4 -3 -6 -5 -1 -8 -8 -4 -5 -9 4 -2 -4 2 -1 -4 -3 -5 -3 -4 -7 -1 -3 -2 -8 -4 -2 -5 -6 -3 -5 -9 -5 -3 -4 -5 -4 -7 -6 -9 -7 -4 -4 -6 -4 -5 -10 -3 -4 -4 -3 -6 -8 -4 -3 -3 -3 -1 -11 -9 -7 -9 -9 POLIDATA ® Demographic and Political Guides.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/10/11/arranged-by-state-district-1/

11/10/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

ElectionCheatsheetEST.docx 98%

Election 2016 Presidential Cheat Sheet Trump needs to win 90 Electoral Votes from below (180 EVs are safe for trump) Clinton needs to win 73 electoral votes from below (197 EVs are safe for clinton)+++ State Electoral Votes RCP Average++ 538 %++ Poll Close (EST) 2012 Result 2012 Call time (EST) Virginia 13 Clinton 5.0 Clinton 85% 7pm Obama+3.9 12:30 New Hampshire 4 Clinton +.6 Clinton 70% 7pm Obama+5.6 10:26 North Carolina 15 Trump 1.0 Clinton 56% 7:30pm Romney +2% 12:10 Ohio 18 Trump 3.5 Trump 63% 7:30 Obama+3 11:20 Florida 29 Trump +.2 Clinton 55% 8pm* Obama+.9 Weds Pennsylvania 20 Clinton 1.9 Clinton 77% 8pm Obama+5.4 9:55 Maine CD1 3 Clinton +4.5 Clinton 83% 8pm Obama+15 10:30 Maine CD 2 1 Clinton +4.5 Clinton 83% 8pm Obama+8.6 10:30 Michigan 16 Clinton +3.4 Clinton 79% 8pm Obama+9.5 9:08 Wisconsin 10 Clinton 6.5 Clinton 84% 9pm Obama+6.9 11:47 Colorado 9 Clinton +2.9 Clinton 78% 9pm Obama+5.4 11:46 Arizona 11 Trump +4 Trump 67% 9pm Romney+9 10:30 Nevada** 6 Trump +1.5 Clinton 58% 10pm Obama +6.7 11:54 Iowa 6 Trump +3 Trump 70% 10pm Obama+5.8 11:20 * florida splits time zones, CT closing time is listed ** Clinton appears to have a solid lead in Nevada early voting ++ updated at 8 AM MT on Tuesday Nov 8th +++ Maine CD1 and wisconsin are likely safe clinton too

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/11/08/electioncheatsheetest-docx/

08/11/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

ps05102016 Sw4b42d 97%

MAY 10, 2016 CLINTON-TRUMP CLOSE IN FLORIDA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY SWING STATE POLL FINDS --- FLORIDA:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/05/10/ps05102016-sw4b42d/

10/05/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

Report-Skolkvovo-08012016-2 95%

FROM RUSSIA WITH MONEY Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism   1   Table of Contents   Executive  Summary  ....................................................................................................................................

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/05/20/report-skolkvovo-08012016-2/

20/05/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

PAotDPP2016 94%

Why Clinton is Still the Projected Nominee Though Independent Junior Vermont Senator Bernard Sanders continues to have high levels of support, particularly with young and grassroots supporters, as well as a large amount of money left in his campaign from an abundance of donors, we must still examine if his momentum can allow for him to beat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/03/28/paotdpp2016/

28/03/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

clinton-channels-two-dulles 94%

Hillary Clinton Channels Allen and John Foster Dulles:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/03/13/clinton-channels-two-dulles/

13/03/2018 www.pdf-archive.com

Green Leaders on GOP vs Dems shorter 94%

Bush?] …No… regulatory agencies under Clinton/Gore are as bad or worse than under Reagan/Bush… Trump-Clinton 2016 Ralph Nader, 8/10/2015:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/11/13/green-leaders-on-gop-vs-dems-shorter/

13/11/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

Geijsel CortesBarragan 2016 A Dishonest Election 93%

        Are we witnessing a dishonest election?    A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures    of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for     the Presidency of the United States of America            Axel Geijsel  Tilburg University – The Netherlands      Rodolfo Cortes Barragan  Stanford University – U.S.A.      June 7, 2016         “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you  cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” ­ ​ Abraham Lincoln    “No one has yet figured out a straightforward method of ensuring that one of the most revered  democratic institutions – in this case, electing a U.S. president – can be double checked for  fraud, particularly when paperless e­voting systems are used.” ­ Larry Greenemeier, ​ Scientific  American                  Summary Statement     Given the stakes in the outcome of the​  ​ American presidential elections, ensuring the  integrity of the electoral process is of the utmost importance. Are the results we are witnessing  in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge  over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary  Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive. At present, Secretary  Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate? We  contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for  election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide  converging evidence for this claim.     First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries  by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do  not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the  discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008  competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we  find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may  have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support.      Different outcomes in primary states with paper trails and without paper trails     Data procurement​ : Given the potential that the underlying voting number has been corrupted,  we had to restrict our analysis to a proxy: the percentage of delegates won by Secretary Clinton  and Senator Sanders. To group states according to the accountability of the vote, we used  Ballotpedia and created two groups. First, there are 18 states that feature voting procedures  wherein the accuracy of electoral results of a primary ballot vote are backed by a paper trail.  Second, there are 13 states that do not have such a paper trail.     Analysis​ : ​ The [​ data​ ] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. States  without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton, (M ​  = 65.13%, SD = ​ no paper trail​ no   = 10.41%) than states with paper trails (M ​  = 48.53%, SD = ​  = 16.00%), t(29)  paper trail​ paper trail​ paper trail​ = 3.21, P = 0.003,  d = 1.19 [Figure 1]. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting  procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the  Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations,  including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time.     Supplemental analysis on caucus states:​  Does the pattern seen in ballot states occur in caucus  states? By the very nature of caucusing procedures, caucus results are generally thought to be  more trustworthy. However, in the current Democratic caucusing cycle, Iowa and Nevada had  caucuses widely alleged to have involved a considerable level of voter suppression and  potential fraud. We examined the [​ data​ ] and found that these two states had far higher support  for Secretary Clinton, [M ​  = 54.71%, SD = ​  = 3.44%] than the other caucus  fraud allegations​ fraud allegation​ states, [M ​  = 31.61%, SD = ​ = 9.98%], t ​  (11) = 3.13, P =  no fraud allegations​ no fraud allegations ​ independent­means​ 0.009, d = 3.10.    Anomalies exist between exit polls and final results    Data procurement​ : We obtained exit poll data from a ​ database​  kept by an expert on the  American elections.      Analysis​ : On the overall, are the exit polls different from the final results? Yes they are. The ​ data  show lower support for Secretary Clinton in exit polls than the final results would suggest, [M ​ exit   = 54.38%, SD = ​  = 13.95%; M ​  = 57.52%, SD = ​ = 13.87%], t ​  (23) = 3.49, P =  exit​ final​ final ​ dependent­means​ 0.002, d = 0.71.​  ​ While an effect size of 0.71 is quite substantial, and suggests a considerable  difference between exit polls and outcomes, we expected that this difference would be even  more exaggerated in states without paper voting trails. Indeed, the effect size in states without  paper voting trails is considerably larger: 1.50, and yields more exaggerated support for the  Secretary in the hours following the exit polls [M ​  = 62.93%, SD = ​  = 8.80%; M ​  = 65.68%,  exit​ exit​ final​ SD = ​ = 9.52%], t ​  (9) = 4.68, P < 0.001. In contrast, the effect size is much smaller  final ​ dependent­means​ in states with paper trails, [M ​  = 48.28%, SD = ​  = 13.94%; M ​  = 51.69%, SD = ​ =  exit​ exit​ final​ final ​ 13.77%], t ​  (13) = 2.27, P = 0.04, d = 0.58.  dependent­means​   Irregularities are unique to 2016    To show that the pattern of votes may suggest a systematic effort to undercut Senator Sanders,  we must show that no such patterns were in place in similar elections. Given that Secretary  Clinton lost to President Obama in 2008, their data is a natural control and the best possible  point of comparison for the 2016 data. Thus, as we did for 2016, we tabulated the percentage of  delegates won in each state by (then Senator) Hillary Clinton. The ​ data​  show that, contrary to  the 2016 data, there is no evidence that primary states without paper trails favored Senator  Clinton in 2008, P = 0.38. As such, the patterns of 2016 are different from their best point of  comparison.     Conclusion    Are we witnessing a dishonest election? Our first analysis showed that states wherein the voting  outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton. Second, our  examination of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents that took the  exit polls and the claimed voters in the final tally. Beyond these points, these irregular patterns  of results did not exist in 2008. As such, as a whole, these data suggest that election fraud is  occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election. This fraud has  overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders.         Figure 1. Percent of support for Clinton and Sanders by state voting paper trail  status.     Appendix, Supplemental Analyses, and References       

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/10/28/geijsel-cortesbarragan-2016-a-dishonest-election/

28/10/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

0cf371 514bfe6a2dec4871ab7da7d50b9be410 93%

Hillary Clinton Flash-Crash to 12% Favorable, Losing 19-77% Nationally At this point Donald Trump has both momentum and enthusiasm.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/10/19/0cf371-514bfe6a2dec4871ab7da7d50b9be410/

19/10/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

volume1-issue1-english-abstract-33-52 91%

33-52 Abstract T a h a | 33 Clinton’s rhetoric on Somalia:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2015/09/06/volume1-issue1-english-abstract-33-52/

06/09/2015 www.pdf-archive.com

Appendix 91%

Clinton overperformed the polls only in states that are vulnerable to electronic hacking.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/10/28/appendix/

28/10/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

IN THEIR OWN WORDS 90%

August 12, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS DONALD TRUMP (R) .................................................................................................................................................2 HILLARY CLINTON (D) .................................................................................................................................................5 Below is a selection of quotes and coverage of the presidential candidates’ statements and actions on the renewable energy policies, including the Production Tax Credit for wind energy.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/09/22/in-their-own-words/

22/09/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

Ackers v Brazile et al gandce-17-03083 0003.0 (2) 90%

RACKETEERING DONNA BRAZILE NEGLIGENCE CABLE NEWS NETWORK BREACH OF FIDUCIARY HILLARY ROD HAM CLINTON UNJUST ENRICHMENT DEMOCRATIC SERVICES CORPORATION BREACH OF CONTRACT JURY TRIAL DEMAND d/b/a DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITIEE JENNIFER PALMIERI JOHN PODESTA DEBORAH WASSERMAN SCHULTZ TIME WARNER INCORPORATED TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM INCORPORATED TURNER SERVICES INCORPORATED Defendant(s) On the dates of March 5 &

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/08/24/ackers-v-brazile-et-al-gandce-17-03083-0003-0-2/

24/08/2017 www.pdf-archive.com

AR special report 89%

the modern war on the “symbol” for black liberation In January 2015 a group of Haitians surrounded the New York offices of the Clinton Foundation.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/10/24/ar-special-report/

24/10/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

Bill Clinton MDP Dinner BREAKING (2) 88%

Bill Clinton Slated to Headline Michigan Democratic Party’s 2014 Jefferson-Jackson Dinner Sunday, March 23, 2014, 5:00 p.m.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2014/03/23/bill-clinton-mdp-dinner-breaking-2/

23/03/2014 www.pdf-archive.com

IIPADpoll 87%

Preference on Candidate by the Issues Free Trade Religious Liberty LGBT Rights Law&Crime Environment Gun Control Immigration Health Care Terrorism Employment 0% 10% 20% Hillary Clinton 30% 40% Donald Trump 50% 60% Gary Johnson 70% 80% 90% 100% Jill Stein The general consensus was that Trump slightly leads Clinton on economic issues such as creating jobs for Americans and renegotiating trade deals such as NAFTA and TPP.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/08/23/iipadpoll/

23/08/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

game DNC delegate vote 86%

By selecting those delegates strategically, a voter could have an outside influence in determining which individuals are sent to the convention, without affecting the fortunes of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/04/08/game-dnc-delegate-vote/

08/04/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

Russian propaganda and the US election SHORT 85%

That reporting focuses on attacking Hillary Clinton in specific, and the nature of U.S.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/12/28/russian-propaganda-and-the-us-election-short/

28/12/2018 www.pdf-archive.com

stoptrumppr 83%

If you’re a Democrat, back Hillary Clinton.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/05/04/stoptrumppr/

04/05/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

Nothing Left ReedJr Harpers March 82%

Most telling, though, is the reinvention of the Clinton Administration as a halcyon time of progressive success.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2015/04/14/nothing-left-reedjr-harpers-march/

14/04/2015 www.pdf-archive.com

Model Specification Document 81%

Senator’s term) Household income Party identification (1-7 scale, larger numbers indicate greater identification with the Democratic Party) Political ideology (1-7 scale, larger numbers indicate a respondent is more politically liberal) Clinton support (did the respondent prefer Clinton as the Democratic nominee) Sanders support (did the respondent prefer Clinton as the Democratic nominee) Racial resentment (four item scale averaged, alpha .85 ) Racial identity (How important is being (RACE) to your identity?) Attitude towards free trade (Do you favor, oppose, or neither favor nor oppose the U.S.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/07/24/model-specification-document/

24/07/2016 www.pdf-archive.com

370089125-Chuck-Grassley-Letter-to-John-Podesta 78%

1 Adam Entous, Devlin Barrett, Rosalind Helderman, Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid For Research That Led to Russia Dossier, THE WASHINGTON POST (Oct.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2018/02/28/370089125-chuck-grassley-letter-to-john-podesta/

28/02/2018 www.pdf-archive.com

antiwar (1) 78%

https://youtu.be/v5-51-wLVG0 - Clinton calls for no-fly zone, admitting privately that it would kill a lot of Syrians h ​ ttp://archive.is/Qv1f2 - Leaked Kerry audio shows US wanted ISIS to grow h ​ ttp://archive.is/Rl6BS - 52 chemical weapons attacks by ISIS in Syria/Iraq ​http://archive.is/wc2XY - The Fun of Empire, Fighting on All Sides of a War in Syria https://theintercept.com/2014/08/26/fun-empire-fighting-sides-war/ - Libya​ Profit motives:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/02/06/antiwar-1/

06/02/2017 www.pdf-archive.com