U.S. POLITICS MUST QUIT FACEBOOK

Facebook agenda is a clear and present danger to American democracy

Contributing Writers | OPINION | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION  | Updated Sep. 24, 2013 | PDF

U.S. Patent Office FOIA merry go round in Leader v. Facebook. Graphic: Boris Kustodiev

Update, Sep. 23, 2013. Obama's Patent Office continues to stonewall Leader v. Facebook  FOIA requests

Kathryn W. Siehndel, USPTO FOIA Counsel

In another example of stonewalling by the Obama Administration, U.S. Patent Office Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Counsel, Kathryn W. Siehndel, refuses to answer straightforward FOIA requests regarding Leader v. Facebook. Siehndel also ignores calls for her to quit her involvement in this case since she was formerly employed by Facebook's law firm, White & Case LLP. Siehndel's conflicts are joined by the lead patent judge, Stephen C. Siu, who was employed by Facebook stakeholders, IBM and Microsoft. Former Director Kappos himself was formerly employed by IBM.

"This is not a dictatorship"

Siehndel has stonewalled all requests for Kappos' financial reports, although AFI has learned he placed his IBM pension fund under management by another Facebook crony, Fidelity Funds' Robert Ketterson. IBM also sold 750 patents to Facebook during this time. All the Leader v. Facebook judges held multiple Fidelity funds with notorious pre-IPO holdings in Facebook, along with Kappos. Responding to Obama's refusal to follow constitutionally mandated procedures, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said to CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Sep. 18, 2013: "This is not a dictatorship."

No Conflicts of Interest Checks in Leader v. Facebook. Shockingly, if Siehndel's response can be taken at face value, the Patent Office did not perform mandatory conflicts of interest checks before assigning employees to the Leader v. Facebook matter. Siehndel is essentially admitting that they did not consult their conflicts of interest database (mandated by the Judicial Conference) which they had provided in a heavily whited-out form in a previous FOIA response. This begs the question why they would maintain a conflict of interest database, then not use it as required. The evident answer is because they knew they were conflicted and were instructed by their Facebook Club handlers how to proceed.

Obama abuses patent law to protect his Facebook club & 47 million "likes"

The FOIA request asked for information about the Patent Office's 16,000 "like's" on Facebook. Patent Office Director David J. Kappos started the Patent Office Facebook page in May 2010 and encouraged his 10,000 employees to visit it daily. He did this before the Leader v. Facebook patent infringement trial where Facebook was found guilty of infringing Leader's patent on 11 of 11 counts. After rejecting Facebook reexamination challenges twice, the Patent Office, acting on instructions from shadowy higher ups and without cause, suddenly reversed itself in 2012. They are now attempting to invalidate Leader's entire patent—more than 7 years after the patent was awarded. They are challenging claims that they have already affirmed three times previously. Eleven of the claims were also fully affirmed a fourth time at trial. See previous post detailing this conduct.

This dramatic reversal is nothing short of magical, prompting comparisons to Russian fairy tales and merry go rounds. This nakedly corrupt confiscation of American private property by the Executive and Judicial Branches begs the questions: "What is the Facebook Club's end game? What objective is worth such sins?" Click here to read Kathryn W. Siehndel's latest response. See Siehndel's previous evasive response (click here).

Fig. 1—Facebook undermines American Elections. The benefits of Facebook are dramatically overshadowed by its threats to free and fair American elections, its basis in intellectual property theft and corruption, and its abuse of the democratic process. Graphic: Outside the Beltway.

Top 5 Reasons Why All U.S. Politicians Must Quit FacebooK— Without Delay

1. Unregulated electioneering. Electioneering on Facebook is unregulated and unaudited. It is under the complete control of private parties who exhibit a greater than 9 to 1 bias for Democratic candidates.(A current spin is underway to imply that Facebook is not politically biased, but the facts say otherwise—"contributions of individual staffers skews heavily Democratic." The Washington Post, May 10, 2013.)[01]
2. Fruit of a poisoned tree. Facebook's technology is stolen from Ohio-based innovator, Leader Technologies, as proven in federal court, after which the courts protected Facebook anyway via massive judicial corruption that has engulfed the Federal Circuit Appeals Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. This state-sponsored confiscation of Leader's property taints all political and economic benefits as the fruits of a poisoned tree. It also makes Facebook users culpable.
3. No equal time. Not a level playing field. While the political landscape is roughly even between Republicans and Democrats, Republicans and other parties have no equal access to Obama's 47 million "likes" on Facebook.
4. Substantial foreign involvement. Facebook's shareholders and advertisers include many foreigners. These include Russian oligarchs with ties to money laundering and diversion of International Monetary Fund (IMF) funds. Some of these diverted funds are essentially illegal financial donations to U.S. politicians. In addition, foreign involvement in U.S. politics is expressly prohibited by law, specifically 2 USC § 441e(a)(1) (foreign nationals may not directly or indirectly make contributions or independent expenditures in connection with a U.S. election).[02]
5. "Free and Fair elections" since 2006 is a myth. The heavy reliance on unregulated social media in electioneering has destroyed the sacrosanct principle of "free and fair elections." The U.S. State Department's handbook states: "Free and fair elections are the keystone of any democracy. They are essential for the peaceful transfer of power."[03] This is no longer true in American elections which are currently monopolized by one player who controls the electioneering data without regulation—Facebook's private handlers.

Without equal access to Obama’s 47 million Facebook "likes," American political discourse is hopelessly skewed to the preferences of the Facebook Club who control a private monopoly on a database that can control the outcome of any close American election for the foreseeable future.

Investigation into the Leader v. Facebook  Washington judicial corruption scandal has uncovered a scheme to manipulate U.S. elections. This scheme appears to have already influenced the 2008 and 2012 elections unduly. Political opponents of candidates favored by Facebook’s key management, shareholders, attorneys and advertisers (the Facebook Club) are not given equal time and access.

For example, Barack and Michelle Obama and their political action committees have over 47 million "likes" on Facebook, as compared to a fraction of that number for opponents.

In addition, Facebook's programmers (self-described "hackers") control ALL data and access to that data. This includes the U.S. electioneering data for both parties.

The election process is one of America's most cherished traditions. We have had 57 Presidential elections since Washington was elected our first President. As citizens, once our votes are counted, we hold the cherished belief and clear expectation that our leaders are chosen fairly, honestly, without electoral bias, and based on one person, one vote.

While the election process has remained an ideal, the flaws in the system are being exploited nefariously by recent developments in technology. Election professionals have always tried to gain an advantage using technology. For example, the printing press vastly improved the ability to generate information (and disinformation) about candidates. According to a report by Bob Schieffer, Thomas Jefferson's campaign against President John Adams was probably the first really nasty one. Jefferson's supporters accused Adams of being a hermaphrodite with "neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." In response, the Adams campaign accused Jefferson of being the son of a half-breed Indian squaw and a mulatto father.[04]

Radio, television, and telephone technologies were employed for campaigns starting in the 20th century.

But now, the commercialization of the internet threatens to upset our sacred election principles. As recently as 1996 the internet was little more than an online candidate brochure. Since then it has become an unregulated "difference maker" in directly influencing elections.

Fig. 2—With Liberty and Justice for $ale
In 2006, Federal Election Commision Chairman, Robert D. Lenhard, and Facebook's attorney, Perkins Coii LLP, along with his Perkins Coii LLP Commissioner, Ellen L. Weintraub, approved a candidate Obama request allowing him to start raising money via the Internet—without disclosing Weintraub's conflict of interests with Obama's attorney.

This request was submitted by Obama's personal counsel, Robert F. Bauer (of IRS scandal notoriety). These insiders all knew this scheme to give Obama an edge in the next election (how did they know he would be nominated?) would be hidden from public scrutiny, or at worst would not be discovered until long after the damage was done. A year earlier, Lenhard had greased the skids by deregulating Internet electioneering from any public regulation.

On Oct. 14, 2008, another regulatory brake was removed for Barack Obama, Larry Summers, and the Facebook Club by the Securities & Exchange Commission. Fenwick & West LLP (another Facebook law firm), asked for and receive an unprecedented exemption from the 500-shareholder rule. This exemption opened the door for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley (Facebook's underwriters) to move billions of foreign dollars" of "dubious origins" (Fortune) to purchase Facebook insider stock, pumping its valuation to $100 billion.

Much of this foreign money came from Russian oligarchs directly mentored by Lawrence "Larry" Summers when he was chief economist at the World Bank. Facebook's COO, Sheryl K. Sandberg, was his employee then. This exemption was approved by SEC Chief Counsel, Thomas J. Kim, along with SEC Commissioner, Roel Campos, both former partners at Facebook's law firms Latham & Watkins LLP and Cooley Godward LLP, respectively. Kim was at Harvard with Obama, Summers and Sandberg where these plots were likely conceived.

Obama's and Kim's U.S. attorney friend, Preetinder "Preet" Bharara, formerly with Gibson Dunn LLP, is currently prosecuting/persecuting Paul Ceglia in Ceglia v. Zuckerberg. This action is likely intended to prevent more disclosure of the 28 Zuckerberg hard drives and Harvard emails that Gibson Dunn LLP hid from Leader Technologies' lawyers in Leader v. Facebook. When the Federal Circuit was told about this explosive new evidence, they ignored it. Every Federal Circuit judge in Leader v. Facebook owned Facebook stock and had deep and long standing (undisclosed) relationships with Facebook's attorneys. Also undisclosed on petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was Chief Justice John Roberts' Facebook stock and close mentoring relationship with Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP, the Facebook attorney who benefited from the decision not to hear the Leader v. Facebook Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Sources of Facebook's Washington D.C., Moscow, Russia & Silicon Valley Corruption

Our problems today are more than merely "systemic failure" (as Hank Paulson posits—"nobody's fault"). This is naked greed and power mongering. These actors have been planning this assault on the U.S. Constitution since the early 1990's when the World Bank's Harvard "wunderkind" Larry Summers (with Sheryl Sandberg and Yuri Milner) shoved the Russian voucher system down the throats of a failing Soviet Union—creating a private, unregulated, Moscow-based cash cow they've been milking ever since. Not satisfied with the money, they want the power too.

All investigative roads keep leading back to these Facebook lawyers and sympathizers (See also "Faces of the Facebook Corruption" sidebar):

1. Perkins Coii LLP (Perkins Coii LLP);
2. Gibson Dunn LLP;
3. Cooley Godward LLP;
4. Fenwick & West LLP;
5. Latham & Watkins LLP;
6. Weil Gotshal LLP;
7. White & Case LLP;
8. Blank Rome LLP;
9. Orrick Herrington LLP;
10. Lawrence "Larry" Summers;
11. Sheryl K. Sandberg;
12. Mark E. Zuckerberg;
13. David Plouffe, White House Facebook coordinator;
14. Robert F. Bauer, White House counsel (Perkins Coii LLP - Facebook counsel);
15. Anita B. Dunn, White House counsel (Perkins Coii LLP - Facebook counsel);
16. Kathryn Ruemmler, White House counsel (Latham & Watkins LLP - Facebook counsel);
17. Donald K. Stern, White House Justice Dept. Advisor (Cooley Godward LLP - Facebook's Leader v. Facebook trial attorney);
18. Thomas G. Hungar, Federal Circuit counsel (Gibson Dunn LLP - Facebook's Leader v. Facebook appeals attorney);
19. Gordon K. Davidson, Fenwick & West LLP (Facebook's patent and securities counsel, Leader Technologies' former corporate counsel);
20. McBee Strategic LLC, Cooley Godward partner; Congressperson Nancy Pelosi mentored; siphoned energy stimulus funds to friends of the Facebook Club;
21. Goldman Sachs, played on both sides of the bailout, stimulus, Facebook IPO; siphoned funds to friends of the Facebook Club; partnered with DST Moscow who invested in post-exemption Facebook private stock;
22. Morgan Stanley, ditto;
23. State Street Corporation, ditto; works on control of banking transactions, including ATM, virtual currencies;
24. Fidelity Investments, custom-crafted fund containers for Facebook stock by Robert Ketterson, long-time collaborator with Facebook's director and second largest investor, James W. Breyer, Accel Partners LLP;
25. IDG China, John P. Breyer, the chessmaster;
26. DST, Digital Sky, Mail.ru, Alisher Asmanov, Yuri Milner, Facebook's Russian king making funders; long time protégés of Lawrence "Larry" Summers with Facebook's ;
27. U.S. Patent Office; former Director David J. Kappos; Acting Director Teresa Stanek Rea; Judge Stephen C. Siu, formerly with Facebook stakeholders Microsoft and IBM; Deputy Counsel Kathryn W. Siehndel, formerly with Facebook's White & Case;
28. A.F.L.C.T.A.C.A.F.C., Assoc. of Former Law Clerks and Technical Assistants for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—the Federal Circuit's (Judicial Branch) fifth column at the U.S. Patent Office (Executive Branch);
29. The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA);
30. The DC Bar Association, "declined" to investigate judicial misconduct;
31. The Federal Circuit itself, Chief Judge Randall R. Rader and Executive / Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly;
32. Judge Leonard P. Stark, Obama appointee one week after the Leader v. Facebook trial; Facebook stockholder;
33. Judge Evan J. Wallach, Obama appointee before the Leader v. Facebook appeal; Facebook stockholder; Gibson Dunn LLP client; protege of Senator Harry Reid;
34. Judge Kimberly A. Moore, Facebook stockholder; Gibson Dunn LLP client; husband, Matthew J. Moore, works for Latham & Watkins;
35. Judge Alan D. Lourie, Facebook stockholder; Gibson Dunn LLP client; and
36. Chief Justice John Roberts, mentor to Gibson Dunn LLP; Facebook stockholder.

Graphic: Georgia Tech Law.

On March 27, 2006, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) voted NOT to regulate the Internet for elections. In fact, the FEC voted unanimously to "not regulate political communication on the Internet, including emails, blogs and the creating of Web sites." This decision made only paid political ads placed on websites subject to campaign finance limitations.[05]

Roger Stone of Advocacy Inc. commented, "A wealthy individual could purchase all of the e-mail addresses for registered voters in a congressional district . . . produce an Internet video ad, and e-mail it along with a link to the campaign contribution page. Not only would this activity not count against any contribution limits or independent expenditure requirements; it would never even need to be reported."[06]

This re-regulation gives deep-pocketed supporters, foreigners and anonymous supporters strong influence over the American election process.

The FEC decision is analogous to the decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act which contributed to our disastrous economic crisis in 2008. Glass-Steagall had previously prevented investment banking firms from gambling with depositors' money that was held in affiliated commercial banks. This deregulation led to numerous abuses, including gambling in derivatives by major investment firms.

The lack of regulation of e-campaigning has already led to suspected campaign influence and fraud. Leveraged by the confluence of social networking, the creation of large databases, and "large data" analytics, elections can be manipulated. Facebook has rapidly become the lingua franca of this realm as a result of their nefarity. Virtually every candidate uses Facebook to contact, store, and analyze information about the electorate as well as solicit donations.

On July 27, 2010, Facebook was found guilty on 11 of 11 counts of infringing the patent on social networking held by Leader Technologies—U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761. And yet, corrupt federal judges, including U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, have protected Facebook. Tellingly, Roberts holds stock in Facebook and openly mentors Facebook’s attorney Gibson Dunn LLP, Thomas G. Hungar.[07]

The Facebook Club is threatened by the emergence of "the real deal" from Leader Technologies. This is why they have settled intellectual property disputes with everyone and their dogs, other than the rightful inventor. They know they will lose in a head-to-head competition. They, along with their collaborators including PayPal, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Zynga, Instagram, and Square, would lose their monopolistic grip on U.S. politics. Consequently, Facebook pretends that Leader’s U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 for social networking does not exist and has used its influence over mainstream media to block coverage of the case.

The Facebook Club supports Barack Obama and Democratic causes approximately 9 to 1. See Footnote 1. If one were to give each Facebook law firm a 1 value only, then the skew is well over 19 to 1.

The emergence of Facebook as the go-to platform for political discourse has been driven by the Obama campaign's success at micro targeting Facebook "likes" to beat John McCain in 2008 by 9.5 million votes, and Mitt Romney in 2012 by 5.0 million votes. Politicians now fear that they will be left behind if they don’t try and catch up.

Facebook's growth was fueled initially by gaming, photo sharing and chat. Those users have grown older and now vote. Many of these users are sometimes called LOFO, or low-information voters. They share their data and opinions freely, allowing Facebook’s hackers to parse their most intimate personal likes, dislikes and predilections, including their political leanings.

Speculation is growing that Obama's 47 million "likes" appeared in large quantities after Facebook’s hackers secretly switched tens of millions of LOFO users to "like" Obama in one of their many "upgrades to enhance social engagement." These hackers then went to work converting those LOFO's into Obama votes using daily propaganda, admiring photos, as well as getting personal visits from local community organizers. It only took 9.5 million LOFOs and others in 2008 and 5.0 million in 2012 to beat McCain and Romney, respectively.

One sophisticated elected official in a local election in the Midwest claims he was able to manipulate and determine the outcome local elections by the analysis of Facebook data bases and public voting records. He is now coaching other candidates how to do it.

At the federal level, virtually every member of Congress and presidential candidate uses Facebook. They also accept coaching of Facebook personnel to ostensibly improve their election possibilities. It is well known that Chris Hughes, one of Mark Zuckerberg’s former Harvard roommates, led Obama's social media strategies. The Republican National Committee has now hired a former middle manager at Facebook, Andy Barkett, as its Chief Technology Officer.[08]

As insiders to both parties, these Facebook people have the opportunity to manipulate the data and swing elections. On average, President Obama posts to his Facebook page more than once a day. No political opposition can keep up with such a barrage of daily narratives without equal access to those 47 million people. The Facebook environment, as currently known, has undermined the checks and balances of the American political process in favor of the political preferences of the Facebook Club.

Mathematically, the only way Facebook can sustain this control over U.S. electioneering is to have no competition. It stands to reason, if you control the sole access to 47 million LOFOs—unassuming persons who vote on emotion— then you can titillate them with your "narrative" with little concern that the opponent will be able to counter you.  And, you can change your message on a dime.

"Equal Time" in Social Media Was Destroyed by the Facebook Club in the Corrupt 2006 F.E.C. Deregulation Scheme

However, if the opponent has the opportunity to counter your narratives, like a good member of the loyal opposition should be able to do, then American political discourse remains freer and fairer. This is the basic concept behind "equal time." Whenever the President makes a speech, a member of the loyal opposition is permitted equal time to express another perspective. This is regulated by the Equal Time Rule regarding broadcast licenses in the Federal Communications Act of 1934.[09]

Facebook’s attorneys were evidently at work from 2002 to lay the groundwork that has made the playing field skewed toward their candidates. Deregulation helped them get there. Now we know why. Their plan to takeover American electioneering required free and unfettered access to the Facebook LOFO votes that they were grooming for candidate Barack Obama. With deregulation in place, they avoided public scrutiny over the most manipulative parts of their plan.[10]

The FEC's Mar. 27, 2006 deregulation of Internet electioneering was presided over by then Chairman Robert D. Lenhard. A year later on Mar. 1, 2007,[12] Lenhard approved Obama’s request, delivered via Obama’s personal counsel, Robert Bauer, Perkins Coii LLP (now implicated in the IRS scandal), to use his Facebook page to solicit donations before Obama was the Democratic candidate. Also notable is the undisclosed FEC conflict of interest. Nowhere did Lehnard disclose that his Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub was a Perkins Coii LLP partner of Obama’s Robert F. Bauer. Perkins Coii LLP also represented Facebook.

As is the case with so many lawyers associated with the corrupt practices of the Facebook Club, Weintraub counseled clients on ethics, advised the Senate Rules Committee and the House Ethics Committee, recommended changes to the House Code of Official Conduct,  was chief editor of the House Ethics Manual and a principal contributor to the Senate Ethics Manual.

F.E.C. Ellen L. Weintraub's ethical outliar destroyed U.S. electioneering checks and balances. Hank Paulson says these regulators suffered from systemic confusion about right and wrong.

Remarkably, Weintraub ignored those ethics by voting for Obama’s request by her law partner, Robert F. Bauer, without disclosing the conflict. Pundits agree that this request, in concert with the earlier deregulation, dramatically altered the U.S. election landscape. This is more fruit of the tree poisoned by unethical Facebook attorneys.

Robert F. Bauer and his wife, Anita B. Dunn, the current personal attorney to Barack Obama, have recently been identified by the House Oversight Committee on Government Reform as a possible source of the IRS targeting of the Tea Party.

* * *

American internet electioneering – A primer[11]
It’s currently not a fair fight in the social media age.

Obama and the Democrats easily have a 9 to 1 access advantage (or more) in social media where their friends hold a privately-held monopoly.

The internet was first used in the 1996 presidential elections, but primarily as a brochure for the candidate online. It was only used by a few candidates and there is no evidence of any major effect on the outcomes of that election cycle.

In 2000, both candidates ( W. Bush and Al Gore) created, maintained and updated their campaign websites. But it was not until the 2004 presidential election cycle was the potential value of the internet seen. By the summer of 2003, ten people competing in the 2004 presidential election had developed campaign websites. Howard Dean’s campaign website from that year was considered a model for all future campaign websites. His website played a significant role in his overall campaign strategy. It allowed his supporters to read about his campaign platform and provide feedback, donate, get involved with the campaign, and connect with other supporters. A Gallup poll from January 2004 revealed that 49 percent of Americans have used the internet to get information about candidates, and 28 percent said that they use the internet to get this information frequently.

In 2008, the internet became a grassroots and a voice of the people tool-a way for the users to connect with each other and with the campaign, like Dean’s website had done in 2004. All of the major candidates had a website and utilized social networking like Facebook and MySpace. The popularity of a candidate could be measured by the number of ‘friends’ on these sites as well as on websites like Hitwise, which listed the number of hits all of the presidential candidate’s websites had each week.

Internet channels such as YouTube were used by candidates to share speeches and ads for free. This also served as a forum for users to attack other candidates by uploading videos of gaffes.

A study done by the Pew Internet & American Life Project in conjunction with Princeton Survey Research Associates in November 2010 shows that 54 percent of adults in the United States used the internet to get information about the 2010 midterm elections and about specific candidates. This represents 73 percent of adult internet users. The study also showed that 22 percent of adult internet users used social network sites or Twitter to get information about and discuss the elections and 26 percent of all adults used cell phones to learn about or participate in campaigns.

E-campaigning as it has come to be called, is subject to very little regulation. On March 26, 2006 the Federal Election Commission voted unanimously to "not regulate political communication on the Internet, including emails, blogs and the creating of Web sites." This decision made only paid political ads placed on websites subject to campaign finance limitations. A comment was made about this decision by Roger Alan Stone of Advocacy Inc. that explain this loophole in the context of a political campaign,

"A wealthy individual could purchase all of the e-mail addresses for registered voters in a Congressional District... produce an Internet video ad, and e-mail it along with a link to the campaign contribution page. Not only would this activity not count against any contribution limits or independent expenditure requirements; it would never even need to be reported."

New, Sep. 19, 2013. Manipulation of U.S. elections by any party can have disasterous results.

One of the most serious U.S. Presidential election manipulations was made public earlier this year.

On Mar. 22, 2013, the BBC published an article by David Taylor titled, "The Lyndon Johnson tapes: Richard Nixon's 'treason'."[13] The article reveals Nixon's successful efforts to win the 1968 election through "treasonous" activities:

In late October 1968 there were major concessions from Hanoi which promised to allow meaningful talks to get underway in Paris - concessions that would justify Johnson calling for a complete bombing halt of North Vietnam. This was exactly what Nixon feared.

The Paris peace talks may have ended years earlier, if it had not been for Nixon's subterfuge.

Fig. 3—The Paris peace talks may have ended the Vietnam War years earlier, if it had not been for Nixon's subterfuge in his efforts to win the 1968 presidential election. Photo: AP/BBC.

[Anna] Chennault [a senior Nixon campaign adviser] was despatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal.

So on the eve of his planned announcement of a halt to the bombing, Johnson learned the South Vietnamese were pulling out [of the peace talks].

He was also told why. The FBI had bugged the ambassador's phone and transcripts of Anna Chennault's calls were sent to the White House. In one conversation she tells the ambassador to "just hang on through election."

Johnson was told by Defence Secretary Clifford that the interference was illegal and threatened the chance for peace.

Nixon went on to become president and eventually signed a Vietnam peace deal in 1973, five years later. AFI has been able to verify the information in the BBC article from primary sources who were White House political insiders during those years.

As a result of these manipulations, the Vietnam War lasted almost seven years more until the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975.

From 1969 forward,

over 20,000 Americans soldiers were killed (out of a total military soul count of 58,000); and[14]

over 100,000 South Vietnamese soldiers were killed (out of a total military soul count of 224,000).[15]

During the entire Vietnam War,

over 200,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers were killed (out of a total military soul count of 1.1 million); and[16]

Nearly 5,000 South Korea, Australia, Thailand and New Zealand soldiers were killed.[17]

On Apr. 4, 1995, the Hanoi government revealed that the true civilian casualties of the Vietnam War were 2.0 million in the North, and 2.0 million in the South. The deaths of these souls represented 12-13% of their entire population.[18]

San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 9, 1975

In an ironic twist to this U.S. electioneering nightmare, President Nixon copied LBJ’s practice of using technology to tape record White House conversations and wiretaps. Nixon's tapes led to the Watergate scandal, political disgrace and resignation as President to avoid almost certain impeachment.

Footnotes:

[01] Facebook Club Bias. Federal Election Commission. Accessed Sep. 16, 2013 (Reid Hoffman, James W. Breyer, Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, Matthew Cohler, Chris Hughes, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Erskine Bowles, Ping Li, James Swartz, Facebook PAC) <http://www.fec.gov/>.

[02] Foreign Involvement in U.S. Elections via Facebook. 2 USC § 441e - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals. Cornell University Law School. Accessed Sep. 16, 2013  <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/441e>.

[03] "Free and Fair Elections." USA Elections in Brief. Bureau of Information Programs, U.S. State Department, p. 1 <http://photos.state.gov/libraries/amgov/30145/publications-english/USA_Elections_InBrief.pdf>.

[04] Opposing opinions protected. "Nasty campaign ads an American tradition" by Bob Shieffer. CBS News, Aug. 19, 2012. Accessed Sep. 16, 2013 <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57496060/nasty-campaign-ads-an-american-tradition/>.

[05] Facebook attorney fraud in election rules. "FEC Internet Rulemaking - Background and FAQ" by Vice Chairman Robert D. Lenhard and Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub. Accessed Sep. 16, 2013 <http://www.fec.gov/members/former_members/lenhard/speeches/statement20060327.pdf>

[06] The hidden agenda behind Internet electioneering deregulation. United States presidential election. Wikipedia. Accessed Sep. 16, 2013 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election>.

[07] Massive judicial corruption in Leader v. Facebook. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 12-617 (U.S. Supreme Court Nov. 16, 2012) <http://www.scribd.com/doc/113545399/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-Leader-Technologies-Inc-v-Facebook-Inc-No-12-617-U-S-Supreme-Court-Nov-16-212-clickable-citations>.

[08] GOP hires a Facebook middle manager as CTO. "GOP Hires Chief Technology Officer from Facebook" by Liz Klimas. The Blaze, Jun. 5, 2013. Accessed Sep. 16, 2013 <http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/05/gop-hires-chief-technology-officer-from-facebook/>.

[09] Equal Time Rule in U.S. electioneering. 47 USC § 315 - Candidates for public office. Cornell University Law School. Accessed Sep. 16, 2013 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/315>.

[10] Facebook Club secretly stacked the rules deck. FEC Internet Rulemaking.

[11] Election deregulation loopholes in 2006 big enough to drive a Facebook-Club-Truck through. ''Loophole a Spigot for E-Mail; Critics Fear Voters Will Be Deluged as Fall Elections Near'' by Jeffrey Bimbaum. The Washington Post, Jun. 11, 2006. Accessed Sep. 17, 2013 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/10/AR2006061000718_pf.html>.

[12] Candidate Obama's infamous F.E.C. fund raising request (by Facebook Club Attorney Robert F. bauer, Perkins Coii LLP, IRS Scandal). FEC Meeting, Thurs. Mar. 1, 2007, 10:00 a.m., incl. Agenda Doc. No. 07-18, Minutes of an Open Meeting of the Federal Election Commission, Thurs. Mar. 1, 2007, incl. Chairman Robert D. Lenhard and Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub, Agenda Item II, "Senator Barack Obama and the Obama Exploratory Committee by counsel, Robert F. Bauer and Rebecca Gordon," Agenda Doc. No. 07-12, Agenda Doc. No. 07-12-A. Accessed Sep. 17, 2013 < http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2007/agenda20070301.shtml>; Also available at <http://www.scribd.com/doc/168911949/FEC-Meeting-Thurs-Mar-1-2007-10-00-a-m-incl-Agenda-Doc-No-07-18-Minutes-of-an-Open-Meeting-of-the-Federal-Election-Commission-Thurs-Mar>.

[13] Richard Nixon's Vietnam Electioneering Treason. "The Lyndon Johnson tapes: Richard Nixon's 'treason'." BBC, Mar. 22, 2013. Accessed Sep. 19, 2013 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668>.

[14] American soldiers killed in Vietnam from 1969. Statistical Information about Fatal Casualties of the Vietnam War. U.S. National Archives. Accessed Sep. 19, 2013 <http://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html>.

[15] South Vietnamese soldiers killed from 1969. Casualties - US vs NVA/VC. rjsmith.com. Accessed Sep. 19, 2013 <http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html>.

[16] North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers killed from 1969, Id.

[17] South Korea, Australia, Thailand and New Zealand soldiers killed (entire war), Id.

[18] North and South Vietnamese civilians killed (entire war), Id.

Post Comments below