Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat

  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 29      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next   »

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #76 

There won't be a rebellion inside the Electoral College


Salena Zito (WashingtonExaminer) is reporting that some in Washington and others on social media are speculating that President-elect Trump is on the cusp of a tidal wave of "faithless electors" defecting from their pledges.
The notion is provocative, titillating -- and has no root in reality and is nothing new.
Anti-Trump forces are advancing efforts to invalidate his election in the only venue that matters: the Electoral College. The electors of the Electoral College -- the people who actually choose the next president -- will gather on December 19th to make their choices; choices that are supposed to represent the will of the voters of the 50 sovereign states.
When the Electoral College meets in each separate state, there may be some defectors, but that tradition is nearly as old as our republic, and Trump's electoral majority is simply too large for a faithless-elector rebellion to cause him to lose the election.

"A faithless elector is someone who breaks their promise and votes for someone else," said Paul Sracic, a political science professor at Youngstown University and expert on the electoral process.
"There are different ways of counting faithless electors, but using a fairly liberal definition yields 157 faithless electors throughout our history," he said.
"While it is not that uncommon to have one faithless elector, those who oppose Trump would need 37 faithless electors to deny Trump the majority demanded by the Constitution," said Sracic.
The most recent faithless elector occurred in Minnesota in 2004, when an anonymous elector cast a vote for John Edwards, and not John Kerry, for president.
It is not clear whether this was intentional.

On Monday, Hillary Clinton's top adviser John Podesta said the campaign is supporting an effort by 10 electors who are demanding a request to see an intelligence briefing on foreign intervention in the presidential election.
One of those ten electors is Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's daughter.
"Trump won 306 electoral votes in the election, well above the 270 needed to defeat Hillary Clinton and claim the White House," said Sracic, "But a group of rogue electors from Colorado and Washington -- the 'Hamilton Electors' -- is trying to persuade other electors to unite behind a Republican alternative to Trump," he said.
Technically, electors could abandon their commitments.
"Although this is illegal in 29 states, the penalty is fairly minor, and the constitutionality of laws is in doubt," he explained.

On Monday, Hillary Clinton's top adviser John Podesta said the campaign is supporting an effort by 10 electors who are demanding a request to see an intelligence briefing on foreign intervention in the presidential election.
One of those ten electors is Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's daughter.

Peter Hasson (DailyCaller) is reporting that the public relations firm working behind the scenes with the faithless electors is rife with ties to prominent Democrats like Barack Obama and twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Megaphone Strategies, whose stated mission is to "use PR as a tool to diversify progressive movements," typically works with progressive causes like #BlackLivesMatter. The firm is representing the handful of "faithless electors" trying to keep President-elect Donald Trump from winning the Electoral College vote.

The firm was co-founded by Van Jones, the former green jobs czar in the Obama White House who later resigned after it was revealed he signed a statement questioning whether the Bush administration had a role in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Jones now works as a CNN commentator.

Molly Haigh, Megaphone's co-founder and president, worked for Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. Haigh blames the Republican party's "racist, misogynist, xenophobic fear mongering" for Trump's rise to power.


Megaphone communications manager Diane May worked for Bernie Sanders on his 2016 presidential campaign. Megaphone's website advertises the fact that May worked on both Obama presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012.

Megaphone associate Carlos Vera "previously worked at the White House, European Parliament, House of Representatives, and Latino Victory Project," according to the firm's website.

Only two of Megaphone's listed employees have not worked for Democratic politicians, although they have both worked for liberal causes.

Vien Truong, one of the firm's four listed board members, headlined a Hillary Clinton fundraiser hosted last September by pro-Clinton environmentalist organization CleanTech Party. Truong also serves as the director of another Van Jones endeavor: Green for All, an environmentalist org that received a $200,000 cash infusion from left-wing financier George Soros through his Open Society Foundations as recently as 2010. Soros recently met with other liberal mega-donors to plot to their opposition to Trump, as first reported by Politico's Ken Vogel.

The two board members that don't have direct Obama or Clinton ties, Jodi Jacobsen and Catalina Velasquez, are still solid liberals.

Jacobsen, who is also the editor-in-chief of leftist publication Rewire, wrote in an article last October that "To Trump, women are sex objects. To the GOP, they are valued only insofar as they can reproduce children or serve their husbands. That is a world in which Donald Trump is very comfortable. Their vision is indeed the same."

Velasquez served on the LGBT policy team for the Sanders campaign and previously worked for liberal organizations like People for the American Way.

Texas Republican elector Chris Suprun, who has said he will not cast his vote for Trump, claimed in an interview with The Daily Caller last week that he decided to switch his vote after watching Vice President-elect Mike Pence defend one of Trump's tweets on TV.

In his interview with TheDC, Suprun went out of his way to deny any ties to George Soros.

"Nobody got to me," he added later.

Related:  Number of electors wanting intel briefing jumps to 40 after Podesta endorsement

Related:  Federal judge's decision in Colorado stamps out elector scheme against Trump

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #77 

Top U. S. spy agency disputes CIA report that Putin was trying to help Trump


Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that the Left is in a frenzy with rumors that Russia helped persuade former Obama voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio and Wisconsin into voting for Donald Trump.

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

Trump's rejection of the CIA's judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia's international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis – a deductive assessment of the available intelligence – for the same reason, the three officials said.

The ODNI, headed by James Clapper, was established after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the recommendation of the commission that investigated the attacks.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #78 

10 Ways the "Russian hacking" story is left-wing "fake news"


Joel B. Pollack (Breitbart) is reporting that on Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) pledged to support a congressional investigation into whether Russian hacking affected the 2016 election. Republicans have nothing to fear from such an investigation, because they won the election fair and square.

No, Russia is not the friend that President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spent several years pretending it was. But the idea that Russian hackers coronated Trump is only the latest left-wing opiate -- after white supremacists and "fake news" -- designed to dull the pain of electoral defeat, and postpone the reckoning that must occur if Democrats are to pose a significant threat as an opposition party at any time in the near future.

Here are just ten of the reasons the "Russian hacking" story is a sham -- a left-wing twist on the red-baiting McCarthyism of the 1950s.

1. There is actually no new information leading the CIA to its conclusion. The New York Times reports: "The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome." In other words, someone only decided after Trump won that the accusation was worth making.

2. The "evidence" that the CIA has gathered is inconclusive. The FBI also disagrees with some of the CIA's conclusions about Russia's motives. "While lawmakers were seemingly united on the need to present a strong bipartisan response, the FBI and CIA gave lawmakers differing accounts on Russia's motives, according to The Post," The Hill reported on Sunday.

3. The CIA is not making public claims that Russia hacked the election. Several CIA veterans, in fact, have urged caution about the leaked reports. As Newsweek reports: "‘I am not saying that I don't think Russia did this,' Nada Bakos, a top former CIA counterterrorism officer tells Newsweek, in a typical comment. ‘My main concern is that we will rush to judgment. The analysis needs to be cohesive and done the right way.'" Thus far there is not even a clear idea what the CIA's conclusions are.

5. The Obama administration has a history of manipulating intelligence for political gain. The most under-reported scandal of Obama's presidency was the CENTCOM scandal, in which it emerged that "senior U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) leaders manipulated intelligence assessments in 2014 and 2015 to make it appear that President Barack Obama is winning the war against the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL)." There is even more reason to doubt the truth of a selective leak about the election.

6. Julian Assange and Wikileaks have vigorously denied that the Russians were involved in Wikileaks' disclosures. Of the Democratic National Committee emails, Assange said: "That is the circumstantial evidence that some Russian, or someone who wanted to make them look like a Russian, was involved, with these other media organisations. That is not the case for the material that we released." Assange made similar denials about the Podesta email leaks later in the election.

7. The fact that the Russians might constantly be trying to hack U.S. systems, and might even specifically have targeted the election, does not prove that they succeeded. Nor does it prove that they tipped the election to Trump even if they had some effect. As pollster Frank Luntz tweeted: "Did Russia also hack Hillary's campaign calendar and delete all her stops in rural Wisconsin, Penn., and Michigan?" Hillary Clinton lost the election for reasons entirely of her own making.

8. Foreign interference in elections is nothing new -- and the Obama administration is a prime culprit. In 2015, the Obama administration made a strenuous and not-terribly-well-hidden effort to swing the Israeli elections toward the opposition and away from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The State Department gave $300,000 to a "pro-peace" Israeli group, which then paid political activists whose goal was to unseat Netanyahu. In 1984, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) actually asked for Soviet help. Russian efforts to intervene would be bad, but not unique, either for Russia or for the U.S.

9. What would the consequences of allowing undue Russian influence in our elections be, exactly? Would we yield primacy in Eastern Europe to Vladimir Putin? Would we give up our plans for missile defense? Would we make deep unilateral cuts in our nuclear arsenal in exchange for flimsy concessions ? Would we tolerate a Russian land invasion of a friendly, pro-Western country? Would we cede the Middle East to Russian hegemony? Because Hillary Clinton and Obama already did that.

10. Occam's razor: the simplest explanation for the "Russian hacking" story is that it is "fake news" that suits the left-wing media. It is not unknown for Russia to use false propaganda to affect public opinion in foreign countries. Nor is it unknown for the U.S. media to use bias, "fake news," and outright lies to shift public opinion in this country. The current focus on Russian "hacking," based on no new evidence and -- again -- zero evidence of tampering with the voting process.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #79 

Are the Democrats planning to use the "Russian interference" as an excuse to invalidate Trump's victory?


Michael Snyder (EconomicCollapse) says nothing happens by accident in politics, and it is certainly no accident that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, members of the U.S. Senate and the mainstream media are all suddenly buzzing about "Russian hacking" and "Russian interference" in our elections.  Over the past 48 hours, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and just about every other major news source in America has been breathlessly telling us that the CIA has concluded that the Russians "intervened" in the presidential election with the specific goal of helping Donald Trump win.  The implication is that if the Russian interference was significant enough, it could have "unfairly" altered the outcome of the election and thus Donald Trump's victory was not legitimate.  And if his victory was not legitimate, that opens up all sorts of possibilities for the Democrats.

For those that have been wondering if the establishment was going to attempt to steal the presidency away from Donald Trump before he can be inaugurated, we now appear to have our answer.

There are several ways that this could work, and we'll take it one step at a time.

On Friday, we were suddenly assaulted with all sorts of headlines about how the U.S. intelligence community has concluded that the Russians interfered in the election and that they did so with the intention of helping Trump win.  The following example comes from CNBC

The New York Times reported American intelligence agencies have "high confidence" that Russia intervened in the later stages of the 2016 election to help Trump win the presidency. Senior administration officials said the Russian government gave WikiLeaks emails from the Democratic National Committee, among others including Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta. The organizations also found evidence that Russia hacked the Republican National Committee's computer systems, but did not release the information.

More specifically, we are being told that it is the CIA that is the primary source of this "intelligence".  Of course the public is not being shown a shred of evidence that the Russians were behind any of this.  Instead, we are just being told to trust the "experts" at the CIA

The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election specifically to help Donald Trump win the presidency, a U.S. official has confirmed to NPR.

"Before, there was confidence about the fact that Russia interfered," the official says. "But there was low confidence on what the direction and intentionality of the interference was. Now they [the CIA] have come to the conclusion that Russia was trying to tip the election to Trump."

On Sunday, four members of the U.S. Senate came forward to express their concerns about Russian interference.  Two of the four were Democrats, and the other two were Republicans that have been some of the most vocal critics of Donald Trump throughout the election season.  I don't think that it is any accident that John McCain and Lindsey Graham have chosen to be part of this effort

"Congress's national security committees have worked diligently to address the complex challenge of cybersecurity, but recent events show that more must be done," said Sens. Chuck Schumer, the incoming Senate Democratic leader, Sen. John McCain, the Armed Services Committee chairman, fellow Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, and Sen. Jack Reed, the top Armed Services Committee Democrat, in a Sunday morning statement.

"While protecting classified material, we have an obligation to inform the public about recent cyberattacks that have cut to the heart of our free society. Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyber-attacks."

And of course this comes on the heels of Barack Obama ordering all of the intelligence agencies under his command to show him any evidence of Russian interference in the election before he leaves office.  According to NBC News, he is insisting that this evidence be delivered to him before January 20th…

Barack Obama has ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to deliver to him a dossier of the evidence that the Russian government used cyber attacks and other means to intervene in the 2016 election, possibly with the idea of making more information public, a senior intelligence official told NBC News.

White House counterterrorism advisor Lisa Monaco told reporters that the results of the report would be shared with lawmakers and others. Obama leaves office on Jan. 20. Monaco used careful language, calling it a "full review of what happened during the 2016 election process."

Incredibly, this review is actually going to be headed up by the infamous James Clapper

Taking the absurdity to a whole new level, Obama wants the report completed before his term ends on January 20, by none other than a proven and confirmed liar: "The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said." In other words, the report that the Kremlin stole the election should be prepared by the time Trump is expected to be sworn in.

"We are going to make public as much as we can," the spokesman added. "This is a major priority for the president."

So what is there such an urgency to this?

Couldn't they just begin this review now and have it completed at some point under the Trump administration?

Or could it be possible that they need this information so urgently because they want to use it for political purposes?

Some are already suggesting that if there is "clear evidence" of unfair Russian intervention that the only reasonable outcome would be to hold another election.  In fact, former CIA agent Bob Baer just appeared on CNN and stated that if "the evidence is there, I don't see any other way than to vote again."

Could you imagine the uproar if that happened?

Personally, I think that is not likely to happen.

But this issue could be used to try to sway some Electoral College votes on December 19th.  We already know that one of Trump's electoral voters has publicly pledged not to vote for him, and he claims that he has other Republican electoral voters that plan on joining him.

But even if Trump successfully gets through the Electoral College vote, he still has one more hurdle to get over.

On January 6th, a joint session of Congress will meet to count the electoral votes.  Most of the time this is a formality, but this time around that may not be the case.

If at least one member of the House and at least one member of the Senate submits an objection in writing, electoral votes can potentially be invalidated.  The following comes from the official website

Since 1887, 3 U.S.C. 15 sets the method for objections to electoral votes. During the Joint Session, Members of Congress may object to individual electoral votes or to state returns as a whole. An objection must be declared in writing and signed by at least one Representative and one Senator. In the case of an objection, the Joint Session recesses and each chamber considers the objection separately in a session which cannot last more than two hours with each Member speaking for no more than five minutes. After each house votes on whether or not to accept the objection, the Joint Session reconvenes and both chambers disclose their decisions. If they agree to the objection, the votes in question are not counted. If either chamber does not agree with the objection, the votes are counted.

So even if Donald Trump receives at least 270 Electoral College votes, he could still be denied the presidency by Congress.

And that may be what the establishment is shooting for.  If they can present "compelling evidence" that Russian interference "unfairly" altered the outcome of the election in November, perhaps enough members of Congress can be convinced to vote to invalidate Trump's election victory.

I don't think that is going to happen, but when it comes to Trump the normal rules don't seem to apply.

However, what should be apparent to everyone is that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the members of Congress that are suddenly making this such a huge issue all have a reason for doing so.  They claim that they are doing it for the good of the country, but in politics there is almost always an ulterior motive for everything.

Do they actually intend to try to steal the presidency from Donald Trump?

If they do, we won't have too long to wait before we find out.

Another lie that is making the rounds is that all 17 intelligence agencies have reported that the Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta emails.

First of all, there are only 16 American intelligence agencies. Secondly, it is absurd to suggest that the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency or Coast Guard Intelligence or the Twenty-Fifth Air Force have any knowledge of or interest in the election that they would have intelligence or an opinion.

Clearly, some lefty googled WikiPedia and found the same list I did, but he or she can't count.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #80 

Flashback: Judge Napolitano says it was the NSA, not the Russians who hacked the DNC

Cristina Laila (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Back in August, Judge Napolitano made some comments regarding the DNC hack.

On his show "Judge Napolitano's Chambers," Judge Nap shared his own thoughts on the leaked DNC emails:

The DNC and Clinton campaign decided to blame of all people, the Russians! They accused Vlademir Putin of being in cahoots with Donald Trump and having his intelligence services hack the DNC to expose e-mails to make Mrs. Clinton look bad and thereby benefit Donald Trump. But the Russians had nothing to do with it.

….a former high ranking NSA official who developed a software that the NSA now uses said the NSA hacked the DNC…the members of the intelligence community simply do not want Hillary Clinton to be President of the United States because she doesn't know how to handle State secrets.

The left has been beating this "Russian drum" for several months now. Russian hacking is one of the many false narratives that the left has been pushing in order to deny President Elect Trump his fully earned legitimacy.

In order to keep the Marxist agenda alive, the Left must continue to foment civil unrest and division. The leftists need to get used to the new Republican party because the days of capitulating are over.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #81 

Former Army intel officer says CIA Director John Brennan is playing political games

Remember, it was John Brennan that sanitized Obama's passport file in 2008

Johan Bennett (DailyCaller) is reporting that retired Army intelligence officer Tony Shaffer alleged Monday that CIA Director John Brennan is playing political games via a secret CIA assessment stating Russia interfered with the election to support GOP President-elect Donald Trump.

Speaking to WMAL radio Monday, Shaffer claimed that the secret CIA assessment, obtained by The Washington Post and described in an article last Friday, is a product of Brennan's loyalty to President Barack Obama, The Washington Examiner reports.

"This is purely political, and I believe that John Brennan is a political animal," Shaffer said. He added he has been talking with former CIA officials about the report. "Everything they are telling me is Brennan is doing this out of loyalty to President Obama."

"It's about undermining Trump, that's what it is," Shaffer said. "It's called information operations, information warfare, and that's what I believe is going on."

In an interview Sunday, former CIA Director Michael Morell also backed the secret CIA assessment of Kremlin-backed interference in the election, claiming the Russian plot was the "political equivalent to 9/11."  The Russians weren't just involved in the Democratic National Committee hack and the breach of former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's emails, but have been much more broadly involved in trying to influence the outcome of the election, according to Morell.

In August, Morell endorsed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for president and stated that "Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security."

While the FBI has stated the CIA's assessment could be true, there isn't enough evidence -- at least to satisfy the FBI, which generally has stricter standards, as it's often involved in gathering evidence later leading to criminal prosecution. A U.S. official told USA Today, however, that there have been some differences in ascribing weight to various motives.

Some sources told NPR that the CIA may not want to share sources or methods used in coming to the conclusions it has, which may be another reason for the disagreements.

Since the picture is still murky, three Senate committees have been tasked with getting to the bottom of foreign meddling claims in a bipartisan manner.

The Obama administration, too, has requested a review of influence attempts. This review must be completed by Jan. 20, before Trump takes over the White House.

Did you know that a bunch of pro-Palestinian high school students hacked CIA boss John Brennan's email? Well, they did!

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #82 

Fakestream media's CIA report is easily destroyed


S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) says the Friday reporting by The Washington Post and the New York Times are great examples of journalistic malpractice and it can be easily proven.

On Friday, The Washington Post reported that the Russians intervened in the elections to get Trump into office. How did the Russians intervene? Did they set up Hillary Clinton's email server or the Clinton Foundation? They don't say.

According to the Post, U.S. officials "described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton's chances." Who are the US officials? We don't know -- they're anonymous.

They claim to know what was in a CIA presentation to some Senators. There are "minor" disagreement among intelligence agencies, the Post wrote because "intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin 'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks."

They don't have "specific intelligence." That's minor?

The media is now mocking Donald Trump for calling the report "ridiculous" but it is. They are also saying he doesn't trust the CIA. Of course he does. That is not what he is saying. He supports the CIA, but he doesn't accept the reports. The media knows that. They are lying.

"Seven Democratic senators last week asked Obama to declassify details about the intrusions and why officials believe that the Kremlin was behind the operation," the report said. The senators obviously don't have direct information.

The report said, "On Oct. 7, the intelligence community officially accused Moscow of seeking to interfere in the election through the hacking of 'political organizations.'" Though the statement never specified which party, it was clear that officials were referring to cyber-intrusions into the computers of the DNC and other Democratic groups and individuals.'"

Really? How did they do that?

Based on this flimsy third party account, Paul Krugman, writing for the NY Times Monday wrote, "The C.I.A., according to The Washington Post, has now determined that hackers working for the Russian government worked to tilt the 2016 election to Donald Trump."

What proof? They've determined nothing. It's journalistic malpractice.

On Friday, The New York Times said definitively that Russia was trying to steer the election to Trump and their evidence "the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee's computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks."

Why would they leave a signature to be traced? Why didn't they leave a signature on the other alleged hacks?

Only that's false information. The Russians didn't hack the RNC.

Reince Priebus, the former RNC Chair would know if they were hacked. He made it clear that they were NOT hacked.

In a Fox interview, Reince Priebus, incoming White House chief of staff, refuted the notion of the Russians ever hacking the Republican National Committee in an interview on ABC's "This Week."

He exploded at Chuck Todd in a Meet the Press interview and said, "The Russians didn't hack the RNC."

The media and Democrats have launched an all-out effort to change the outcome of the election. They are trying to sway electors, convince electors that Russia swayed the election and they want to redo the election. There are now reports that the electors are asking for the intel. Who put them up to that? In the least they hope to diminish Trump's win.

Obama could be behind this. He sent people over to Israel to sway the election against him. Who benefits from all these attacks on Russia? Democrats!

As former UN ambassador John Bolton said, we can't rule out that this is a false flag. We can't rule out that Obama is behind this.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #83 

The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!

This is serious!

John Hinderaker (Powerline) says it is certainly the most overblown story in a long time. The casual reader of newspaper headlines might well believe that the Russian government hacked into voting machines, or something of the sort, to influence the presidential election. But that is not the case. If you read the Washington Post story, they are merely talking about the well-known hacks of Democratic National Committee and John Podesta emails. The only news here is that someone at the CIA thinks the Russian government carried out the operation and did so in order to help Donald Trump win the election.

But the supporting information is very thin. The third-hand account in the Post admits that it wasn't actually the Russian government that did the hacking:

[I]ntelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin "directing" the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were "one step" removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees.

So is there any reason to think that the Russian government had anything to do with it? We don't know. There are a great many software experts and sophisticated hackers in Russia. While it is possible that the Russian government directed these intrusions, the Post story contains no indication of what evidence supports this claim.

The Post's sources are some combination of Democratic senators and Obama administration officials, conveying their impressions of what what unnamed representatives of the CIA told a bipartisan group of senators in a recent briefing. Someday, persuasive evidence supporting the Post's headline may emerge, but it certainly hasn't so far.

I suppose it is possible that Russia's government hoped that Trump would win the election, but it is hard to see why. Such a desire would mean a change in Russian policy. The Russians enthusiastically welcomed Barack Obama's election in 2008, and the then-head of that country's Communist Party explained why the Russians don't like Republicans:

All Republican presidents have always defended national interests, ignoring the interests of other countries of the world. The new US president [Obama] cannot but understand that it is impossible to seek and find answers to many global issues without the participation of such a great country as Russia.

The one thing we know for sure about Donald Trump is that he is pro-America -- in the Russians' eyes, a typical Republican.

Moreover, why would the Russians think that exposing emails from the likes of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and John Podesta would cause Trump to win the election? American newspapers like the Washington Post were saying that Hillary had the election virtually wrapped up. It would be embarrassing if Vladimir Putin has more insight into the U.S. electorate than such organs as the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Be that as it may, Donald Trump's assessment of this kerfuffle is correct: it is just another silly attempt by the Democrats to excuse the fact that they lost the election. The Wikileaks revelations, while entertaining and often interesting, were inside baseball. The voters who swung Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin into the GOP column didn't do so because they were outraged by John Podesta's emails, or by the fact that the DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders. For the Democrats to claim otherwise is delusional.

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that President-elect Donald Trump went on with Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday this morning. Trump slammed Democratic lawmakers and the liberal media for pushing the fake news conspiracy that the Russian government meddled in last month's election. The Democrat-Media Complex claims Russia tipped the scale in rural Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to Trump.

At the same time these lunatics are pushing the conspiracy that conservatives are pushing fake news?

Donald Trump responded:

"I think it's ridiculous. I think it's just another excuse. I don't believe it. I don't know why… I think it's just, they talked about all sorts of things. Every week it's another excuse…

…If you look at the story and you take a look at what they said, there's great confusion. Nobody really knows and hacking is very interesting. Once they hack, if you don't catch them in the act, you're not going to catch them. They have no idea if it's Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting in a bed some place… Every week it's another excuse."

There's absolutely no evidence Russia tried to help Trump in the Washington Post story. None!


The New York Times reported that for much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead -- which they ultimately came to doubt -- about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

Hillary Clinton's supporters, angry over what they regard as a lack of scrutiny of Mr. Trump by law enforcement officials, pushed for these investigations. In recent days they have also demanded that James B. Comey, the director of the F.B.I., discuss them publicly, as he did last week when he announced that a new batch of emails possibly connected to Mrs. Clinton had been discovered.


Newsweek is reporting that CIA veterans -- none of them fans of Donald Trump -- are urging caution about leaked allegations that Russia waged a secret campaign to put the New York Republican into the White House.

"I am not saying that I don't think Russia did this," Nada Bakos, a top former CIA counterterrorism officer tells Newsweek, in a typical comment. "My main concern is that we will rush to judgment. The analysis needs to be cohesive and done the right way."

Reports on the alleged Russian effort have been anything but cohesive, or complete. During a closed-door briefing to the House Intelligence Committee last week, a senior FBI counterintelligence official reportedly scoffed at the CIA's conclusion that Russia had plotted to put Trump in office, calling the evidence "fuzzy" and "ambiguous." Details of the meeting were leaked to The Washington Post.

The NY Post is reporting that top Republicans blasted reports from anonymous US intelligence sources that Russia hacked Democratic e-mail accounts with the intention of swaying Americans to vote for Donald Trump.

Republican National Committee spokesman Sean Spicer demanded Saturday that the Central Intelligence Agency show evidence Russia intervened in the election.

"What proof does anyone have that they affected the outcome? Because I've heard zero. OK?" he told CNN. "So show me what facts have actually shown that anything undermined that election."

"If [the CIA] is so certain it happened, why won't they go on the record and say it?"

The fact that there is no proof was proven in Friday's story by the New York Times and The Washington Post in which they claimed the CIA has assessed the situation and proved the Russians were behind the Wikileaks attacks. The report was "secret" with "anonymous sources" and there was "no specific intelligence" that proved the hacking was directed by The Kremlin. In other words, the evidence proved the opposite.

And here's the kicker --

Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, said he has met the DNC leaker and he's not Russian.

Via Craig

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA's claims. The CIA claim they "know the individuals" involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of "We know who it was, it was the Russians" are beneath contempt.

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks -- there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.

The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of "Russia", while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.

Newt Gingrich says let the “nutcakes” gripe and groan Trump will Make America Great Again.

I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was "directing" the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up."

"I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

"If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA's statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

"America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it's not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever."

What's lost in all of this is the simple fact that if the Democrats didn't engage in all sorts of corrupt election hi-jinks, there would have been no story in the first place.

This entire story is the king of "fake news" and its purpose is to delegitimize the election of Donald Trump.

And the Democrat's allies in the mainstream media are going all-in.

I think Stilton Jarlsberg sums it up nicely:


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #84 

Total cost of Hillary’s losing campaign was $1.2 billion


Jack Heretik (WashingtonFreeBeacon) is reporting that a month after the 2016 presidential election ended, the final totals are in for how much each campaign spent.

Hillary Clinton and her allies spent a record high $1.2 billion during the campaign, which resulted in a loss to Donald Trump, who spent approximately $600 million with his allies, the New York Post reported Friday.

In the final weeks of the campaign, from Oct. 20 past the election to Nov. 28, Trump had spent $94.5 million while Clinton spent $131.8 million.

Clinton was left with only $839,000 on hand after the election while Trump still had $7.6 million.

Trump spent $66 million out of his own pocket after saying on the campaign trail he may spend up to $100 million of his own money.

Trump had said that it was unnecessary to spend $1 billion or more to win the election, the Post noted.

Last June, Trump shrugged off skeptics who said he needed to spend $1 billion to have a chance to win.

"There’s no reason to raise that," Trump said.

"I just don’t think I need nearly as much money as other people need because I get so much publicity. I get so many invitations to be on television. I get so many interviews, if I want them."

In 2012, President Obama spent over $700 million while all pro-Obama efforts cost about $1.14 billion. Mitt Romney spent about $450 million while all pro-Romney efforts cost about $1.25 billion.

That's a lot of markers.

There's got to be an awfully lot of pissed-off Hillary supporters out there.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #85 

Michigan recount halted -- Stein defeated


CNN is reporting that a federal judge has ordered Michigan's Board of Elections to stop the state's electoral recount.

US District Judge Mark Goldsmith issued the order late Wednesday -- dissolving a previous temporary restraining order against the Board of Elections that allowed the recount to continue.

Goldsmith's latest opinion effectively denies Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein's request to block the Board of Elections from halting the recount.

Stein on Thursday morning called the decision "disheartening."

In her motion, Stein had argued against a Tuesday ruling by the State of Michigan Court of Appeals in favor of stopping the recount. That court concluded Stein was not an aggrieved party since she had no reasonable chance of winning by virtue of the recount. In federal court, Stein counter-argued this was a "distorted interpretation" of the law and that it was within her constitutional right to have the recount.

"Rather, Plaintiffs' asserted right to a recount is just a restatement of her right to participate in a fair election, free from tampering or mistake. But, to date, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence of tampering or mistake. Instead, they present speculative claims going to the vulnerability of the voting machinery -- but not actual injury," read Goldsmith's order.

In his ruling, Goldsmith declined to adopt the unusual exception applied in Bush v. Gore to disregard a state court's interpretation.

Goldsmith agreed that the issues Stein raised -- fraud and mistakes -- were "serious," but said there was no evidence of such violations.

"A recount as an audit of the election," Goldsmith concluded, "has never been endorsed by any court."


Michigan Republican Party Chairman Ronna Romney McDaniel declared the order a victory for voters of Michigan. "The courts have affirmed the stance the campaign has maintained from day one: Jill Stein, who received only 1.07% of the vote in Michigan, is not legally entitled to hijack the will of voters and drag them into an arduous and expensive publicity stunt. Jill Stein's 1% temper tantrum cost Michigan taxpayers millions of dollars and would have cost them additional millions of dollars if not for the actions of President-elect Trump, the Michigan Republican Party, and Attorney General Bill Schuette."

Stein has spearheaded a recount effort in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- three battleground states where Donald Trump narrowly defeated Hillary Clinton.

Trump supporters in Wisconsin have unsuccessfully tried to stop the recount in progress there, but as the recount continues, Trump has been found to have 146 more votes than originally reported.

"Stein was not an aggrieved party..."

I told you -- 12 days ago -- no standing. All this was for nothing and the effort, money and time invested was wasted.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #86 

TIME Magazine's "Person of the Year" is President-elect, Donald J. Trump

President-elect Donald Trump, the real estate businessman and political novice whose election campaign made the entire world take notice, has been selected as TIME’s 2016 Person of the Year.

The magazine revealed its choice this morning on TODAY.


"To be on the cover of Time as Person of the Year is a tremendous honor," Trump told Matt Lauer in an interview after the reveal.

The President-elect did however take issue with the magazine's choice to refer to him as "President of the Divided States of America."

"I think putting 'divided' is snarky," Trump said. "I didn’t do anything to divide."

Every year, TIME editors select the person -- or idea -- who has most influenced the news and the world in the past year, for good or ill.

"So which is it this year: Better or worse? The challenge for Donald Trump is how profoundly the country disagrees about the answer," TIME managing editor Nancy Gibbs wrote in a magazine essay.

Trump beat out 10 other finalists, including his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. TIME declared Clinton their runner-up, and she was also the top pick among TODAY viewers.

This will be Trump’s 10th time on the magazine’s cover, and all but one have been since August 2015. His first appearance on TIME was in 1989.

That choice had to be very painful for the liberals at TIME and on NBC's "TODAY".

And as far as that "divided states of America," crap? Trump won 32 states out of 50 and 2,623 counties out of 3112 -- overwhelming numbers.

Hillary won the big, Democrat-controlled cities. Trump won the country.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #87 

Michigan appeals court says Jill Stein's recount is unlawful


Tiamiyu Arobani (SundiataPost) is reporting that the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that the Board of State Canvassers should never have allowed a recount requested by Green Party Candidate, Jill Stein to proceed.

The court said it based its ruling on the fact that Stein had no chance to overturn the result of the presidential election in her favour and was not an aggrieved candidate.

The panel ordered the board to "reject the Nov. 30, 2016 petition of candidate Stein that precipitated the current recount process".

The ruling came out almost simultaneously with an order from the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith's Monday order that the recount must get under way at noon that day, which it did.

The combined effect of the two conflicting rulings appears to set up further court proceedings in front of Goldsmith and the Michigan Republican Party had already filed for another federal hearing.

"The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in our favour, determining that the petition for recount filed by Dr Jill Stein should have been denied.

"Dr Stein is not an aggrieved candidate as she has no chance of winning the election in Michigan," said Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party.

State Attorney-General Bill Schuette said: "I'm grateful, and I know Michigan taxpayers agree that the Michigan Court of Appeals has adhered to the rule of law.

"This is given that estimates of the cost of the recount are as high as five million dollars, more than four million dollars more than the fee Stein was required to pay."

Andrea Bitely, spokeswoman for Schuette, said the Michigan Court of Appeals said that "there is no conflict between" its order and the federal district court's temporary restraining order, so the recount should end immediately.

"To ensure clarity for Michigan taxpayers, (and as recommended in the Sixth Circuit's opinion issued this evening), the Attorney-General is now filing in the federal district court a motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order," Bitely said.

Mark Brewer, an attorney for Stein, said the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay the Republicans' request to stop the recount, so it will continue until all the parties can get back to federal court to plead their case, again, before Goldsmith.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #88 

Busted! Texas rogue electoral delegate Chris Suprun is linked to the communist Van Jones and Think Progress


Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Texas presidential elector Chris Suprun says he will not cast his vote for Donald Trump.

Suprun signed a pledge last summer to support the Republican nominee. He lied.

Suprun is a #NeverTrumper. His Twitter timeline is littered with fellow #NeverTrumper gibberish.

Now this -- if you look at Chris Suprun’s Twitter page you can clearly see that he is using Megaphone Strategies as his PR firm.


Megaphone Strategies was founded by the self-described "communist and rowdy black activist," Van Jones. It’s mission is "to use use PR as a tool to diversify progressive movements." Its clients include: Netroots Nation, Green for All and Demand Progress.


So this so-called conservative is using a far left company founded by Van Jones as a PR firm? You just can’t make this stuff up!

Do Republicans even vet their electoral college members? Good grief!

Michelle Malkin weighed in on Van Jones today on Malzberg TV.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #89 

Florida GOP elector says he gets 4,000 harassing emails from Hillary supporters a day

Florida Republican Party Chairman Blaise Ingoglia went on with Lou Dobbs on Monday to discuss the threats and harassment Republican electoral college members are receiving on a daily basis.

Blaise said he is getting 4,000 harassing emails a day.

Related:  Texas GOP elector says he will not cast his vote for Donald Trump

pic576.jpg Texas presidential elector Chris Suprun says he will not vote Trump even though he signed a pledge last summer to support the Republican nominee. 

Now he is promising to violate his pledge and screw the voters he represents.

Republican member of the Electoral College from Texas said Monday that he won't cast one of his state's 38 electoral votes for Donald Trump because, "I am here to elect a president, not a king."

Dallas paramedic Chris Suprun previously indicated he would support Trump. But he now says the president-elect's postelection attacks on the First Amendment and the country's electoral process, as well as the billionaire businessman's continued promotion of his brand and business interests overseas, changed his mind.

Texas law doesn't mandate that electors vote according to the results of the state's presidential election, which Trump won by nine percentage points over Hillary Clinton. Suprun and the GOP's other electors signed pledges at the state Republican convention in Dallas this summer promising to vote for their party's nominee, but those aren't legally binding.

"I'm expecting backlash, but that has been par for the course this campaign. People are unhappy. They're angry. But I'm angry, too," said Suprun, who said that prior to changing his mind he had received hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls urging him not to support Trump.

He has no right to make this decision, so the question needs to be asked, how much is he getting paid -- and by whom?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #90 

"Donald Trump will never be President of the United States"

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #91 

Judge orders Michigan presidential recount to begin at noon today


The Detroit News is reporting that an Obama-appointed federal judge has ordered Michigan election officials to begin a massive hand recount of 4.8 million ballots cast in the presidential election at noon Monday.

U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith issued a ruling just after midnight Monday in favor of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, who sought to let election officials bypass a two-business-day waiting period that would have delayed start of the recount until Wednesday morning.

Goldsmith's order said the recount "shall commence and must continue until further order of this court."

"Defendants shall instruct all governmental units participating in the recount to assemble necessary staff to work sufficient hours to assure that the recount is completed in time to comply with the 'safe harbor' provision," of federal election law, Goldsmith wrote.

The deadline to finalize the vote total for the Electoral College is Dec. 13 and federal election law requires a period of "safe harbor" for presidential electors before the presidency is finalized on Dec. 19.

The manual recount process was scheduled to begin Wednesday as specified by state law, and in a rare Sunday hearing in federal court, Goldsmith had questioned the harm posed by waiting.

Stein's lawyer Mark Brewer argued the case was aimed at ensuring the integrity of Michigan's voting system and that the required waiting period violated Stein's rights to due process and equal protection. He pushed for the recount of 4.8 million ballots to start immediately, which he said would be Monday morning.

"There are questions raised throughout the country about the integrity of the election system," Brewer told the judge in front of a courtroom filled with about two dozen people, including state Republican Party Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel. "It's not just rhetoric."

The judge said inability for county and municipal clerks to complete the recount by Dec. 13 could endanger Michigan's votes in the presidential election.

Which, of course, is the object of this exercise.

"Without elections that are conducted fairly -- and perceived to be fairly conducted -- public confidence in our political institutions will swiftly erode," Goldsmith wrote.

What about recounts that are conducted unfairly?

Chris Thomas, the state elections director, testified Sunday that he could not guarantee that the recount could be finished by the Dec. 13 deadline, calling the task "doable but difficult."

Brewer called it "highly doubtful" that the state could finish by the deadline, and asserted the recount needed to start immediately.

Goldsmith, who was appointed by Barack Obama to the federal bench in 2010, indicated he was pursuaded that election officials need as much time as possible to pull off the ballot-by-ballot recount.

"Such uncertainty shows that there is a credible threat to the voters' right to have a determination made that Michigan's vote for president was properly tabulated," Goldsmith wrote.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette filed an motion to intervene late Sunday, arguing Stein didn't have a constitutional right to a recount and that she should post a bond for the entire cost, in case it is later ruled the recount wasn't required. State officials have said the recount could cost up to $5 million.

"No Michigan voters have been, or are being, disenfranchised if a recount does not occur," the Schuette filing read. "Michigan's votes were counted and certified, and its electors submitted to federal authorities, all according to routine, constitutional procedures."

The judge rejected concerns about the cost of the recount.

"As emphasized earlier, budgetary concerns are not sufficiently significant to risk the disenfranchisement of Michigan's nearly 5 million voters," Goldsmith wrote.

Schuette's office was reviewing the judge's order early Monday morning, spokesman John Sellek said.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #92 

Tweet revenge


Stilton Jarlsberg (HopeNChange) says we almost (but not quite!) wish that Trump would fire off a few tweets like the one above, just to coax more screams and lamentations from those on the Left, because we're getting so much enjoyment out of their ongoing suffering.

Then again, he doesn't actually need to toy with the Leftists because they're already losing their minds over his excellent cabinet picks.  A Secretary of Defense who understands military might, wants to avoid war when possible, and values the lives and commitment of our troops? Horrors! A Secretary of Education who actually puts quality education (especially in our inner cities) ahead of protecting teachers unions?


If there's a connecting theme to Trump's picks to date, it's that he's eschewing the ivory tower academics who claim to be experts in their fields, and instead choosing people who have actually demonstrated significant accomplishment in those fields.

It really is beginning to feel a lot like Christmas.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #93 

Jill Stein fails to provide $1 million surety bond for Pennsylvania recount -- election challenge collapses


Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) is reporting that con artist and former Green Party candidate Jill Stein fleeced the alt-left moonbats for more than seven million dollars.  The financial ruse -- as it was announced -- was to fund an election recount effort in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  Now this:

According to legal documents, Jill Stein and her campaign failed to post the $1 million bond needed to challenge the election in Pennsylvania. The court proceeding scheduled for Monday has been canceled.

A "praecipe to discontinue and withdraw" was filed citing that Jill Stein did not post the $1 million needed in the matter of the 2016 presidential election.

A source close to the matter told ABC27's Dennis Owens that Monday's scheduled court proceeding has been canceled and the challenge is over.

Michigan has 16 electoral votes and Wisconsin has 10 electoral votes.

Trump won the election with 306 Electoral College votes. Even if the Michigan and Wisconsin vote count were to flip to Hillary -- which it won't -- Trump would still win the election by 10 electoral college votes with 280 (270 needed).

Stein says she will make a major announcement on Monday at 10 AM:


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #94 

The nutcracker


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #95 

An open letter to Jennifer Palmieri


Dear Ms. Palmieri:

Reports of your heated exchange with President-Elect Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway at the Harvard post-election forum have been rampaging through the mainstream and alternate media like a five alarm fire for the last 24 hours.

Apparently, during the forum, you accused Mr. Trump and Ms. Conway of "providing a platform for white supremacists" during the election.

I seriously doubt that the 62.6 million Americans who voted for Mr. Trump were all white supremacists.

But, that's how liberals operate. Anyone that doesn't agree with your warped, Eurocrap vision for America is a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, an Islamophobe or whatever term you can conjure up in your twisted minds at the time.

Let me explain to you why Donald Trump is going to be the next president and why your candidate, Hillary Clinton, is already a has been, disappearing in the rear view mirror of the flyover country she so despises.

To begin with, the Russians, the FSB, Vladmir Putin and any ghosts of the KGB, the GRU, the NKVD and Smersh had nothing to do with Hillary's loss. There was no hacking, there were no electronic counter-measures emanating from the Rodina to put a lance in the hopes of millions of organic liberals. In fact, Ms. Palmieri, Barack Obama's press secretary, Josh Earnest stated this fact again during a presser held yesterday.

Hillary Clinton didn't lose the election because Infowars, Drudge and Breitbart were pumping out fake news 24/7. In fact, the only fake news beaming through the airwaves has and is coming from your allies in liberalism, your Democratic Party operatives at CNN and other leftist media outlets.

You lost the election because your candidate's message was "Vote for me, because I’m entitled to it," and who campaigned as if she was the Duchess of Chappaqua, awaiting her crowning ceremony on Pennsylvania Avenue.

You lost the election because your candidate is a mendacious, rotten human being who emanates dishonesty and corruption with all the subtlety of a cornered skunk.

You lost the election because your candidate made it all too clear that she thinks that We the People are deplorable and beneath her worshipness' dignity.

You lost because the economy is a complete and total disaster under Obama and your party's solution to 94 million people out of the workforce and 50 million Americans living in poverty was "let the good times roll."

You lost the election because Americans have had it with open borders and the subsequent loss of blue collar jobs and plummeting wages.

You lost the election because Americans aren’t going to let this country be invaded by Muslim hordes whose only goals are to turn the Judeo-Christian world upside down.

You lost the election because Americans weren't going to surrender their firearms like the good people of Britain and Australia and France.

You lost the election because Americans are sick of your party shoving political correctness down our throats.

You lost the election because Americans were sick and tired of watching the US military being humiliated around the world.

You lost the election because Obama’s Secretary of Defense and Secretaries of the Navy and Army's number one priorities are gender neutrality, gender reassignment surgery and distributing breastfeeding memos to the Delta Force, while pursuing the lunatic idea of placing women in the combat arms and special operations forces.

You lost because ObamaCare cares for no one and is the biggest fiasco in US government history.

You lost because the average American doesn’t want his 8 year old daughter using the bathroom at Target with a 55 year old trannie named Fred.

Congratulations Ms. Palmieri, you’ve got yourself a bi-coastal party that has no relation to the Democratic Party of yesteryear, and only to the counter culture antics of Timothy Leary and the political dogma of Lenin. In essence, your party is kaput with a capital K in the minds and pocketbooks of those Americans you detest -- those bitter clingers.

You lost because your party's motto is "Promise everything, deliver nothing then blame someone else."

Get used to saying, "President Trump."

Ray Starmann

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #96 

A startling look at the incomparable genius behind Hillary Clinton's stellar campaign


Also todayPresident-elect Donald Trump and Michigan state Attorney General Bill Schuette have filed suit to stop recount


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #97 

Trump is done playing games with Michigan recount

Kevin Daley (DailyCaller) is reporting that President-elect Donald Trump and Michigan state Attorney General Bill Schuette have filed suit to stop a recount requested by former Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein.

Schuette filed an emergency motion with the state supreme court -- the court of final appeal in Michigan -- while Trump lodged a complaint with the Michigan Bureau of Elections.

Schuette, a Republican, called Stein’s request "frivolous."


Like Trump, Schuette argues that Stein is not an "aggrieved" candidate, and therefore does not have standing to request a recount.

Related:  Trump moves to block Stein's recount efforts in Pennsylvania

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #98 

Christmas parody -- "It's the most wonderful time in 8 years"

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #99 

Wisconsin Democrats are stalling -- recount will not be completed -- state will be forfeited 

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Wisconsin Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI) went on with Tucker Carlson tonight to discuss the recount in Wisconsin.

Duffy said Democrats and far left Green Party supporters are stalling the recount in Dane County Wisconsin, where Madison is located. The county is holding a hand recount. The recount will not be completed by the deadline on December 20th. Therefore, according to Rep. Duffy, the state will quite possibly be forced to forfeit their electoral votes.

This was the plan all along. Democrats knew they couldn't make up 20,000 votes. But they also knew if they stalled on the recount the state could not certify the vote.

Wisconsin, won fairly by Donald Trump, will forfeit.

Federal law says that presidential recounts must be completed within 35 days after an election. Stein waited until 90 minutes before the Wisconsin deadline for filing a recount petition expired.

All the votes have to be certified by December 13 according to a report on Friday. The electors meet on December 19.

Wisconsin will almost certainly miss that deadline, since the last recount took more than a month. And that recount was for a state Supreme Court contest where only 1.5 million votes were cast.

If Wisconsin misses the December 19 deadline, the electoral votes may not be counted.

This was Hillary and Jill Stein's plan all along.

Related:  Jill Stein admits there's no evidence of voter fraud -- confirms it's a huge scam

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #100 

The delusional melodrama of Jill Stein 

Edward Morrissey (TheWeek) says most people couldn't wait for the grueling, nasty, seemingly interminable 2016 election to end. Jill Stein wants to keep it going. And she's willing to waste a lot of money, time, and attention to do so. Like a bad actor that insists on one last curtain call after the audience has headed for the exits, the Green Party nominee seems to stubbornly believe in her relevance even after the election demonstrated its non-existence beyond any doubt.

Stein's demand for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania demonstrates arrogance bordering on parody. Stein didn't lose the election so much as she disappeared in it. More than 134 million ballots have been counted so far. Stein received fewer than 1.5 million of them. That's barely a percentage point of the overall popular vote. Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson garnered more than 4 million votes, while the two major-party nominees scored between 62 and 65 million votes each.

Legally, any candidate has standing to request a recount -- as long as they pay the costs. Politically and morally, however, Stein utterly lacks any standing to claim she has been harmed by ballot irregularities and counting errors. Proper standing -- at least in political and commonsense contexts -- would go to the person who might have otherwise won an election without such alleged irregularities.

That means the one candidate who might have a decent argument for recounts in places like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan is Hillary Clinton. (And indeed, Stein's recount demands are surely intended to help Clinton.) So why hasn't the Democrat who sustained a shocking loss in the party's famed "Blue Wall" states pushed for recounts herself? For one thing, Clinton has already conceded the race to Donald Trump, reportedly urged by Barack Obama to do so.

The optics would also be terrible. Clinton spent the last weeks of the election hyperventilating, along with the media, about Trump's refusal to commit to accepting Election Night results. She called it "horrifying" and repeatedly hit Trump's lack of respect for the electoral system. To suddenly demand recounts after those attacks would be a hypocrisy that might be beyond the reach of any politician.

Beyond that, though, there are many thousands of reasons not to demand a recount. Specifically, there are 10,700 reasons in Michigan, 22,000 in Wisconsin, and 68,000 in Pennsylvania. Those are the votes that Clinton would have to make up in a recount to change the outcome in each state, and she'd need to succeed in all three of those states to change the Electoral College outcome. No recount has ever produced a vote change of that magnitude; no recount has even come close to it. FiveThirtyEight's Carl Bialik, working off of data from FairVote, noted that only three of 27 statewide recounts since 2000 have succeeded in changing the outcome of an election -- and only when the original totals were much closer than any of those seen in the 2016 race.

"The mean swing between the top two candidates in the 27 recounts was 282 votes"The mean swing between the top two candidates in the 27 recounts was 282 votes, with a median of 219," Bialik explains. "The biggest swing came in Florida's 2000 presidential election recount, when Al Gore cut 1,247 votes off George W. Bush's lead, ultimately not enough to flip the state to his column."

What about the recounts that have succeeded? Well, I had a ringside seat for one in Minnesota, when Al Franken turned an Election Night defeat into a U.S. Senate seat seven months later. The recount turned into the most bruising, partisan, and contentious political fight the state had ever seen. After several months of recounting, ballot challenges, and numerous court appearances, the change in the gap between Franken and incumbent Norm Coleman was 527 votes -- a miniscule amount of the 2.6 million votes cast. It was just enough to erase Coleman's 215-vote lead after the state-certified canvassing a week after the election and give Franken a 312-vote win in its place.

Stein continues to insist that she wants to pursue the recounts to demand change in voting infrastructure. But her recounts, like those 27 that have preceded them since 2000, would likely make the opposite point -- that our vote-counting infrastructure actually gets accurate and reliable results. Even the Florida debacle in 2000 changed the results by 0.022 percent, just about the same percentage as in 2008's Minnesota recount. It would take 10 times that kind of scale to flip Michigan, and 30 times that scale to flip Wisconsin. Stein's recount demands envision vote swings on a patently ridiculous scale.

Small wonder that even Democrats like Joe Trippi have openly scorned Stein's effort. "It's a waste of time and effort," the Democratic strategist said. "I think it probably was the Stein people looking for a way to stay relevant, raise some money, and take the stink off of them" -- a reference to accusations that Stein played a spoiler role in diverting enough Clinton votes in these states to give Trump the victory. Bob Shrum, another Democratic eminence grise, put it more bluntly -- that there was "no chance" for these recounts to succeed.

Ballot integrity and voting infrastructure aren't the reason for Stein's stunts. Neither is the election outcome. Stein just wants to keep imposing herself on the national stage, eating up time and resources from state governments in order to raise money from suckers unhappy with Trump's victory and feed her own delusions of relevance. Shame on her, and shame on those egging her on.

As you can see by the image at the top, the Forum programmers have been playing with the forum again.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved