Sunday, August 14, 2016

Stealing Elections - Doable When Rule of Law No Longer Exists! Grandma Lynch!

Sardonic Brit Humor!

Our next First Lady?

Off to Athens for two days for GMOA Committee meeting.
Alleged rigged elections?

Trump might be laying a predicate to assuage his pride but rigged elections have happened and no doubt will increase as technology becomes more capable of effecting same and our standards of integrity decline.

Democrats are above the law and therefore are not beneath stealing elections.(See 1 and 1a below.)

And all they talked about was golf and grand kids. (See 1b and 1c below.)
Rationale why to vote for Trump. (See 2 below.)

Rigged Election? A History of Presidential Candidates Who’ve Made Allegations

By Fred Lucas

The current election is not the first time a candidate has charged that the game was rigged. The new book, “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections,” delves into the common thread regarding the most controversial presidential elections in history.

The focus is on elections that dragged well beyond Election Day, decided by another branch of government. Here’s excerpts from three of the elections featured in the book.
1824: John Quincy Adams vs. Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson believed the presidency was his. He clearly made the most impressive showing, carrying a majority of electoral votes in 11 states—Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee. In an election defined by regional preference, Jackson was the only national candidate.

John Adams won the formerly Federalist strongholds of the six New England states, plus New York. William Crawford carried only Delaware, his home state of Georgia, and Virginia. It was enough to put him in third place.

On Dec. 1, 1824, the Electoral College announced the results. Jackson won the most Electoral College votes, winning 99 votes to the 84 votes for Adams. However, he didn’t have a majority, or 131, of the electoral votes that he needed. Despite coming in last place in the popular vote, Crawford would actually beat Henry Clay in the Electoral College, 41 voters to Clay’s 37 votes. …
After arriving in Washington on Dec. 7, 1824, Jackson wrote a letter to political supporter and former military ally John Coffee in Tennessee informing him of rumors that Adams and Clay had struck a deal, or would do so if they haven’t already. …
Before the vote, a Philadelphia newspaper, the Colombian Observer, published an anonymous letter on Jan. 28 claiming Clay would back Adams in return for being named secretary of state. Clay strongly denied this. In fact, there were two meetings between Adams and Clay, on Jan. 9 and Jan. 29, 1825. Nevertheless, there was not a lot of reason to believe Clay was divided. He and Adams saw eye to eye for the most part on infrastructure, on tariffs, and the National Bank. …
The House convened on Feb. 9, 1825, each state having a single vote that would be determined by a majority vote inside the delegation. Clay directed Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio—the states he won—to the Adams camp. Most of Clay’s supporters, as well as the remaining Federalists, backed Adams in the House, enough to give him a single vote victory. The House delegations of three states that Jackson carried, Illinois, Louisiana, and Maryland, went to Adams. This gave Adams a majority of 13 out of 24 states.
Though not the first president elected after a drawn out process, Adams was the only president to assume office without a majority of the electoral votes. In a dour response, Adams said he regretted that there could not be a do-over for submitting the “decision of this momentous question” again “to obtain a nearer approach to unanimity.”
On Feb.14, Clay accepted the offer of the President-elect Adams to serve as his secretary of state—presumably making him the next heir apparent since the last four men to lead the State Department became president.
Jackson and his supporters immediately called this a “corrupt bargain” between Adams and Clay. The caucus system was supposed to be gone, but Jackson and his supporters claimed Clay essentially resurrected it to thwart the will of the people and install Adams. Jackson said referring to Clay: “The Judas of the West has closed the contract and will receive the thirty pieces of silver. His end will be the same.”
1876: Rutherford Hayes vs. Samuel Tilden
Democrats used violence, lynching, and riots to scare blacks away from voting, knowing it was possible for Republicans to carry some Southern states. Republicans were intent that two could play at this game, and in some cases actually sought to persuade blacks to vote by shotgun.
The day before the election, U.S. Marshal J.H. Pierce of the Northern District of Mississippi telegraphed Republican National Committee Chairman Zach Chandler, asserting that “the election in the northern half of the state will be a farce … Colored and white Republicans will not be allowed to vote in many counties. The Tilden clubs are armed with Winchester rifles and shotguns and declare that they will carry the election at all hazards. In several counties of my district leading white and colored Republicans are now refugees asking for protection.”
On Nov. 7, 1876, Tilden won the national popular vote 4,288,546 to 4,034,311 votes for Hayes, and 184 to 165 in the Electoral College. More than 80 percent of eligible voters actually turned out, some reportedly voting more than once, and others having their votes shredded if it was for the “wrong candidate.” …
It was after midnight. The RNC’s Chandler—like Rutherford Hayes—had turned in for the night convinced of the party’s loss. But using Chandler’s signature from the RNC headquarters, Daniel Sickles telegraphed the Republican governors of South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana to say, “With your state sure for Hayes, he is elected. Hold your state.”
At 3 a.m., South Carolina’s Republican Gov. Daniel Chamberlain responded on a telegraph machine, “All right. South Carolina is for Hayes. Need more troops.” 
Three days after the election, Nov. 10, President Grant issued an order to General W.T. Sherman to instruct generals in Florida and Louisiana:
No man worthy of the office of President should be willing to hold it if it counted in or placed there by fraud. Either party can afford to be disappointed by the result, but the country cannot afford to have the result tainted by suspicion of illegal or false returns.
2000: George W. Bush vs. Al Gore
The first Tuesday of November in 2000 came the same day as the Election Day 1876—on the seventh. Half the country may have had better things to do than follow the Bore and Gush contest before election, but a decisive majority of Americans were glued after Election Day.
Bush would almost certainly have had significantly more votes had the networks not called Florida before polls closed in the heavily-Republican Panhandle, which is in the Central time zone. Gore campaign strategist Bob Beckel said that Bush lost at least 8,000 votes in the Panhandle alone because of the incorrect reporting.
Meanwhile, Republican polling firm McLaughlin and Associates estimated that Bush lost 11,500 votes because the networks reported the polls were closed in the Panhandle. Economist John Lott estimated between 7,500 and 10,000 voters in Republican counties were dissuaded from showing up. …
In the popular vote, Gore beat Bush nationally with 50,996,582 to 50,456,062. That’s a half million votes. Neither candidate had 270 votes in the Electoral College. Gore had 266 votes. Bush had 246. The 20-electoral vote spread was not that different from Hayes-Tilden. …
Democratic lawyers also began targeting the overseas absentee ballots from the military—which seemed to be more likely Republican voters. The attorneys threatened to sue Seminole County, where election officials corrected errors on thousands of applications for absentee ballots—many for military personnel. Democrats also targeted Duval County, which had one of the heaviest military populations in the United States. This prompted Republicans to say Democrats wanted to disenfranchise military voters.
Before this, Democrats had been able to control much of the message of demanding that every vote be counted. But when a memo surfaced from Democratic attorney Mark Herron that laid out a legal strategy for disqualifying military votes, Democrats found themselves on the defense. Despite a public relations problem, Democrats managed to disqualify 1,420 military ballots over various legal technicalities by Nov. 17.
Retired Army Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, hero of the Gulf War and Bush supporter, issued a strong statement, asserting: “It’s a very sad day in our country when the men and women of our country are serving abroad and facing danger on a daily basis in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, or on ships like the USS George Washington, yet because of some technicality out of “their control, they are denied the right to vote for the president of the United States, who will be their commander-in-chief.”

1a)  Journalism is dead in America, with ABC leading the way on the death march.

Political strategist Pat Caddell knows a sham when he sees one, and he’s not afraid to call it out, big time.
Caddell was near disbelief by what he called a “cooked” Reuters daily tracking poll he claimed was rigged to favor Democrat Hillary Clinton.
“They not only changed their formula, to put Hillary ahead. They went back and changed the results, for a week of results where Trump was ahead, and then they turned those into Hillary leads,” he said.
“They also erased all the former polling off the site. They didn’t tweak their procedure – they cooked it.”
Well, well, well. Say it isn’t so. But, Caddell didn’t end there, and went on with his allegations.
“They made a switch, as much as 9 points, in their results from the beginning of last week, the 25th and 26th. It is, beyond doubt, the most outrageous thing,” Caddell said. “Never in my life have I seen a news organization, and a supposedly reputable poll, do something so dishonest.”
Caddell also blasted Fox News and ABC for their biased reporting during his discussion with Breitbart News Daily’s Alex Marlow on Sunday.
“That is language from another planet,” Caddell said of Clinton, who was basically given the chance to exonerate herself on Fox News Sunday of any wrongdoing when it comes to the email scandal. Clinton basically had said the FBI found her responses to operating a secret server honest and consistent.
Of course, anyone watching the email scandal unfold, knows nothing could be further from the truth, and Caddell got busy slamming the media for carrying her water.
“This woman, to make that assertion after all the proven lies, should be a big story, but it will not be.” He then laid into ABC anchor and Clinton lackey, George Stephanopoulos for essentially ambushing Donald Trump.
“It is unbelievable what he did. He interviewed Trump, and basically then had the Khan family – the Muslim mother and father of the soldier who was killed – and General Allen on to attack Trump after the interview. He showed them the interview and then let them attack him,” Caddell complained.

As far as the Reuters’ poll? That’s just another link in the deceitful media chain he calls a “crisis of democracy.”

“This is what the media is willing to do, to try to elect her,” Caddell said. “This poll is nothing but a part of a media offensive.

In the 45 years since I was a child, in top-level presidential campaigns, I have never seen the media on such a jihad, and so involved in hiding facts, and not following up. This is a crisis of democracy, what the press is now doing.”

What makes Caddell’s strong statements all the more remarkable, is that he is a life-long Democrat. Perhaps, not for long.

1b) Well, let's see. Our AG Loretta Lynch was headed to Aspen, Co from Washington DC for a speaking engagement, a distance of around 1500 miles in almost a direct line East to West. The Government plane she was flying in was more than likely a G5 with a range of 6500 miles. Question is why she would go to Phoenix first which is 600 miles South of Aspen then go North to Aspen from Phoenix. She did not need to stop in Phoenix for fuel because if she had flown direct, fuel would not be necessary. In fact, do the math, the G5 has the range to make that round trip without refueling?
Why was Bill waiting for Lynch's plane to land in Phoenix when she was going to Aspen? That meeting was planned to put the Clinton Fix on and some guy who worked at the FBO in Phoenix, called his friend who was an Anchor at the local ABC Station (that is a shocker) and then he verified the meeting with a second independent source at the airport. Ms Lynch said  "They talked for half an hour about grand kids and golf".     

Loretta does not have any grand kids and doesn't play golf.


Senator To Loretta Lynch: Why Did DOJ Nix Clinton Foundation Investigation?

By Ron Eagle

Texas Sen. John Cornyn is demanding answers from Attorney General Loretta Lynch about the Justice Department’s decision earlier this year to decline an FBI recommendation to investigate the Clinton Foundation.
The Republican points out in the letter that the DOJ’s decision not to pursue an investigation despite the FBI’s recommendation is in stark contrast to its decision last month to accept the bureau’s recommendation not to charge Clinton following its email probe.
“The outcome in both cases favors Secretary Clinton,” Cornyn writes.
On Thursday, CNN reported that the FBI and three Justice Department field offices recommended that Justice Department headquarters open a public integrity investigation into the Clinton family charity.
That followed after a bank notified the FBI about a Clinton Foundation donor’s “suspicious activity,” according to CNN. But when FBI and DOJ officials met earlier this year, the Justice Department’s public integrity unit shot down the idea of a Clinton Foundation probe.
An investigation had also been considered last year after the publication of the book “Clinton Cash.” But CNN reported that officials felt there was insufficient evidence to pursue an investigation.
Cornyn is asking Lynch to respond to the following questions:
Is the CNN report accurate?
When did the FBI recommend that the Department open a case and pursue criminal charges related to the Clinton Foundation?
Why did the FBI recommend that the Department open a case on the Clinton Foundation?
Which Department employees, in the Public Integrity Unit or elsewhere, were involved in the decision not to open a case on the Clinton Foundation?
In the earlier reported investigation by the Department, which violations of criminal law were considered? And why did the Department decide not to open a case?
In your recent private meeting with former President Bill Clinton, did you discuss anything regarding the Clinton Foundation? If so, please indicate what was discussed.
Cornyn’s last question refers to Lynch’s controversial meeting with Bill Clinton in late June. Just days before the FBI and DOJ were set to interview Hillary Clinton as part of the email investigation, Lynch met with Bill Clinton in secret on her private airplane. After the conclave was reported, Lynch denied that she and the former president discussed the email investigation. But she has not been asked whether the Clinton Foundation was brought up.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++2)*YOU NEED TO SUCK IT UP AND VOTE FOR TRUMP! * 
by Kurt Schlicter

Donald Trump is a vulgar clown posing as a conservative, unmoored to any
coherent ideology. He has generated unprecedented opposition and the
contempt of people across the political spectrum. He is unbound to any
principle other than his own appetite for adulation. And those very factors
that make him so appalling also make him America’s only hope.

Now we need to suck it up and pull the lever for this jerk. I don’t need to
hear why Trump sucks again. I know why he’s terrible. I’ve written about it
at length.

But the Hillary Clinton charade of July 5th – a date that shall live in
infamy – and the subsequent rubbing of normal Americans’ noses in the heap
of droppings progressives have piled upon the rule of law make plain that
there is something much more important at stake here than fussy distaste
over Trump’s aesthetic failings and his myriad misjudgments.

The short-sighted liberal elite, aided and abetted by its media catamites,
are using our Constitution as toilet paper. One thing matters. One thing
only. That is restoring the rule of law, because without it the coastal
femboys and hectoring harridans of the left will keep pushing and prodding
and provoking until they, to their shock, find normal Americans pushing
back. They are worse than stupid – they are unwise, thinking they are
simply playing fun games oppressing and abusing those they see as lessers
when, in reality, they are playing with fire.

One thing matters. One thing only. That is restoring the rule of law, and
only a Trump presidency can do that.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their cabal have demonstrated that there
is no one they cannot corrupt, or at least whose integrity they can’t twist
and deform. John Roberts, James Comey – all we heard about was their lofty
integrity right up until the moment they shoved their shivs in our
collective kidney. We can’t rely on the honor of individuals. We need to
return to a paradigm where the interests of factions work to check and
balance each other.

If elected, how will Hillary Clinton ever be held accountable? Can you
conceive of a scenario where the Democrats, or their media, judicial and
bureaucratic allies ever stand up in opposition to anything she does, no
matter how venal, how corrupt, how fascist? Name the Democrat who stood up
in the wake of Comey’s honor flush and said, “This is wrong!”

There will be no check or balance on Hillary Clinton. Not the Congress (D
or R), not the courts, not the media, not the bureaucrats. None. This
Alinksyite corruptocrat, her second-rate mind twisted with hatred toward
normal Americans, will reign unchallenged. She has already sought the power
to jail those who criticize her; reversing Citizens United would only be
the first step in an unopposed quest to eliminate all legitimate means of
dissent, to bar all legitimate means of opposition. Which, of course, would
leave only illegitimate means – something she is too dense and ignorant of
normal Americans to imagine is possible.

Which leaves Donald Trump as the only alternative, not merely because he is
less awful than Hillary Clinton – leprosy is less awful than Hillary
Clinton – but because the election of a tacky jerk like Donald Trump is the
only thing that could ever motivate the elite to rediscover checks and
balances upon executive power.

Think of it. A Congress that finally finds a spine in the face of the
president. And that’s not just Democrats – even the posing goofs on the
Republican side of the aisle would be falling over themselves to take a
whack at the orange executive. What court would shrug and defer to El
Presidente Little Digits? Even the mainstream media would rediscover the
curiosity about West Wing wrongdoing that disappeared back in January 2009.
Imagine their delight to once again be able to preen and strut while
babbling about how they speak truth to power instead of groveling and
bussing the rear of their White House master.

America will have never seen checking and balancing like President Trump
would experience. And that is exactly, precisely what America must have
right now.

Hillary Clinton will roll into office unhindered and unaccountable. We know
what Clintons do when there is oversight; any sane person should shudder at
the thought of them not merely unaccountable, but actively abetted by the
entire elite. If you want to tear this country apart – not figuratively,
not metaphorically, but with the real violence and bloodshed she will
blunder into provoking – then hand that aspiring pants-suited Chavez
wannabe the keys to the Oval Office.

That’s the choice. There’s no white knight riding in to snag the nomination
away from the guy who won it fair and square. It’s Trump or Hillary. Sorry,
that’s your choice, and making no choice is a choice for her.

I get that you detest Trump. So do I. But you can stop sending me tweets
about the latest faux outrage. “Trump loves Saddam Hussein and has insulted
all our vets and blah blah blah!” Get some damn perspective.

I know you’ve invested a lot of your personal credibility in refusing to
support him, and you will absolutely have to endure a lot of graceless
gloating by his jerkier acolytes if you walk it back. I endure plenty from
Trump haters. Apparently I’m a fake conservative and hate America and blah
blah blah. But walk it back you must.

This isn’t about how awful Trump is; it’s about how awful Hillary will be
without any constraints whatsoever.

Only one thing matters. One thing only. That is restoring the rule of law.
And only a Trump presidency has any hope of doing that.


Suck it up and vote for the rule of law. No one is above the law! Do you
believe in the Constitution? Do you think that integrity is critical?
Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar. Do you want her leading this nation
which is experiencing major problems?

No comments: