Thursday, December 15, 2016

The Russians Are Coming!

Townhall.com ^ | December 15, 2016 | Derek Hunter 


Have you heard the news? We’re on the verge of becoming a province of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, and only the Electoral College can save us.
But the Electoral College won’t save us because this whole theory is garbage. It’s also, like many conspiracy theories, all-encompassing.
The beauty of the paranoid vein of conspiracy theory Democrats are employing to discredit President-elect Donald Trump is there’s no way to disprove it. Sure, it can’t be proven either, and the “evidence” put forth in the media is pathetically thin – single anonymous sources and assumptions from people unwilling to put their name on it. But it will stick with the people Democrats need it to.
The essence of the Democrats’ claim is the Russian government “hacked” the presidential election. Not by stealing votes or changing counts, but by showing the world how the Democrats conspired against Bernie Sanders to help Hillary Clinton and how what the Clinton campaign said in private differed from what it said in public. In other words, they made Democrats as transparent as they’d always claimed to be.
I’m no advocate of hacking. Private information should remain private, as long as it is legal. But once it’s out there, like with the Pentagon Papers, it should be reported on. Once the emails were released by Wikileaks, it would have been irresponsible not to report on them.
Although some outlets did their best to downplay the information contained in those emails, the truth got out there. We found out how Hillary was slipped town hall questions in advance and how Democrats spoke about minorities when they didn’t think anyone would hear. Were the Russians responsible for people’s curiosity about their would-be president? Of course not.
Nor is there anything close to proof the Russians were responsible for the hacks in the first place.
Besides, the question is largely irrelevant. What matters is whether the leaked information was accurate.
And it was. People saw the Democrats for who they were. No foreign entity or random hacker made them be themselves; they did that all on their own.
Democrats didn’t lose because some random Democratic National Committee staffer made a gay joke or interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile unethically slid Clinton a couple of forum questions in advance.
Democrats lost because Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate who ran as if she were guaranteed victory. She didn’t run her campaign as if it were hers to lose, she ran it as if it were simply hers.
No hacker, Russian or otherwise, convinced Clinton to ignore Michigan and completely skip Wisconsin. No outside entity forced Hillary to set up a secret email server while Secretary of State. And no outfit, foreign or domestic, caused any of those emails to be written, any of those discussions to occur or any of those lies to be told. Democrats and members of the Clinton campaign did that all by themselves.
You can’t rob a bank and complain you are the real victim because there weren’t clear signs noting the security cameras that led to your conviction.
The Clinton campaign’s response to its loss is straight out of Scooby-Doo: We would have been elected if it hadn’t been for those meddling Russians!
Sorry, Hillary was an awful candidate. Her campaign was awful. Her argument for leading the country consisted of not being Donald Trump.
No hack made Hillary take millions for paid speeches. No leak set up the sketchy Clinton Foundation deals. Nothing computer related caused Hillary to lie about her mishandling of classified material. And no Russian anything caused Hillary to ignore, even belittle, a large swath of the American public. She did that all on her own.
In the end, it doesn’t matter who hacked the DNC or John Podesta. The perpetrators should be pursued because they committed crimes, but their identities and motives don’t matter. Their information was accurate.
The problem for Clinton and Democrats was the attitude revealed in the content of those emails. Whether they had been hacked and leaked or not, that attitude permeated the campaign and the last eight years, and millions of voters did not want any part of it.
The idea Russia “hacked” this election is just the latest attempt to damage Donald Trump’s presidency before it takes office. If Democrats want to know the true reason they lost they need look no further than the top of their ticket. No one can say which straw broke the camel’s back, but when it comes to Hillary Clinton there are bales to choose from.

I have found proof of Russian Manipulation in the election!


I have found undeniable, irre-Putin-able proof that the Russians were Directly involved in manipulating the election. Their meddling caused Hillary Clinton to lose and Donald Trump to win bigly.

Their dastardly plan was meant to hobble Hillary Clinton and weaken her campaign by making her stagger around during the campaign trying to regain her balance as she campaigned in the battleground states....
Plan outlined below:
Those Devious, Devious Ruskies! 

Report: Kimberly Guilfoyle Gets Third Interview For Trump Press Secretary Job!

Washington Examiner ^ | • 12/14/16 7:56 PM | By ANNA GIARITELLI (@ANNA_GIARITELLI) 

Fox News host Kimberly Guilfoyle is a top contender for press secretary in President-elect Trump's White House and will meet with the transition team for a third time this week, according to a report Wednesday evening.

Guilfoyle currently cohosts "The Five" on Fox News and previously worked as an assistant district attorney in San Francisco. As a Latina, Guilfoyle could help smooth Trump's relations with the Hispanic community after he ran with a hardline stance on immigration during his campaign.
"Do you want a white male representing the White House when half the country thinks the President is a misogynist?" an advocate for Guilfoyle in the transition team told Politico. "Who do you want talking about Immigration? A Latino. When you have to make decisions about pro-life justices, do you want a man or a woman?"
Outgoing Republican National Committee communications director Sean Spicer is likely in line for the same job in the White House. Radio host Laura Ingraham, former Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, and former Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson have also been mentioned as possible candidates for press secretary.
Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.
Trump is expected to announce his White House team by the end of the week. Guilfoyle did not respond to a request for comment

Comey to Trump: The Russians Didn’t Influence the Election

Townhall.com ^ | December 14 | Ed Klein 

In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
What’s more, Comey told Trump that James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, agreed with this FBI assessment.
The only member of the U.S. intelligence community who was ready to assert that the Russians sanctioned the hacking was John Brennan, the director of the CIA, according to sources who were briefed on Comey’s conversations with Trump.
“And Brennan takes his marching orders from President Obama,” the sources quoted Comey as saying.
In Comey’s view, the leaks to the New York Times and the Washington Post alleging that the Russians tried—and perhaps even succeeded—in tilting the election to Trump were a Democratic Party effort to delegitimize Trump’s victory.
During their phone conversations, Comey informed Trump that the FBI had been alert for the past year to the danger that the Russians would try to cause mischief during the U.S. presidential election.
However, whether the Russians did so remains an open question, Comey said, adding that it was just as likely that the hacking was done by people who had no direct connection to the Russian government.
“It’s also unclear,” the sources pointed out, “why Putin would have preferred dealing with Donald Trump, who has promised a major military buildup, over Hillary Clinton, who would have continued Barack Obama’s cautious policies toward the Kremlin.”

What Jill Stein’s Recount Effort Actually Accomplished

The Huffington Post ^ | December 13, 2016 | Daniel Marans 

Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein’s attempts to recount the election results in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are now over.
Although Stein only secured a complete recount in Wisconsin, she is claiming to have won a victory for voters by exposing weaknesses in the voting system.
In fact, Stein’s greatest service may have been to validate the Wisconsin results ― and thus demonstrate that voting irregularities did not tip the election in Donald Trump’s favor.
“I’d like to think that the public appreciates that as a result of the examinations that occurred, that the results were not corrupted in any way to create inaccurate results,” said Ned Foley, an election law expert at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law. “The Wisconsin recount demonstrates that.”
Wisconsin completed a 10-day recount financed by the Stein campaign on Monday, resulting in an increase in Trump’s lead over Hillary Clinton from 22,617 to 22,748 votes.
“For a state with a 20,000-vote margin to generate a change of 100 votes as a result of a recount is consistent with standard recount procedure,” Foley said.
By contrast, Michigan never completed its recount and Pennsylvania never even began one. The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear the Stein campaign’s appeal of a lower court order halting the recount, permanently ending hopes for a statewide recount there.
And on Monday, a federal judge also denied Stein’s request for a statewide recount and an investigation of vote tampering in Pennsylvania....
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...

Colorado elections chief: Rogue electors could face perjury charge!

The Politico ^ | December 14, 2016 | Kyle Cheney 

Colorado’s election chief is warning that presidential electors who vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton — the state's popular vote winner — could face a perjury charge.

The warning from Secretary of State Wayne Williams, a Republican, increases the peril for a group of Colorado’s Democratic presidential electors who have signaled they may reject Clinton as part of a long-shot national strategy to block the election of Donald Trump. They were already facing the prospect of an election law violation that carries the potential for a small fine and a year of jail time.
Williams told POLITICO in a phone interview that he intends to administer an oath to electors prior to Monday’s official meeting of the Electoral College. Any electors who decide to oppose Clinton won’t just be violating the election law that requires them to support Colorado’s popular vote winner – they’ll be violating their oath as well.
“If Elector A writes down Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz or anyone other than Hillary Clinton, they immediately cease to be an elector and they’re replaced,” he said. “The difference here is you have perjured yourself.”
“If you swear the oath and then immediately violate it,” he continued, “I think there’s a basis for a more severe criminal penalty.”
Williams noted that he’s not a prosecutor so he couldn’t say whether electors might be charged with felony perjury – a more serious charge that carries a punishment of up to six years in prison and a $500,000 fine – or misdemeanor perjury, which carries a maximum of 18 months in prison and a $5,000 fine....
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...

Pelosi Clings to Power, to Her Party's Detriment

Townhall.com ^ | December 14, 2016 | Paul Greenberg 

After the Republican avalanche of a victory in last month's elections, there was still more good news for the Grand Old Brand New Party courtesy of Nancy Pelosi.

It seems she's eked out a narrow victory over a Democratic insurgency against her stultified leadership of the party in the House, a leadership that has been rusting for the past 14 years. If everything isn't coming up roses for the GOP, at least there are tulips covering the horizon the way daffodils do Wye Mountain every spring.
And all Nancy Pelosi could say about her aforementioned "leadership" was the same thing she's been saying year after year, repeating used-up slogans that would do Hillary Clinton credit, or rather discredit, after that worthy's latest defeat.
Innocent Reader needn't listen too closely to hear the false cheer resounding: "I have a special spring in my step today," said once and future Minority Leader Pelosi, "because this opportunity is a special one, to lead the House Democrats, bring everyone together as we go forward." Alas, defeat has no more improved her credibility than it has her syntax, beginning with that gratuitous "as we go forward." As if there were some other way to get to the future.
Defections from her leadership? "They weren't defections, I had two-thirds of the vote," Nancy Pelosi kept saying as if to convince herself if no one else. Those defectors no more existed than did her alleged leadership. And they were proving remarkably vocal for defectors that didn't exist. Their leader was a courageous congressman from Ohio named Tim Ryan who was saying that Pelosi & Co. were not being responsive to the country's economic needs.
The minority leader's excuse? "I think we're at a time that is well beyond politics. It's about the character of America." But when have American elections not been? Beyond the various voting blocs that exist mainly in pollsters' post hoc ergo propter hoc analysis, whether the farm vote, urban vote or young or old vote, there has always been an all-American, red-white-and-blue vote.
For all his boorishness, Donald Trump understood as much and kept appealing to that vote even as the politically sophisticated were writing him off month after month, surprising primary after surprising primary. A then young senator from Illinois named Barack Obama once understood all this, which is why he put an old warhorse like Hillary Clinton in the shade when they battled it out for their party's presidential nomination in 2008.
The conclusion is inescapable for anyone who's been listening, not just talking: Political novices of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your delusions! One version or more of that sound counsel was repeated again and again by wiser heads. Congressman Beto O'Rourke, a Democrat from Texas, noted that Nancy Pelosi had been obliged to take all the opposition against her so-called leadership seriously by strewing olive branches all around to calm those nonexistent defectors. The defectors were particularly riled by her management or lack of it at the Democratic National Campaign Committee, which took sides in the party's primaries early and often.
Why did Nancy Pelosi throw her critics a bone or two when she had to? "That's partly a response to the competition in the caucus for votes," says Beto O'Rourke, "and that's a healthy thing." If the party still doesn't believe in wide-open economic competition under the rule of law, it may finally have seen the light where political competition is concerned, for it had little choice after the result of last month's elections. Nancy Pelosi had foreseen a gain of more than 20 seats for her party instead of the six it had to settle for, small potatoes indeed.
To quote Congressman Ruben Gallego, Democrat of Arizona: "We should have been recruiting earlier, we should have better targeting. I think our messaging was off. I think we are focused so much still on TV instead of looking at new methods of communications and/or even old methods of communication -- canvassing and digital buys." Even while criticizing the campaign bureaucracy, he can't seem to help sounding like a bureaucrat, God bless him.
A corporal in the ever-faithful Marines (Semper Fi!), he was critical of DNCC staffers who thought only of pleasing Ms. Pelosi instead of challenging her to do better than just serving herself, calling the staffers' work "bureaucratic in nature." Far-seeing Democrats with their party's future at stake would have liked to see her position and positions challenged rather than just rubber-stamped. Their motto could have been Barry Goldwater's in 1964: A choice, not an echo. He may have lost the election that year even while winning the nation's heart. As did Ronald Reagan, who was just setting the stage for his grand comeback of comebacks.
"I'm very concerned that we just signed the Democratic Party's death certificate," says Congressman Kurt Schrader of Oregon. The ink hasn't dried yet, but the many lessons of this campaign, great and small, may prove indelible.

Judge Rejects Washington Electors' Attempt to Avoid Fine

ABC News/Associated Press ^ | December 14, 2016 | By gene johnson 

A longshot bid to deny Donald Trump the presidency suffered another setback Wednesday after a federal judge rejected an effort by two Democratic electors from Washington state to avoid being fined if they ignore the results of the state's popular vote.
U.S. District Judge James L. Robart said electors Bret Chiafalo and Levi Guerra had presented a case far too speculative to warrant blocking state law. The pair have said they're not sure how they'll vote, and there's nothing to indicate whether Washington would actually fine them.
Both signed pledges to vote for their party's nominee — Hillary Clinton — if she won Washington, which she did.
But they have said they might join with other so-called "Hamilton electors" from both parties to choose some other candidate when the Electoral College meets next Monday because they believe Trump is unfit for office.
Washington law states that electors who break their pledge can be fined up to $1,000. A lawyer for the pair, Sumeer Singla, asked U.S. District Judge James L. Robart to issue an injunction that would preclude the state from fining them. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...

Let public see hacking evidence!

Orlando Sentinel ^ | December 15, 2016 | By Chicago Tribune 

Washington is in an uproar over reported findings by U.S. intelligence agencies that the Russian government used secret cyberattacks to help Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
Trump called the charge "ridiculous," while deriding the agencies for their errors before the Iraq War. But Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., demanded a full investigation, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wants the Senate Intelligence Committee to take it on. President Barack Obama has ordered Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to undertake a review and report back before Obama leaves office Jan 20.
Judging what to believe here is difficult, though, because little information is available. News stories have been based on accounts of a secret CIA report, as revealed to reporters by anonymous government sources. One "senior U.S. official" told The Washington Post, "It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia's goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected."
Yet other intel officials familiar with the same raw information evidently disagree with the CIA's conclusions about it: The Post also reports that, several days ago, a senior FBI official's briefing for lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee was, in comparison with the CIA's certitude, "fuzzy" and "ambiguous. . ."
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...

The Myth of Hillary’s Popular Vote 'Victory'

American Thinker ^ | December 15, 2016 | Tom Trinko 

Many modern liberals are fascists at heart who can’t accept losing power; that’s why Bush wasn’t “their” president.
Those liberals are currently bemoaning the fact that Hillary won the popular vote which, according to them, means she should really be president, though were the case reversed we all know they’d be extolling the virtues of the Electoral College.
Driven by a lust for power liberals don’t get that everyone has to follow the rules; demanding the rules change when you lose so that you can win is a sign of immaturity and an unhealthy need for control.
But even if we ignore all that we don’t know if Hillary won the popular vote for the following reasons:
1) It’s the campaign: Trump campaigned to win the Electoral College because that’s how the law works. His people have pointed out that if law was that the popular vote winner won Trump would have spent more time in states that he couldn’t win, like California, in order to get more total votes. In that alternate reality would Trump have won? Neither we nor the Democrats have any idea. But it’s clearly unfair to say that Trump lost because he didn’t follow “rules” that weren’t rules during the election.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Why the Media Can’t Tell the Truth about Trump

American Thinker ^ | December 15, 2016 | Jack Hellner 

As far I can tell the world is in a much worse place after eight years of President Obama. China, Russia, Iran and Cuba are stronger. The Middle East is in shambles. Terrorism deaths are higher and the world has a massive refuge crisis. I can think of nowhere that the U.S. is better off today after eight years of Obama, Hillary and Kerry. Isn't it time to give new ideas and a man accomplished throughout the world a chance?
Not for the legacy media and its Democrat clients.

I remember when George W. Bush was in office and the Congo and Darfur were of extreme importance to Hollywood and the media. As soon as Obama took office these people and countries were no longer important. Isn't that telling?
The media and Democrats will be opposed to almost anyone Trump picks for any office or any action he announces. They will twist 180 degrees in order to attack him. Senator Obama, Hillary Clinton, almost all Democrats and the media all called the CIA and other intelligence agencies liars on WMD's in Iraq. President Obama continues to say that the CIA gave him faulty intelligence on ISIS. But if President-elect Trump questions the CIA on reports of Russia interfering in the election and the media, Democrats and some Republicans are up in arms. They vilify anyone questioning the Intelligence agencies and treat this as if this would be the first time it the CIA getting something wrong ever happened.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Governor Failure!

JuhoTJQ.png

OH MY!

ruEMvtz.jpg

Wagging!

ATOuIik.jpg

Peace at last!

AQl1unP.jpg

This Dem Logic!

uThFnlE.jpg

HACKED?

bzuSTdy.jpg

Fake News Guide

Fake_News_Guide.png

Voter Fraud

StxHRJG.jpg

Interfered!

trWbPqX.jpg

YOU!

BLpDYBg.jpg

NICE!

bWCpwE6.jpg

HOW?

jxhwV5T.jpg

Today's POS

200524.jpg

From Infront!

mKgb8pN.jpg

Russians?

Clinton-Christmas-600-LI.jpg

The Loser...Twice!

200519.jpg