The one thing you must understand about the unfolding media-Democrat Electoral College coup attempt
Operation Flip The Electors, Part 2, is thoroughly dishonest
We are witnessing nothing short of an attempt to steal the election by some Democrats and a very supportive mainstream and leftwing media, by causing Electors in the Electoral College to go rogue and vote for Hillary, or at least not vote for Trump.
The first excuse for this tactic after the election was made by people like Prof. Lawrence Lessig. At least he was honest in his call to have the Electors stop Trump because he didn’t like the result and thought Trump would be a horrible president on a host of issues.
Honest, but severely misguided.
Call that Operation Flip the Electors, Part One.
As it became obvious that the recounts demanded by Jill Stein and supported by Hillary would fail to change the outcome, a new and thoroughly dishonest media narrative developed — that Trump could not be allowed to take office because Russia “hacked the election.”
By hacked the election, they don’t mean that the vote count was corrupted, but that alleged Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta influenced the outcome. A variation on that theme is that Trump has some potential Russian connection that makes him potentially disloyal to the United States.
The claim is that this new information is so serious post-election, that the Electors must fulfill some alleged duty to protect the country from Trump. Call that Operation Flip the Electors, Part Two.
None of these allegations, however, are new. They were all aired to and considered by the voters. Here are just a tiny fraction of the major media headlines BEFORE the election:
- Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia (NYT)
- How Russia Pulled Off the Biggest Election Hack in U.S. History (Esquire)
- Private Security Group Says Russia Was Behind John Podesta’s Email Hack (NYT Times)
- Reasonable doubt in Russian hack: Column (USA Today)
The only allegedly “new” information is not new information, but anonymous leaks to the NY Times and Washington Post that the CIA has changed its assessment that the Russians intended not just to disrupt the U.S. elections but to “help” Trump.
Put aside the inadequacy of anonymous leaks to support the allegation, is that accusation really new? The media already made that accusation before the election, but now is acting *shocked* that a hostile foreign government would attempt to influence our elections. Because, you know, it’s not like we ever try to influence the elections in other countries. (Putin accused Hillary of doing that to him, and Bibi, remember Bibi?)
Put aside also the lack of logic claiming that the email hacks decided the election — maybe if Hillary were not such a horrible candidate she would have weathered the leak storm, much as Trump weathered the Access Hollywood video and numerous women who accused him of sexual assault. To say the Russians did it is to excuse Hillary of all responsibility for the loss — and to completely devalue American voters.
The voters took into account the swarm of accusations against Trump and Hillary, and elected him. Losing sucks, I get it, but it’s not an excuse to create a constitutional crisis and uniquely destructive result of the Electors flipping the election to Hillary, or even to the House.
But if there is one thing you must keep in mind when you consider the deluge of media claims supporting the Electors going rogue, it’s that Part Two of Operation Flip the Electors is thoroughly dishonest.
These are not, with few exceptions, people who actually believe that something has changed so dramatically since the election that the Electors need to intervene. Rather, this is a pure power play to undermine the electoral system by people who never thought Trump was fit for office for reasons unrelated to Russia, who now are using the Russian “hack” as an excuse.
Do you really think that Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, an Elector demanding a CIA briefing to vet the accusations against Trump, actually and honestly believes anything other than that she never wanted Trump to be president?
It’s one thing to say that allegations of foreign tampering should be thoroughly investigated. They should. But it’s quite a different thing to use that alleged tampering to overturn elections.
So yes, I am calling the overwhelming majority of people, particularly in the media, pushing Operation Flip The Electors, Part Two, of being liars about why they want the Electors to stop Trump.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It disturbs me most that orgs like the CIA are joining in the politics of this through innuendo and without stating high confidence. Or at least they are allowing the org to be used that way.
The Intelligence community has become a modern praetorian guard, trying to make and unmake presidents based on their own wants. They need a thorough house-cleaning. Hopefully Pompeo will do that.
Used to be the dems hated the CIA and loved them some Roooskies.
President Trump needs to re evaluate investigating hilldawg, chelsea and the foundation. They’re in need of some bright sunshine on their corruption.
That’s odd, because the CIA has always loved Democrats.
Has “the CIA” actually weighed in on this, or is it just leftist mouthpieces *saying* that “anonymous sources” at the CIA have said so?
If I were a lying leftist and wanted to “source” my lie, blaming it on unnamed people in an organization unlikely to get involved to “confirm or deny” my BS would be a great way to go…
The only thing tying the publication of emails the exposed Crooked Hillary’s lies and cheating to Russia is that the server the hacker used is located in Russia. The hacker could have been anywhere, even in Hillary’s bathroom where she kept her email server.
We should thank the hacker who published Hillary’s campaign emails. They brought transparency to crooked Hillary’s campaign and helped save our country from evil. It’s perfectly understandable why the progressive fascists wanted to keep the truth about their candidate hidden. They are ends justify the means people who supported Obama, Hillary and would no doubt have supported Hitler if he was their candidate.
The Dems beshit themselves and with the same power as compound interest, geometrically add to their beclownment each day. Even with the public’s famously short memory, they and their media megaphones may have cost themselves a generation in credibility.
Which generation are you referring to? The young and the gullible being heavily influenced by a liberal academic regime?
Yep. Those.
Right now, a ridiculous number of them genuinely believe the parade of horrors the MSM presents.
The reality of the Trump years will open the eyes of many.
Thus are staunch lifelong Republicans made.
I work around these snowflakes every day and I’m not as optimistic as you. They will bubble live as long as humanly possible and I think their bubble won’t pop in 4 years, maybe 8 if we’re lucky.
I would certainly be disappointed and disgusted if some elector revolt threw the election to the House, but it is within the rules.
I seem to remember a bunch of people arguing that
electorsGOP delegates should nominate someone other then Trump.That it was OK because the rules allowed it.delegates are in no way similar to electors though.
with that being said I found the arguments for delegates to change votes to be really manipulative and disingenuous also.
“At a hearing Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Wiley Daniel struck down the lawsuit and called it a “political stunt.”
So-called “faithless Electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector.” http://kdvr.com/2016/12/12/2-members-of-colorados-electoral-college-face-federal-judge-in-denver/
Federal judges don’t seem to be going along with the
“stunt”. Colorado state law requires electors vote as the citizens did.
Which should be the law in every state.
These laws are blatantly, brazenly, outrageously unconstitutional. The constitution gives the state legislatures the authority to decide how electors are chosen, and that is all. They do not have the authority to tell those electors how to vote, any more than they can tell the state’s senators and representatives how to vote. Nor do they have the authority to replace electors once chosen, any more than they can do so to senators or representatives.
A Federal Judge just ruled that your opinion is full of crap.
A federal judge (or five) also ruled that murdering your unborn baby is cool, so let’s not put too much faith in the robed ones.
That just makes him full of crap. Note that he didn’t give an opinion justifying his claims, he just called it names. Explain how the state telling an elector how to vote is any different from it telling a senator how to vote.
Prior to the 17th Amendment, States COULD tell their Senators how to vote, but the 17th severed the connection between Senators and their State Governments, making the office one that answered only to their respective voters instead.
No such change has ever been made for those who are tasked with being electors.
One of the most time-honored ways of outing cranks and nutcases in the legal world is to watch for those who point at a Federal Judge and say “He Don’t Know NOTHIN!!! I know the constitution better than that idiot Federal Judge Does!”
The majority of the people who do that in the legal world are known by the term, “Inmate”.
No, they could not. Where on earth did you get the idea that they could? Senators have always been free to vote as they thought best, and there has never been a time when senators could be recalled or unelected for having voted the wrong way (or for any other reason). You have just proved that you are completely ignorant on this subject, and should shut up about it.
No it makes you fill of crap, since his finding is backed up by Supreme Court precedent, see my link to the national archives.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions
No, it isn’t. Your link is to an unsupported assertion. Explain how an elector is different from a senator (even pre-17th amendment).
Well the Supreme Court disagrees with you, so as usual Milhouse, you are wrong.
Oh, yeah? I’m calling your bull***t. Cite or it doesn’t exist.
Call whatever you want, The National Archives, which is a much more credible source than you and you credibility is non-existent. So either disprove my source or go away.
What makes some employee at the national archives more authoritative than me or anyone else? S/he can write whatever s/he likes, but without any citation it’s worth nothing. Explain, if you can, the difference between an elector and a senator.
So basically you still have no backup for your argument other than your own assertion, please prove my credible government source wrong.
So now you’re claiming that government sources are inherently more credible than anyone else?! Whatever some anonymous functionary at the DMV or the post office says must be true?! Because they’re such experts in the subject matter?! Why would someone at the National Archives know more about constitutional law than you or I do?
But now that I’ve looked up this alleged case, I can tell you with absolute authority that whoever wrote the article is as ignorant as you are. Like you, s/he never bothered to look it up, and just made up a load of garbage. There is no supreme court case saying what you and your friend at the national archives claim.
I suggest that when Trump takes office, he begin a crackdown of employers who disproportionately hire illegal immigrants. Starting with a certain vineyard.
Why would an Elector take the risk knowing that first, their vote would be disqualified, and second, they may be punished, kicked out and left hung out to dry alone?
That is not something that could happen, any more than it can happen to a congressman.
Electors don’t raise anywhere near to the level of an elected member of congress. I suggest you restart your meds.
Oh really? In what way are they different? They are both elected members of a representative body on which they are to cast votes. How can one be subject to restrictions on voting and the other not? Which provision in the constitution makes this distinction?
Because they aren’t all elected, some are simply chosen by the party, they are not special they aren’t elected they are there to do a job and they should do what they are told to do, if not resign.
Now you’re just lying. Electors are elected exactly like senators. Their job is exactly the same as that of senators. In both cases the party selects candidates, whom the voters then elect. And in both cases the constitution says they have the right to vote, which inherently means they can vote as they think fit. A right to vote only as instructed is not a right to vote at all.
Actually no they aren’t and once again your ignorance shows.
While some placed vote for electors in the primary races, these states are actually pretty rare, there is a huge difference between that and then a candidate who has to go through a primary and then a general election.
You vote for a specific candidate for senator, in many places there is no vote for electors they are simple selected at the party’s convention.
So no they are nothing like Senators and Rep.’s.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college2.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/what-is-the-electoral-college_n_2078970.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/story?id=199823
I know because in my state, the party leaders select the electors we don’t even get a say if we do attend the state convention.
But thanks again for proving that you have no clue what the hell you are talking about.
Who said anything about the primary race? A primary is an internal activity of a political party, not an election.
You are a damned liar. You know very well that this is not true. How can party leaders select the state’s electors? Tell me, which party’s leaders selected Michigan’s electors? The Democrat leaders or the Republican ones? You are so full of BS it’s unbelievable.
The parties select their candidates for presidential elector, just as they select their candidates for every other elected office. All those candidates then have to stand at the election, where the people choose which candidates to elect. This is exactly the same whether the office is that of senator, representative, presidential elector, governor, or dog catcher.
By the way, you didn’t even read the articles you linked. The first one says explicitly “your vote, the one you thought you cast for a presidential candidate, was actually used to elect someone whose name you don’t even know”. Just so. Presidential electors are elected by the people. The second article, like many written on the subject by people who don’t themselves understand it, completely ignores the question at hand. The third article says “Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the state becomes that state’s electors”. Once again, presidential electors are elected by the people.
This isn’t just lying. This is an attempt to nullify election results and steal the election. I’ll call it treason.
Then you are openly defying the constitution, and therefore must make the same wrong accusation against yourself.
What is this, the “Animal House” defense? You’re losing it, Milthouse. Well, so is the rest of your party.
“Demonized” claimed that “an attempt to nullify election results and steal the election” is treason. In doing so s/he open defied the constitution, so by his or her own standard s/he must accuse him/herself of treason too.
Oh, and what party would that be?
Actually no, there is no such “right” given in the constitution, though it is also not prohibited.
From the National Archives;
“There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties’ nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called “faithless Electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.”
Let me help you with that really important part there;
“The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose”
So no they are not free to act as they wish, and yes they can be held to a standard.
Sorry forgot the link;
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html#restrictions
“The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose”
Says who? What makes whoever wrote that article you link to an authority? Where is this alleged decision to be found? Supreme Court cases are online. Link to it or it doesn’t exist.
I did link to a credible source, you are just butt hurt that you lost again. If the National Archive isn’t good enough for you then nothing will be, so I won’t waste my time. You’re wrong, deal with it
Since when is some anonymous writer a credible source just because s/he works at the national archive? You obviously can’t find such a supreme court decision or you would link to it. So it doesn’t exist, and your writer at the national archive is as ignorant as you are.
I could stand a supreme court justice in front of you to tell you the same thing and you would say it isn’t credible because that is now and has always been your fallback position when you get your butt kicked in another argument after you make your wild unfounded assertions. It doesn’t matter if you find it credible because any reasonable person would find it credible.
You are so full of BS. Unlike you, I went looking for this alleged supreme court case, and found that it was even less supportive of your position than I thought it would be. Not only does it not say a state can hold electors to their pledges, it doesn’t even say that a state can demand such a pledge in the first place. All it says is that political parties can demand a pledge in return for being allowed to run in a primary to be the party’s candidate for the position of presidential elector.
Ray v. Blair – 1952
The problem with that while your assertion is accurate, when you hear someone use the term ‘treason’, you’re not taken seriously. For that’s usually a tea party mantra. I’m more shocked that the possibility exists that anyone can change their vote after they already voted. To me, that is the utmost serious flaw in this whole thing. No voting person should ever be allowed to change their vote after it’s already been cast. I can’t go back and change mine (of course, I wouldn’t change it).
No, the problem with that is that his assertion directly defies the constitution.
What are you talking about? No such possibility exists, and none has been suggested. Where did you get the idea that such a thing was in any way on the cards?
Because when hillary gets in office, the electors will be glorified and given multimillion dollar jobs and bonuses.
This just really sucks and truly is terrifying
I wonder if, or how, Trump supporters will fight back, what will the streets be like, this is insane.
I’m actually terrified theyay pull it out because I do not trust Ryan and McConnell.
At all. They have already shown their colors, and I’m afraid it may be purple.
Ryan and McConnell were probably already consulted, and are in on the plan.
That piece of dung McConnell was trotted out first thing today to call for an ‘investigation;’
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/politics/mcconnell-supports-inquiry-of-russian-hacking-during-election.html?_r=0
We are living in the prelude to the second civil war. Wonder whose side the military will be on? (Take a guess.)
Their main color will be a huge yellow stripe down the middle of their backs. Yellow being the main color for cowardice.
And the green in their pockets.
It ain’t over till the fat lady wins.
I’m shamelessly stealing this Henry. Posting it on another site for the meltdown that will result.
$5.
Cheaper than a movie ticket, and will have far more entertainment value. Where would you like it sent?
Henry I sent it to a couple people at work, it will show up on other forums , great !
Or drops dead – which is more likely.
The vast majority of the electors are not going to go against the voters of their states. They are not going to go “rogue” or “vote their conscience”. And, the powers behind this whole thing know that.
Everything that is being done is designed to delegitimize Donald Trump’s election. It is designed to provide cover for the MSM to criticize the Trump administration. It is designed to provide a justification for ordinary supports of Clinton and the opponents of Trump to continue attempting to block the incoming administration by destabilizing this country. and, it is designed to provide cover for the Establishment politicians to oppose Trump policies. In other words, it is designed to “steal” the election from the people, after the inauguration.
This is all about blocking the aims of the populous, by the Establishment, with no thought to the cost to this country.
“This is all about blocking the aims of the populous, by the Establishment, with no thought to the cost to this country…”
So let’s return that thought and give these malignant clowns what they deserve: marginalization and mass firings.
Another babyhunt.
The Left can see Russia from their insecure water closet.
Following the trail of blood from Benghazi to Cairo to Damascus to Kiev and back to Belgrade and Paris led to a vote against Obama/Clinton’s legacy of choice, conception, and abortion.
The DNC’s advocacy for [class] diversity including institutional racism and sexism, for outsourcing/insourcing, and immigration “reform” including refugee crises, probably did not win many hearts and minds.
I would love to see President Trump wait about 6 months after his oath of office and then bring every lawyer they can scrape up from the IRS and the DoJ to investigate Hillary, the Clinton Foundation, and her financial supporters during this election. Even if nothing is discovered, which I think it will be, I think this is an appropriate use of Lawfare.
The elites for to many generations have belittled the freedoms endowed upon the average American. Although I doubt any of these pols will face a firing squad for their domestic terrorism, it should send a dramatic signal to their ideological cohorts.
THEN, send the lawyers after Obama and his gang of miscreants. What good is it to fight terrorism in the dust storms of the middle east while pampering our own variation of domestic terrorists?
Said it before, going to say it again.
The people behind this know they don’t have a fart in a hurricane’s chance of getting Hillary crammed into office. They don’t care.
Their objective is to cripple up Trump just the same way they went after W. They’ll repeat “Selected, not elected. Lost the popular vote. Fail, fail, fail!” just as often as they can get away with it, just so they can embed that thought into the American mind.
Wisely said, but what they are missing is that Trump is invulnerable to the usual peer pressure. How they miss that is hard to understand. But they continue to fight the last war, using last war’s weapons.
“You go to war with the army you have.”
As usual, the Dems reveal what deviltry they themselves have been up to when they attack their opponents.
The charge of “unfit for office” is vague and unsubstantiated. But we have had one candidate who was very obviously unfit for office due to her demonstrated inability, inadvertent or deliberate, to handle confidential and secret material. Such a person cannot be the military Commander-in-Chief, and therefore cannot be President. Yet the Dems had the effrontery to run such a disaster as a serious candidate.
But when applied to Trump, the charge is meaningless. He has no such disqualifying crimes on his record. It just means the Dems don’t want him as President. But that decision was already made—by the voters. His “unsuitability”—real or imaginary—evidently didn’t bother them all that much.
So … it’s a scurrilous plan indeed, but both wrong-headed and wrong-footed. Very typical of the Democrats.
But the danger I see here is not that the Democrats and their electors are desperate to defeat Trump; it is that too many Republicans and their electors are, too. But so far only one traitor has emerged. If there were others as well, we can be sure the press would have been ballyhooing it to the heavens all week. But they haven’t. There’s only one, and if he votes as he says he will—and whenever I read about it I think of the TV ad with the duck, and the line “I sure hope he has that insurance”—that’s only one EV vote for Trump lost. Trivial.
The difference here is that Donald Trump is not George Bush or Karl Rove. Nor did Bush have the army of unwaivering ‘Trumpians’ that The Donald has.
When Trump gets into office, he’ll call the CIA to the carpet and get his answers, and his retribution.
Post-Civil War America didn’t have half the job of reconstruction that we have now.
“Knife to gunfight” comes to mind when watching dems and their sycophants in the media go up against a master persuader.
A couple days ago John Podesta came back from the dead to discuss Russiagate in a tweet. He was indunated with catcalls and jokes about his alleged pedophilia. The dems have no idea how deeply ingrained this meme has become. They are all Wieners. And losers.
“Knife to a gunfight…”
Analogous to bringing Hillary Clinton to battle Donald Trump.
The election was not close enough to steal outright. The Wicked Witch of Chappaqua wants her coronation as payment for being Bubba’s enabler and ‘closer’. I could see her filing a law suit every month for the next four years. The 2020 Presidential Campaign is now in full swing.
not a trump fan really (actually ambivalent is a good description) but the right goddamn heads are exploding for sure.
Russia hacks the DNC and Podesta e-mails, and these people claim to be worried that Russia has influenced the U.S. election.
But they had no problem with the Obama administration sending a crew to Israel to influence the election there.
Most Americans aren’t bothered by the legitimacy of a source of truth, only its credibility. If the Dems want to stop being disproportionately impacted by incriminating emails, then perhaps they should stop talking about their crimes in emails. Or, this just came to me, stop behaving in a criminal manner. Long shot, I know.
Yes, saying that the result is invalid because the voters had information they shouldn’t have had won’t wash.
So long ago (in political years) someone got into the DNC email system and gathered a bunch of emails. Sometime more recently those emails went public via something called Wikileaks. Maybe at one of those junctures a server either located in or associated with Russia was involved in the gathering or distribution of the purloined messages. And people are only upset about the Russia portion.
Until there is verifiable proof that whoever hacked the system edited or created the content of the subject emails, the rocks are being thrown at the wrong people. Why isn’t the press and the political jackals pressing Podesta, DWS, etc to explain themselves?
This is the political version of the robber being sorry when facing the judge; not for being a robber, but for getting caught.
The Number two guy at Wikileaks has said that they did not hack the DNC. The material was leaked to them.
And you believe him why?
Whenever a criminal conviction is overturned because the jury had true information they shouldn’t have had, the decision is unpopular. Even those who understand and accept the necessity for the exclusionary rule don’t claim that such an outcome is just. Rather they see it as a painful price that must unfortunately be paid so that we don’t have police routinely flouting the fourth amendment; if there were a better way to prevent that, they would prefer it.
The Democrat position here seems to be that since the voters had true information they shouldn’t have had, it is right and just that Clinton should win! That she is somehow entitled to a win, because she would have won had the voters been misinformed as they should have been. That’s a dubious claim, but let’s assume for now that it’s true; it’s still ridiculous and repugnant, just as if a criminal were to claim that he is entitled to a misinformed jury and to get away with his crimes.
No. The possibility that the Russians cracked the DNC email should be investigated thoroughly, and the appropriate conclusions should be drawn for the future, but there is no way to justify undoing the election because of it.
“The possibility that the Russians cracked the DNC email should be investigated thoroughly”
You’re just buying the whole left smear campaign.
The Russians are not the only entity capable of hacking the dnc emails.
They’re not the only ones, but they are capable of doing it, and both the CIA and FBI seem to agree that they are the ones who did it. The only difference between the two is on why they did it, not whether.
“and both the CIA and FBI seem to agree that they are the ones who did it.”
No, they do not agree. Perhaps you would care to name the CIA person that says the Russians hacked the dnc with certainty. The Washington post is not the cia.
I make the assumption that every capable group hacked the dnc since they left the door wide open.
Which means nothing. You are just supporting the fake news of the day.
The ODNI confirmed that both the CIA and FBI believe the Russians were responsible, and the ODNI agrees. The only question is why they did it. The CIA thinks it’s because they wanted to get Trump elected, while the FBI and ODNI say there could be plenty of other reasons. But nobody doubts that they did it.
Even Bolton says it looks like the Russians were responsible, he just pointed out that it could be someone else, such as the Chinese or North Koreans, pretending to be Russian.
There is not a single official report, anywhere, that offers any evidence the Russians hacked anything. No proof that such happened. What we have is the D party clintoon apparatus pushing a story that may or may not be true.
And you go right along with it because you hate trump. That’s it. Nothing more.
It’s got nothing to do with Trump. All the intelligence agencies are reported to believe that this was the Russians’ work, and they only differ on their motive. And this report has not been contradicted by any of the Republicans who were in on the briefings.
The CIA is the only one willing to guess that the Russians did it to get Trump elected, but the CIA is packed to the gills with Democrats, so we can ignore their guess. All the other agencies say yes, that might have been their motive, but we see no strong evidence for it; they might have done it for quite a different reason or reasons. But none of them dispute that whatever their motives, they did it. So why should I doubt it?
According to Hillary, the Russians: forced Hillary to do nothing and then lie about Benghazi, forced the DNC to sabotage Bernie’s campaign in the primaries, forced Donna to leak CNN debate questions to Hillary, forced Hillary to set up an insecure email server and forced Hillary to use it and later lie about it, forced Hillary’s parents not to name her for her first four years of life until Everest was first conquered, forced Hillary to tell coal miners that she would close down their employers, forced Hillary to accept millions of dollars in foreign donations while she was Secretary of State, ….
[OK, I’ll give up now even though I have just begun to tell all the ways that the Russians have spent destroying Hillary’s chance at becoming POTUS.]
As you say, it all seems to be about the ‘I did nothing wrong until my actions were exposed. The Russians should have prevented my actions and lies from becoming public knowledge.’
This goes back a ways. I remember Bob Beckel, a true waste of oxygen, suggested that electors vote for Gore, because Bush really didn’t deserve it.
So yes, I am calling the overwhelming majority of people, particularly in the media, pushing Operation Flip The Electors, Part Two, of being liars about why they want the Electors to stop Trump…………………….AMEN
Fascinating to watch progressives morph into John Birchers almost overnight. Does this mean that their 99 year love affair with Russia is officially over?